February 10, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:01 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier and P. Cuddy (at 2:31 PM) were in remote attendance.

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Franke discloses a pecuniary interest in item 4, clause 2.3 of the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, having to do with the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update by indicating that her spouse is employed by the TVDSB.

None.

At 1:23 PM, Councillor S. Lehman leaves the meeting.

At 1:25 PM, Councillor S. Lehman enters the meeting.

None.

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending lease of commercial space by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.1/3/ICSC)

4.2    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; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.2/3/ICSC)

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

A matter pertaining to the proposed sale of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality. (6.3/3/ICSC)

4.4    Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice 

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, concerning the City’s associations and bargaining units. (6.4/3/ICSC)

4.5    Solicitor-Client Privilege        

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, with respect to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.1/3/SPPC)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:06 PM to 1:17 PM.

5.1   2nd Meeting held on January 20, 2026

2026-01-20 Council Minutes

Motion made by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Minutes of the 2nd Meeting of the Municipal Council, held on January 20, 2026, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

6.1    Good Neighbour Agreements

  1. A. Oudshoorn 

  2. L. Johnston 

  3. S. Mcfarlane 

  4. S. Glass 

  5. S. Cowan 

  6. N. Graham 

  7. N. Gautcher 

  8. M. Say 

  9. M. Hodge

  10. L. Mizon 

  11. L. Johnston 

  12. J. and J. McCredie 

  13. G. and S. Kodde 

  14. D. Reckman 

  15. D. Oudshoorn 

  16. C. Vannelli 

  17. C. Van Loon 

  18. C. Moss, London Cares 

  19. C. Finkler 

  20. B. Couto 

  21. A. Barrientos 

  22. M. Schembri 

  23. G. Crealock 

  24. A. Cardinal 

  25. A. O’Brien 

  26. B. Coutu 

  27. C. Finkler 

  28. E. Richard 

  29. J. Fisher 

  30. J. Vale 

  31. K. Kaisar 

  32. K. Williston 

  33. S. Creek 

  34. P. and S. Gowan 

  35. (ADDED) P. Brown 

  36. (ADDED) Z. Rahim 

  37. (ADDED) S. Frost 

  38. (ADDED) S. Courtice, London InterCommunity Health 

  39. (ADDED) S. Burridge 

  40. (ADDED) R. Prenty, S. Eberhard, T Zientara 

  41. (ADDED) M. Hodge and B. Morrison, Climate Action London 

  42. (ADDED) F. Mills 

  43. (ADDED) E. Jackson 

  44. (ADDED) D. Ronson 

  45. (ADDED) C. Attard-Kennel 

  46. (ADDED) B. Harris, Royal Canadian Legion Ontario 

  47. (ADDED) A. Walsh 

  48. (ADDED) M. Oates, St. Leonard’s Community Services Project Home 

  49. (ADDED) A. Jevnikar 

  50. (ADDED) C. McDonald 

  51. (ADDED) K. Morrison 

  52. (ADDED) A. Proulx

6.2    System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options

  1. A. DeBlaire, 519 Pursuit

  2. (ADDED) Councillor S. Trosow 

  3. (ADDED) J.M. Bradley

6.3    Temporary Warming Center

  1. C. Abbott 

  2. J. Howitt 

  3. W. Frayle 

  4. B. Merrifield 

  5. S. Mcfarlane 

  6. S. Glass 

  7. S. Cowan 

  8. N. Graham 

  9. N. Gautcher 

  10. M. Say 

  11. L. Mizon 

  12. L. Johnston 

  13. J. Howitt 

  14. J. and J. McCredie 

  15. G. and S. Kodde 

  16. D. Reckman, Sanctuary London 

  17. D. Oudshoorn 

  18. C. Vannelli 

  19. C. Van Loon 

  20. A. Barrientos 

  21. B. Coutu 

  22. E. Richard 

  23. J. Vale 

  24. K. Kaisar 

  25. K. Williston 

  26. A. O’Brien 

  27. S. Creek 

  28. S. Gowan 

  29. P. Gioiosa 

  30. (ADDED) Q. Zientara 

  31. (ADDED) D. Ronson 

  32. (ADDED) C. Attard-Kennel 

  33. (ADDED) C. Madrenas 

  34. (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson 

  35. (ADDED) A. Walsh 

  36. (ADDED) A. Proulx

6.4     London Plan Policy 399 - Tree Replacement - Councillor S. Franke

6.5    644-664 Southdale Road E & 821 Nadine Ave - Z-25153

  1. Councillor E. Peloza - Amendment        

  2. J. Spencer        

  3. J. and J. Lariviere

  4. (ADDED) L. Frijia, Southside Construction Management Limited

6.6    767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151

  1. Councillor J. Pribil - Alternative Motion        

  2. M. and R. Wilson

  3. (ADDED) Councillor J. Pribil - Alternative Motion 

  4. (ADDED) K. Gilbert, M. Wilson, R. Wilson, S. Calvert, S. Berberich, D. Berberich, D. Heatherington, M. Shantz, J. Shantz, C. MacDonald, K. MacDonald, G. Kumpf, M. and K. Pepper, B. and K. Wallace, S. Constant, M. Raskas, B. Mailer, R. Myatt

6.7    732 Wellington and 282 Piccadilly - Z-25148

  1. N. and T. Tattersall

6.8    (ADDED) Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles

  1. A. Valastro

6.9    (ADDED) Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

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

  2. J. Zaifman, London Home Builders’ Association        

  3. D. Ronson

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

None.

8.1   3rd Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

2026-02-02 ICSC Report 3

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 3rd Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 6 (2.3).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by C. Rahman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (2.4) 2025 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and 2025 Management Review

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following report on the 2025 External Audit of London’s Drinking Water Quality Management System and the 2025 Management Review BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (2.5) Contract Award: Tender RFT-2025-258 – The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation

Motion made by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation project (RFT-2025-258):

a) the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited, at its tendered price of $10,218,553.35, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by McLean Taylor Construction Limited was the lowest of six bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements and is in accordance with Section 28.2 i) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, following an Open Competitive Process conducted in compliance with applicable trade agreements;

b) the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure (or delegate) BE AUTHORIZED, within the approved project contingency of $1,500,000, to approve contract change orders and amendments within the original scope of work, in accordance with Section 29.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c) AECOM Canada ULC, BE AUTHORIZED to complete the contract administration and construction inspection for this project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $1,518,917.30 excluding HST, under Limited Tendering LT-2026-315, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii) (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utility companies in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing contained within The Queen’s Bridge Rehabilitation project;

e) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A”;

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

g) the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultants for the work;

h) the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for the material to be supplied and the work to be done relating to this project (RFT-2025-258); and

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

Motion Passed

8.1.4   (2.1) Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated February 2, 2026 - Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund:

a) the Update on Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund Report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report annually to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on any draws of up to $100,000.00 from the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed

8.1.5   (2.2) Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement - CBR-23-0154 Establishing a Roadmap to Net Zero Emissions for Nine Community Facilities in London, Ontario (Relates to Bill No. 62)    

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement:

a) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i) APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement CBR-23-0154 between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, acting as trustee of the Green Municipal Fund and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Agreement”);

ii) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement; 

iii) DELEGATE AUTHORITY to the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, or their written designate, to act as the authorized official for The Corporation of the City of London in connection with any required statements, requests or reporting under the Agreement.;

b) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary with the Agreement; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee the feasibility report as soon as it is received;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated January 29, 2026 from J. Vanderbaan, Vice President, Operations & Planning, London Hydro Inc. with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.7   (2.6) Smart Commute Association Memorandum of Understanding Extension

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated February 2, 2026 - Smart Commute MOU Extension, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee to allow Civic Administration to provide more information to the Committee with respect to this program.

Motion Passed

8.1.6   (2.3) Sunningdale Road West Improvements – Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 63)

Motion made by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to an oil pipeline relocation agreement with Imperial Oil for the Sunningdale Road Improvements from Wonderland Road to Blackwater Road:

a) the financing for this Agreement BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “A”;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 2, 2026 as Appendix “B”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i) APPROVE the Agreement contained in Schedule 1 of Appendix “B” for pipeline decommissioning and a new pipeline between Imperial Oil Limited and the Corporation of the City of London;

ii) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement, largely in the form appended to this report, and any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations;

iii) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure to approve further Amending Agreements to the Agreement;

iv) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amendments to the Agreement approved by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports or Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and

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

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

8.2   2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

2026-01-26 CPSC Report

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.2), 6 (2.3), 8 (4.1), and 9 (4.2).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.2.2   (2.1) 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 8th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on November 27, 2025:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Committee Workplan (June - December 2025) items:

i) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend a future meeting of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee (ESACAC) to discuss Schedule 14 - Pet Shops, of the Business Licensing By-law - L.-131-16;

ii) it BE NOTED that the ESACAC heard a verbal update from E. Williamson, Manager, Environmental Planning, related to information for property owners about occupancy of buildings with Chimney Swifts;

iii) it BE NOTED that the ESACAC heard a verbal update from B. Samuels, ESACAC Member, related to the implementation of the Naturalization of Boulevards and bring forward to the 2026 Workplan; and,

iv) it BE NOTED that the ESACAC heard a verbal update from N. Karsch, Chair, ESACAC, related to education brochures about invasive plants and decided to pause this item from the Committee Workplan; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (2.4) Urgent Replacement of End-of-Life London Fire Department Hoists

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 26, 2026, related to the Urgent Replacement of End-of-Life London Fire Department Hoists:

a) the financing for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

b) the approval above BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a formal contract with K&L Construction Ltd.,1615 N Routledge Park #27, London, ON, N6H 5N5, pursuant to a Request for Tender process, 26006-RFT-2025-215, to perform the work described above;

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts necessary to carry out the authorizations set out in parts a) and b) above; and,

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

Motion Passed

8.2.4   (2.5) London Fire Protection Grant 2025-2026 Transfer Payment Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 61)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the attached proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated January 26, 2026, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 10, 2026, to:

i) APPROVE the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement (‘TPA’) between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the Fire Protection Grant, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii) AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Agreement;

iii) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, to execute any reports required by the province under the Agreement; and

iv) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services to approve any future Ontario Transfer Payment Agreements between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the Fire Protection Grant as well as execute any reports required by the province under this Agreement.

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.1) New London Children’s Museum Update

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the presentation, as appended to the agenda, from K. Ledgley, London Children’s Museum, with respect to a New London Children’s Museum Update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.5   (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 26, 2026 related to the Housing, Stability Framework and Good Neighbour Clause:

a) the proposed system transformation approach and multi-year Housing Stability Services procurement framework as outlined in the December 1, 2025 staff report, BE ENDORSED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore other funding options for basic needs;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an information report describing the execution of service agreements associated with each procurement process; and,

d) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor J. Pribil, Councillor S. Lehman, D. Brown and W. Thomas, Midtown Community Organization and M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received;

it being further noted that verbal delegations from C. Lazenby, Unity Project, S. Campbell, Ark Aid Mission, C. Moss, London Cares and M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received.

At 1:43 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 1:46 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

At 1:50 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

At 2:07 PM, Councillors S. Lehman and S. Franke leaves the meeting.

At 2:09 PM, Councillors S. Lehman and S. Franke enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part e) that reads as follows:

e) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED provide the quarterly reports submitted by all service providers to the Community and Protective Services Committee on a quarterly basis

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the request for quarterly reports submitted by all service providers to the Community and Protective Services Committee on a quarterly basis BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for clarification of the service providers included in the quarterly reports;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 2:27 PM, Councillor S. Lehman leaves the meeting.

At 2:29 PM, Councillor S. Lehman enters the meeting.

At 2:31 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy joins the meeting virtually.

At 2:33 PM, Councillor H. McAlister leaves the meeting.

At 2:34 PM, Councillor H. McAlister enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That part a) of the motion BE AMENDED as follows:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a one-year contract renewal for the procurement framework with an option to renew for one-year;

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

ii) that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review existing housing stability contracts to assess alignment with current operational needs, including transitions from emergency and highly supportive environments, and to report back to Council on any recommended amendments or procurement actions required, consistent with policy-compliant procurement processes

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

At 3:37 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting.

At 3:38 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

a) the proposed system transformation approach and multi-year Housing Stability Services procurement framework as outlined in the December 1, 2025 staff report, BE ENDORSED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a one-year contract renewal for the procurement framework with an option to renew for one-year;

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

At 3:47 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the balance of item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 26, 2026 related to the Housing, Stability Framework and Good Neighbour Clause:

a) the proposed system transformation approach and multi-year Housing Stability Services procurement framework as outlined in the December 1, 2025 staff report, BE ENDORSED;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore other funding options for basic needs;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with an information report describing the execution of service agreements associated with each procurement process;

d) the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and

e) the request for quarterly reports submitted by all service providers to the Community and Protective Services Committee on a quarterly basis BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for clarification of the service providers included in the quarterly reports.

it being noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from Councillor S. Stevenson, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis, Councillor J. Pribil, Councillor S. Lehman, D. Brown and W. Thomas, Midtown Community Organization and M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received;

it being further noted that verbal delegations from C. Lazenby, Unity Project, S. Campbell, Ark Aid Mission, C. Moss, London Cares and M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received.

8.2.6   (2.3) System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated January 26, 2026 with respect to the System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options, BE RECEIVED;

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

At 4:02 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy joins the meeting virtually.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, the staff report dated January 26, 2026 with respect to the System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for Civic Administration to provide a report back on the feasibility of negotiating a contract extension with 519Pursuit Umbrella Relief Programs Inc. for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs for the period of April 1, 2026, to March 31, 2027 at an upset amount of $341,049 (excluding HST), to be funded from the Social Services Reserve Fund;

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

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

At 4:08 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:12 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

8.2.8   (4.1) Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from Councillor Rahman, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor E. Peloza, with respect to Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and a verbal delegation from M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows:

That the attached by-law being a by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-38-234, as amended, to limit the City of London Community Grants Annual Program to the capital funding category, as defined in the City of London Community Grants Policy for 2026 and 2027 BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 10, 2026;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Agenda, from Councillor Rahman, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor E. Peloza, with respect to Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles, was received;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and a verbal delegation from M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That item 8, clause 4.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Item 8, clause 4.1, as amended, reads as follows:

That the attached by-law being a by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-38-234, as amended, to limit the City of London Community Grants Annual Program to the capital funding category, as defined in the City of London Community Grants Policy for 2026 and 2027 BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 10, 2026;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Agenda, from Councillor Rahman, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor E. Peloza, with respect to Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles, was received;

it being noted that a communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and a verbal delegation from M. Cassidy, Pillar Nonprofit Network, with respect to this matter, were received.

At 4:34 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira leaves the meeting.

At 4:38 PM, Councillor D. Ferreira enters the meeting.

8.2.9   (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Temporary Warming Centre Framework:

a) APPROVE a maximum of $250,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for currently funded local agencies to open at the discretion of the agency based on staffing, safety and programming needs when the temperature drops below -5 overnight until April 30th, 2026, to offer net-new overnight warming spaces and that, notwithstanding previous Council direction, spaces on a main street BIA shall be considered as part of this initiative until April 30, 2026;

b) ACTIVATE the Tier 3 Surge Response whenever it is -15 OR -20 with windchill OR when Environment Canada issues an extreme weather alert for London with the funding to be pulled from the Social Services Reserve Fund up to a maximum of $290,000;

c) POST on the City of London website the rules, recommendations and supports available for unhoused individuals looking to stay warm during subzero temperatures;

d) ADJUST the morning closing time of the Boyle Memorial Community Centre (Tier 3 Surge Response) to address concerns about the overlap with elementary school bus pick-up times and provide additional garbage and CIR support as needed; and

e) INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, by the end of Q2 2026, with respect to options for the 2026-2027 winter season and enhanced Tier 3 plan, in addition to existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 extreme cold response options, including the following costed scenarios:

i) establishing one overnight warming centre operating from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027, open between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM; or

ii) establishing one 24/7 warming centre operating from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027; or

iii) providing a minimum of 100 warming centre spaces across two to four locations from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027, between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM.

iv) explore potential service partners to provide these warming spaces; and,

v) provide the cost to amend the temperature upon which the Tier 3 Surge Response is activated to -10C (from -15C with -20C windchill);

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira;

  •    Councillor S. Stevenson;

  •    S. Mcfarlane, London ACORN East of Adelaide Chapter;

  •    Councillors D. Ferreira, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow and S. Franke;

  •    L. Cardinal;

  •    P. Puhringer;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    C. Blanchard, Chair, London Homeless Coalition;

  •    R. Bentley-Ponikvar Thuss

it being noted that verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Ark Aid Street Mission, V. Brown, C. McDonald, London Cares, M. Kolls, R. Klemm and T. Davies, with respect to this matter, were received.

At 4:57 PM, Councillor H. McAlister leaves the meeting.

At 4:59 PM, Councillor H. McAlister enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b) ACTIVATE the Tier 3 Surge Response with the funding to be pulled from the Social Services Reserve Fund up to a maximum of $290,000 whenever it is -15 OR -20 with windchill;

That part e) BE AMENDED to add a new part vi) to read as follows:

e) INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, by the end of Q2 2026, with respect to options for the 2026-2027 winter season and enhanced Tier 3 plan, in addition to existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 extreme cold response options, including the following costed scenarios:

vi) options to further align with Environment Canada extreme weather alerts.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That part b) BE FURTHER AMENDED:

or when Environment Canada issues an extreme weather alert (yellow, orange, red) with respect to ice.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That item 9, clause 4.2, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 9, clause 4.2, as amended, reads as follows:

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Temporary Warming Centre Framework:

a) APPROVE a maximum of $250,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for currently funded local agencies to open at the discretion of the agency based on staffing, safety and programming needs when the temperature drops below -5 overnight until April 30th, 2026, to offer net-new overnight warming spaces and that, notwithstanding previous Council direction, spaces on a main street BIA shall be considered as part of this initiative until April 30, 2026;

b) ACTIVATE the Tier 3 Surge Response with the funding to be pulled from the Social Services Reserve Fund up to a maximum of $290,000 whenever it is -15 OR -20 with windchill;

c) POST on the City of London website the rules, recommendations and supports available for unhoused individuals looking to stay warm during subzero temperatures;

d) ADJUST the morning closing time of the Boyle Memorial Community Centre (Tier 3 Surge Response) to address concerns about the overlap with elementary school bus pick-up times and provide additional garbage and CIR support as needed; and

e) INVESTIGATE AND REPORT BACK to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, by the end of Q2 2026, with respect to options for the 2026-2027 winter season and enhanced Tier 3 plan, in addition to existing Tier 1 and Tier 2 extreme cold response options, including the following costed scenarios:

i) establishing one overnight warming centre operating from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027, open between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM; or

ii) establishing one 24/7 warming centre operating from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027; or

iii) providing a minimum of 100 warming centre spaces across two to four locations from December 1, 2026 to March 31, 2027, between 9:00 PM and 9:00 AM.

iv) explore potential service partners to provide these warming spaces; and,

v) provide the cost to amend the temperature upon which the Tier 3 Surge Response is activated to -10C (from -15C with -20C windchill); and

vi) options to further align with Environment Canada extreme weather alerts.

it being noted that communications from the following individuals, as appended to the Agenda and the Added Agenda, with respect to this matter, were received:

  •    Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira;

  •    Councillor S. Stevenson;

  •    S. Mcfarlane, London ACORN East of Adelaide Chapter;

  •    Councillors D. Ferreira, S. Stevenson, S. Trosow and S. Franke;

  •    L. Cardinal;

  •    P. Puhringer;

  •    C. Kuijpers;

  •    C. Blanchard, Chair, London Homeless Coalition;

  •    R. Bentley-Ponikvar Thuss

it being noted that verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Ark Aid Street Mission, V. Brown, C. McDonald, London Cares, M. Kolls, R. Klemm and T. Davies, with respect to this matter, were received.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That pursuant to section 11.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Council recess at this time, for 60 minutes.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

The Council recesses at 5:43 PM and reconvenes at 6:49 PM.

8.3   3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

2026-01-27 - PEC REPORT

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 6 (3.2), 7 (3.3), 8 (3.3), 9 (3.5), 11 (3.7), 12 (3.8), 14 (3.10), 15 (3.11), and 16 (3.12).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lehman

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) Homeowner Information Brochure - Report Back

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the Homeowner Information Brochure; BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that this report fulfills Council’s request and the direction for public input; therefore, the item may be removed from the Planning and Environment Committee’s Deferred Matters List.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (2.2) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by Kunzum Inc., 484 English Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following action be taken with respect to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the application under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the alterations of the front window of the heritage designated property at 484 English Street, within the Old East Heritage Conservation District, BE REFUSED;

it being noted that the alterations were completed without Heritage Alteration Permit approval and do not comply with the policies and guidelines of the Old East Heritage Conservation District Plan and Conservation Guidelines.

Motion Passed

8.3.4   (2.3) Heritage Alteration Permit Application by C. Fowler, 46 Victor Street

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the staff report dated January 27, 2026, related to the application by the owner, C. Fowler, under Section 42 of the Ontario Heritage Act seeking retroactive approval for the replacement of the roof on the heritage designated property at 46 Victor Street, within the Wortley Village-Old South Heritage Conservation District BE PERMITTED.

Motion Passed

8.3.5   (3.1) 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the 1st Report of the Community Advisory Committee on Planning, from its meeting held on January 15, 2026, was received;

it being noted that the verbal delegation from J. M. Metrailler, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed

8.3.10   (3.6) 965 Adelaide Street South - Z-35144 (Relates to Bill No. 84)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of God’s Favourite House Canada (c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design) relating to the property located at 965 Adelaide Street South, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Shopping Area (CSA2) Zone TO a Community Shopping Area Special Provision (CSA2(_)) Zone;

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

  • M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates an appropriate use in a suitable location, allowing the reuse of an underutilized site at a scale and intensity that can be accommodated within the existing building while supporting a diverse range and mix of land uses within the area.

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

Motion Passed

8.3.13   (3.9) 610 Princess Avenue - Z-25154 (Relates to Bill No. 87)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Iron Door Properties c/o Siv-ik Planning & Design Inc. relating to the property located at 610 Princess Avenue, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM an Arterial Commercial Special Provision (AC2(4)) Zone, TO a Residential R8 Special Provision (R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

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

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit residential intensification that is appropriate for the existing and planned context of the site and surrounding neighbourhood;

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

Motion Passed

8.3.17   (4.1) Councillor E. Peloza - Brownfield Community Improvement Plan Update Request

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee in Q2 2026 with a list of current Brownfield CIP approvals including the municipal funding allocation, project status updates for each site, and recommendations for any inactive or unprogressed applications for Council’s consideration including but not limited to a sunset provision;

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

  • a communication dated January 24, 2026, from C. Butler.

Motion Passed

8.3.18   (5.1) Deferred Matters List

Motion made by S. Lehman

That the January Deferred Matters List, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.3.6   (3.2) 233 Cambridge Street - Z-25155 (Relates to Bill No. 80)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Distinctive Homes London Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 233 Cambridge Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R2 Special Provision (h-9*R2-1(_)) Zone;

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

  • C. Alister, Zelinka Priamo Ltd; and,

  • A. Hostman;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would permit a development at an intensity that is appropriate for the site and the surrounding neighbourhood; and,

  • the recommended amendment facilitates the development of a site within the Built-Area Boundary with an appropriate form of infill development.

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

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

8.3.7   (3.3) 644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153 (Relates to Bill No. 81)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Limited, relating to the property located at 644-664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue:

a) consistent with Policy 43_ of The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), for the subject lands representing 650-664 Southdale Road East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone, an Office Conversion/Holding Transit Station Area (OC4/h-13TSA1) Zone, and a Residential R3/Holding Transit Station Area (R3-2/h-13TSA1) Zone TO a Residential R3/Transit Station Area Special Provision (R3-2/TSA1(_)) Zone;

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

i) provide enhanced all-season landscaping and fencing beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law along the interior side and rear property line;

ii) require the principal entrance to be located on the Southdale Road East façade; and,

iii) achieve a human-scale along Southdale Road East through the detailed design of the building by incorporating design measures including, but not limited to, architectural features and/or articulation;

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

  • L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

  • R. McQuiggan;

  • M. Baron;

  • J. Vander Re;

  • C. Richards; and,

  • J. Larivier;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at an appropriate scale and intensity for the site and surrounding context.

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

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That part c) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part iv):

iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion BE AMENDED in part c) to request the Site Plan Approval Authority to consider the following design issues through the site plan process:

v) provide enhanced all-season landscaping, fencing up to 2.1 metres, and setbacks to surface parking beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law along the interior side and rear property lines;

vi) require the principal entrance to be located on the Southdale Road East façade;

vii) achieve a human-scale along Southdale Road East through the detailed design of the building by incorporating design measures including, but not limited to, architectural features and/or articulation;

viii) achieve a minimum parking rate of 1 space per unit through a combination of surface and underground parking.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That item 7, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Item 7, clause 3.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Southside Construction Management Limited, relating to the property located at 644-664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue:

a) consistent with Policy 43_ of The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), for the subject lands representing 650-664 Southdale Road East, BE INTERPRETED to be located within the Rapid Transit Corridor Place Type;

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026 to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R3 (R3-2) Zone, an Office Conversion/Holding Transit Station Area (OC4/h-13TSA1) Zone, and a Residential R3/Holding Transit Station Area (R3-2/h-13TSA1) Zone TO a Residential R3/Transit Station Area Special Provision (R3-2/TSA1(_)) Zone;

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

i) provide enhanced all-season landscaping and fencing beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law along the interior side and rear property line;

ii) require the principal entrance to be located on the Southdale Road East façade; 

iii) achieve a human-scale along Southdale Road East through the detailed design of the building by incorporating design measures including, but not limited to, architectural features and/or articulation; 

iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical

v) provide enhanced all-season landscaping, fencing up to 2.1 metres, and setbacks to surface parking beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law along the interior side and rear property lines;

vi) require the principal entrance to be located on the Southdale Road East façade;

vii) achieve a human-scale along Southdale Road East through the detailed design of the building by incorporating design measures including, but not limited to, architectural features and/or articulation;

viii) achieve a minimum parking rate of 1 space per unit through a combination of surface and

underground parking.

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

  • L. Jamieson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

  • R. McQuiggan;

  • M. Baron;

  • J. Vander Re;

  • C. Richards; and,

  • J. Larivier;

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

  • the recommended amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024 (PPS), which encourages growth in settlements areas and land use patterns based on densities and a mix of land uses that provide for a range of uses and opportunities for intensification and redevelopment;

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

  • the recommended amendment facilitates redevelopment of a site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at an appropriate scale and intensity for the site and surrounding context.

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

8.3.8   (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Northbound Development Corporation relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(25)) and a Residential R1 (R1-7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-8*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) all-season landscaping along the rear and interior side yards;

ii) the installation of a board-on-board fence that exceeds the minimum height requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

iii) screened parking to minimize the visual exposure of parking area to the street and create an inviting, active and comfortable pedestrian environment along Fanshawe Park Road East; and,

iv) all concerns raised by the public during the public participation meeting on the zoning by-law amendment as they relate to site and building design.

v) maintain privacy for the adjacent low rise residential properties by restricting balconies to the north façade facing Fanshawe Park Road East.

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

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

  • a communication dated January 2, 2026, from K. Gilbert and R. Howell;

  • a communication dated January 21, 2026, from L. Smith;

  • a communication dated January 22, 2026, from M., R., M. and T. Wilson;

  • a communication dated January 26, 2026, from M. Wilson; and,

  • a communication dated January 22, 2026, from S. Calvert;

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

  • O. Alchits, Strik Balindelli Moniz;

  • E. Wilcox;

  • S. Berberich;

  • M. Shantz;

  • R. Wilson;

  • M. Wilson;

  • M. Reis;

  • D. Seguin;

  • R. Miller;

  • M Mussio;

  • P. Vollick;

  • D. Berberich;

  • S. Calvert;

  • M. Wilson;

  • N. Gilbert;

  • P. Rivard;

  • B. Nailer;

  • K. Gilbert;

  • C. MacDonald;

  • B. Renard;

  • G. Kumpf; and,

  • L. Smith;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

ii) the requested amendment is in conformity with the London Plan;

iii) the requested amendment is appropriate within the existing and planned context;

iv) it ensures compatible built form, adequate provision of municipal services and the orderly development of the lands, the h-8 symbol shall not be deleted until a stormwater servicing report has been prepared and confirmation that stormwater management systems are implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

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

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Northbound Development Corporation relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent:

a) the proposed attached by-law to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent, BE AMENDED to reduce the building height maximum to 24.5 meters and include a new part vi) in the R8-4(_) Special Provision - Regulations to read as follows:

iii. Building Height (maximum): 24.5 metres;

vi. Rooftop amenity shall be prohibited; and

b) part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to include the following wording:

vi) the sidewalk and/or access on/through 679 Dunboyne Crescent from the apartment complex development at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East to Dunboyne Crescent shall be prohibited.

vii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process.

it being noted that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

iii. Building Height (maximum): 24.5 metres;

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

vi. Rooftop amenity shall be prohibited; and

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

vi) the sidewalk and/or access on/through 679 Dunboyne Crescent from the apartment complex development at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East to Dunboyne Crescent shall be prohibited.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

vii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Pribil

that part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to include the following wording:

Incorporate transom-style window treatments for all habitable units on the west side yard of the apartment building, designed with a narrow vertical dimension, to allow daylighting while minimizing potential privacy impacts on adjacent low-rise residential properties.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

That item 8, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Item 8, clause 3.4, as amended, reads as follows:

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Northbound Development Corporation relating to the property located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East & 679 Dunboyne Crescent:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with the Official Plan, The London Plan, to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R5 Special Provision (R5-7(25)) and a Residential R1 (R1-7) Zone TO a Holding Residential R8 Special Provision (h-8*R8-4(_)) Zone;

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

i) all-season landscaping along the rear and interior side yards;

ii) the installation of a board-on-board fence that exceeds the minimum height requirements of the Site Plan Control By-law;

iii) screened parking to minimize the visual exposure of parking area to the street and create an inviting, active and comfortable pedestrian environment along Fanshawe Park Road East; 

iv) all concerns raised by the public during the public participation meeting on the zoning by-law amendment as they relate to site and building design;

v) maintain privacy for the adjacent low rise residential properties by restricting balconies to the north façade facing Fanshawe Park Road East; 

vi) the sidewalk and/or access on/through 679 Dunboyne Crescent from the apartment complex development at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East to Dunboyne Crescent shall be prohibited;

vii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process; and

viii) incorporate transom-style window treatments for all habitable units on the west side yard of the apartment building, designed with a narrow vertical dimension, to allow daylighting while minimizing potential privacy impacts on adjacent low-rise residential properties.

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

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

  • a communication dated January 2, 2026, from K. Gilbert and R. Howell;

  • a communication dated January 21, 2026, from L. Smith;

  • a communication dated January 22, 2026, from M., R., M. and T. Wilson;

  • a communication dated January 26, 2026, from M. Wilson; and,

  • a communication dated January 22, 2026, from S. Calvert;

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

  • O. Alchits, Strik Balindelli Moniz;

  • E. Wilcox;

  • S. Berberich;

  • M. Shantz;

  • R. Wilson;

  • M. Wilson;

  • M. Reis;

  • D. Seguin;

  • R. Miller;

  • M Mussio;

  • P. Vollick;

  • D. Berberich;

  • S. Calvert;

  • M. Wilson;

  • N. Gilbert;

  • P. Rivard;

  • B. Nailer;

  • K. Gilbert;

  • C. MacDonald;

  • B. Renard;

  • G. Kumpf; and,

  • L. Smith;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

ii) the requested amendment is in conformity with the London Plan;

iii) the requested amendment is appropriate within the existing and planned context;

iv) it ensures compatible built form, adequate provision of municipal services and the orderly development of the lands, the h-8 symbol shall not be deleted until a stormwater servicing report has been prepared and confirmation that stormwater management systems are implemented to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

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

8.3.9   (3.5) 3334-3354 Wonderland Road South - OZ-25140 (Relates to Bill No. 66 and No. 83)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland Road South:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy to the Specific Policies for the Shopping Area Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan;

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Road Community Enterprise Corridor policies of the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood to permit a maximum height of 20 storeys, excluding mechanical penthouses and rooftop amenity space, and a maximum residential density of 350 units per hectare; and,

c) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in the above-noted part a) and b), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Commercial Recreational Special Provision (CR(6)) Zone TO a holding Residential R10 Special Provision/Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (h-1h-3h-8h-13R10-5()*H70/ASA1()) Zone and to AMEND the Open Space Special Provision (OS4(12)) Zone;

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

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

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

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

  • there has been significant density pressure in the north and northwest, which is expected to continue with the recently approved Urban Growth Boundary, highlighting the need to redistribute growth across London;

  • the proposed building heights will not affect neighbouring single-family homes;

  • industrial growth in south London is increasing housing demand, and consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary discussion, this site is appropriate for higher heights by building up rather than out; and

  • regarding water and wastewater capacity, the adjacent property owner has indicated a willingness to accommodate increased capacity through their lands at their own expense. The proposed holding provisions recognize this arrangement and would permit development only once the additional capacity has been secured.

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

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.3.11   (3.7) 68-76 Commissioners Road East - 25147 (Relates to Bill No. 85)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Faith Quais (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 68-76 Commissioners Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i) a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 80 Commissioners Road East under a single Development Agreement;

ii) Enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species; and,

iii) Units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed towards the street;

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  • M. Hothorn;

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

  • a communication dated January 23, 2026, from J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options within the area.

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

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part iv):

iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That Item 11, clause 3.7, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 11, clause 3.7, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Faith Quais (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 68-76 Commissioners Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i) a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 80 Commissioners Road East under a single Development Agreement;

ii) Enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species; and,

iii) Units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed towards the street;

iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants; and,

  • M. Hothorn;

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

  • a communication dated January 23, 2026, from J. McGuffin, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options within the area.

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

8.3.12   (3.8) 80 Commissioners Rd East - Z-25146 (Relates to Bill No. 86)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Utopia Homes Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 80 Commissioners Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated 27th January, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i) a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 68-76 Commissioners Road East under one Development Agreement;

ii) enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species;

iii) implementation of the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025, to ensure mitigation measures are incorporated into the site design; and,

iv) units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed toward the street;

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options within the area.

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

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part v):

v) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Franke

That item 12, clause 3.8, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Item 12, clause 3.8, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Utopia Homes Inc. (c/o Monteith Brown Planning Consultants) relating to the property located at 80 Commissioners Road East:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated 27th January, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Residential R1 (R1-9) Zone TO a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8*R5-7(_)) Zone;

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

i) a comprehensive and coordinated development with the abutting property at 68-76 Commissioners Road East under one Development Agreement;

ii) enhanced all season landscaping beyond that required by the Site Plan Control By-law, with a minimum of 50% native species;

iii) implementation of the recommendations of the Heritage Impact Assessment, TMHC Inc., 2025, to ensure mitigation measures are incorporated into the site design; 

iv) units located along the Commissioners Road East frontage shall be oriented such that their principal entrances are directed toward the street; and

v) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

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

  • E. Steele, Monteith Brown Planning Consultants;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment will facilitate development of an underutilized site within the Built-Area Boundary and the Primary Transit Area at a scale and intensity that can be appropriately accommodated and will contribute to achieving a diverse range and mix of housing options within the area.

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

8.3.14   (3.10) 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street - Z-25148 (Relates to Bill No. 88)

Motion made by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 732 Wellington Street Inc. & London Bridge Childcare Services relating to the properties located at 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated January 27, 2026, as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to change the zoning of 732 Wellington Street FROM a Day Care (DC) Zone, TO a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(*)) Zone and a Residential R3 Special Provision (R3-1(**)) Zone;

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

  • D. Sikelero-Elsenbruch, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

  • a communication dated January 24, 2026, from T. and N. Tattersall;

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

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

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

  • the recommended amendment would facilitate the conversion of the existing buildings to fourplex and triplex dwellings, which are appropriate uses for the sites and surrounding context.

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.3.15   (3.11) 5150 Wellington Road South - OZ-25135 (Relates to Bill No. 67 and No. 89)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London in Ontario relating to the property located at 5150 Wellington Road South:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, the request to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), by ADDING a new policy in the Specific Policies for the Farmland Place Type and by ADDING the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas – of the Official Plan BE APPROVED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment does satisfy the criteria for adoption of Specific Area Policies; and,

ii) the requested amendment does facilitate an appropriate use of the lands;

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on February 10, 2026, the request to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1 to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Community Facility (CF1) Zone, a Holding Community Facility (h-1CF1) Zone and an Open Space (OS5) Zone TO Holding Community Facility (h-9CF4) Zone, and an Open Space Special Provision (OS5(_)) Zone BE APPROVED for the following reasons:

i) the requested amendment is consistent with the Provincial Planning Statement, 2024;

ii) the requested amendment is appropriate within the existing and planned context; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given;

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

  • L. Jaimeson, Zelinka Priamo Ltd;

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

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

8.3.16   (3.12) 3680 Wonderland Road - OZ-25128 (Relates to Bill No. 68 and No. 90)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1001320818 Ontario Inc. (c/o Miami Developments) relating to the property located at 3680 Wonderland Road South:

a) the proposed attached by-law BE APPROVED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), to:

i) REVISE Map 3 – Street Classifications of The London Plan to ADD one Neighbourhood Connector for Street ‘A’ as detailed on the Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505);

ii) ADD a new Specific Policy to the Shopping Area Place Type applicable to the subject lands in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505), to permit a maximum building height of 18-storeys for Block 1 and 16-storeys for Block 2, both with frontage on Wonderland Road South and; ADD the subject lands to Map 7 – Specific Policy Areas; and,

iii) AMEND the Southwest Area Secondary Plan by ADDING a site-specific policy to the Wonderland Boulevard Neighbourhood to permit the following in relation to a Draft Plan of Subdivision (39T-25505): an upper-maximum height of 18-storeys for Block 1 and 16-storeys for Block 2, both with frontage on Wonderland Road South; a gross density of up to 216 units per hectare for the subject lands; and, an additional 1,190 square metres (12,800 square feet) gross floor area for commercial development.

b) the proposed attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend the Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, in conformity with The Official Plan for the City of London, 2016 (The London Plan), as amended in the above-noted part a), to change the zoning of the subject property FROM a Holding Associated Shopping Area Special Provision (h-9h-108h-151ASA8(15)) Zone TO a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8h-14R9-7()H62) Zone, a Holding Residential R9 Special Provision (h-8h-14R9-7(**)H55) Zone, and a Holding Residential R5 Special Provision (h-8h-14R5-7(*)) Zone.

c) the Site Plan Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i) prohibition of front yard parking;

ii) provision of a minimum step-back of 5.0 metres above the third or fourth storey for apartment buildings (Building A1, A2, B1, B2, & B3, as described in the Preliminary Draft Plan of Subdivision dated September 25, 2025) along public streets (Wharncliffe Road South, Wonderland Road South, Exeter Road, Street ‘A’, and Street ‘B’);

iii) provision of a minimum ground floor height of 4.0 metres for apartment buildings (Building A1, A2, B1, B2, & B3, as described in the Preliminary Draft Plan of Subdivision dated September 25, 2025); and,

iv) orientation of front facades and primary entrances of buildings to face the adjacent public streets with direct pedestrian connections to the future public sidewalks;

d) the Subdivision Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to consider the following:

i) the Applicant shall prepare an updated Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), to the satisfaction of the City, as part of the subdivision design review process. The TIA shall determine the required intersection control measures for the intersection of Exeter Road and Street ‘B’, including any temporary full access configurations such as a temporary signalized intersection. All such works shall be completed at the Applicant’s cost as part of the external works for the subdivision;

ii) as part of the temporary external works, and once the development to the east (municipally known as 1620 Wharncliffe Road South) is fully constructed, the Street ‘B’ and Exeter Road intersection is to be converted to right in-right out access, and the Applicant shall be responsible for:

A) contributing financially to the removal of the temporary intersection control measures;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given; it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with these matters:

  • A. Shenouda, SEM Construction; and,

  • M. Davis, Siv-ik Planning and Design Inc;

IT BEING NOTED, that the above noted amendment is being recommended for the following reasons:

  • there has been significant density pressure in the north and northwest, which is expected to continue with the recently approved Urban Growth Boundary, highlighting the need to redistribute growth across London;

  • the proposed building heights will not affect neighbouring single-family homes;

  • industrial growth in south London is increasing housing demand, and consistent with the Urban Growth Boundary discussion, this site is appropriate for higher heights by building up rather than out; and

  • permitting one full access on Exeter Road will alleviate traffic concerns while retaining overall traffic impact on Wonderland Road South.

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

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

8.4   3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

Post-Meeting Minutes - Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee_Feb03_2026 - English

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.4) and 6 (2.4).

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.4.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED Councillor S. Franke discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.3, having to do with Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update by indicating that her spouse is employed by the TVDSB.

Motion Passed

8.4.2   (2.1) Development Charge Institutional Discount - Policy Review and Proposed Transition Approach

Motion made by S. Lewis

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

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the Institutional Discount from the 2028 Development Charges Background Study; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to develop a transition plan for the development charge Institutional Discount, including exploring the alignment with the City of London Community Grants Program.

Motion Passed

8.4.3   (2.2) Confirmation of Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

Motion made by S. Lewis

That Ashleigh Patterson of Montana’s Fanshawe BE APPOINTED to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 15, 2026; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 7, 2026 from D. Szpakowski, General Manager/CEO with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.4.4   (2.5) Micro-Modular Shelter Site Update

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager and Deputy City Manager Social and Health Development, the report regarding the Micro-Modular Shelter Site Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

8.4.7   (4.1) Consideration of Appointments to the London Transit Commission (Requires 5 Council Members)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following Council Members BE APPOINTED to the London Transit Commission:

  • Councillor S. Franke

  • Councillor C. Rahman

  • Councillor S. Lehman

  • Councillor S. Trosow

  • Mayor J. Morgan.

Motion Passed

8.4.8   (4.2) Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) - Request for Direction

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction:

a) the report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) – Request for Direction” BE RECEIVED; and

b) that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to carry out all necessary actions to implement Option 1 as outlined in the above-noted report.

Motion Passed

8.4.5   (2.3) Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 64)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a) the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i) the Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames Valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project ( the “MOU”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “1”, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

ii) the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project (the “Agreement”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “2”, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

iii) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the MOU;

iv) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement;

v) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to administer the Agreement;

vi) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to approve and execute agreements to amend the Schedules to the Agreement;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of 1.04 million from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to June 2028, as required; and

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the summer months of July and August from the program.

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That part c) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of $880,000 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to June 2028, as required; and

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That item 5, clause 2.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Item 5, clause 2.3, as amended, reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken:

a) the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 3, 2026, titled “Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update” as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to:

i) the Memorandum of Understanding between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames Valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project ( the “MOU”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “1”, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

ii) the Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project (the “Agreement”), as appended to the proposed by-law as Schedule “2”, BE AUTHORIZED and BE APPROVED;

iii) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the MOU;

iv) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Agreement;

v) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to administer the Agreement;

vi) the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, or their written designate, BE AUTHORIZED to approve and execute agreements to amend the Schedules to the Agreement;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of $880,000 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to June 2028, as required; and

d) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to remove the summer months of July and August from the program.

8.4.6   (2.4) Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

Motion made by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect the Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program:

a) in response to Mayoral Direction 2026-001 ‘Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program’, the revised proposed by-law, as appended to the Added Council Agenda, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 10, 2026, to amend By-law No. C.P.-1545-41, being “A by-law to established financial incentives for the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Project Area”, by:

i) ADDITION of a NEW Schedule “6” to the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan – Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”;

ii) APPROVE the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – New Home Ownership Incentive Program template agreement;

iii) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to amend, enter into and execute the above-referenced agreement provided the terms of the agreement conform with the applicable Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guidelines – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”; 

iv) AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designate, to approve, enter into and execute amending agreements provided the terms of the amending agreement conform with the applicable Affordable Housing Community Improvement Plan Financial Incentive Program Guideline – “New Home Ownership Incentive Program”;

b) it BE NOTED in the revised proposed by-law as appended to the Added Council Agenda, the program is restricted to first-time buyers, the term of the loan is extended from five years to ten years, and the program eligibility is restricted to current residents of the City of London;

it being noted that the Civic Administration, pursuant to section 284.3 of Part VI.1 of the Municipal Act, 2001 S.O. 2001 c. 25, received Mayoral Direction 2026-001 on January 26, 2026, and the report has been prepared for Municipal Council’s consideration;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a verbal presentation from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association;

it being further noted that the communications as appended to the Added Agenda, from J. Zaifman, CEO, London Home Builders’ Association and Councillors S. Trosow and D. Ferreira with respect to this matter, was received.

At 7:47 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor C. Rahman in the Chair.

At 8:07 PM, Councillor C. Rahman, places Councillor E. Peloza in the Chair.

At 8:09 PM, Councillor C. Rahman resumes the Chair.

At 8:11 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED by deleting the words “the term of the loan is extended from five years to ten years” and substituting “and be further revised to a loan term of five years,”

it being noted the attached proposed by-law, as further revised, will be brought forward in Stage XIII, By-laws.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That with respect to Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program, the revised proposed by-law BE REFERRED back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to consider the financial parameters of the program.

At 8:26 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 8:28 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the referral be amended to read as follows:

That the Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, in consultation with private sector partners, options for the program, such as the length of the program, capital gains versus interest, sliding scale forgiveness, and down payment versus cash back incentives.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

At 8:42 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair. 

At 8:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the referral, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Item 6, clause 2.4, as amended, reads as follows:

That the Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, in consultation with private sector partners, options for the program, such as the length of the program, capital gains versus interest, sliding scale forgiveness, and down payment versus cash back incentives.

Motion made by C. Rahman

That the 3rd Report of the Council, In Closed Session BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That clauses 1 and 2 of the 3rd Report of the Council, In Closed Session, read as follows:

  1. Lease Amending and Extension Agreement – 177-179 Dundas Street, Dundas Place Field House

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the review and concurrence of the Director, Community Development and Grants, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the lease of commercial space known as Dundas Place Field House, located at 177-179 Dundas Street, the following actions BE TAKEN:

a) the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement (the “Lease”), attached as Appendix “A” between The Corporation of the City of London and Westang Home Services, under numbered company 2162538 Ontario Inc. for a further period of Five (5) years commencing on March 1, 2026, and expiring on February 28, 2031 (the “First Extended Term”) BE APPROVED; noting there shall be Two (2) further rights of extension beyond the expiry of the First Extension of the Term granted herein;

b) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Lease Extension and Amending Agreement; and

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative steps necessary in connection with this lease extension.

  1. Hydro One Networks Inc., Option Agreement – Easement, St. Thomas Line Project

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to the City-owned land containing approximately 0.12 acres, more or less, over a portion of lands legally described as Original Road Allowance Between Town of Westminster (County of Middlesex) and Township of Yarmouth (County of Elgin) to the Centre Line, Now Known As “Willsie Bourne” By by-law 870207, Abutting Lots 6 to 7, Concession 8 Town of Westminster Designated Part 1 in 33R-7544; Closed by By-law 795345 As Amended By 798677 in the City of London, County of Middlesex (the “Subject Property”) and further shown outlined in Appendix “A”, the following actions be taken:

a) the Option Agreement Easement (the “Agreement”), attached as Appendix “B”, submitted by Hydro One Networks Inc. (the “Transferee”) to acquire an easement over 0.12 acres of the Subject Property from the City, at a purchase price of Three Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($3,150.00), and further subject to the conditions and terms as set out in the Agreement BE ACCEPTED;

b) the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Option Agreement Easement; and

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative steps necessary in connection with the Option Agreement Easement.

That progress was made with respect to items 4.3 (6.3/3/ICSC), 4.4 (6.4/3/ICSC), 4.5 (6.1/3/SPPC) as noted on the public agenda.

None.

None.

None.

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 63, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 63, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 63, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 64, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 80, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 80, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 80, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 81, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 81, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 81, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Revised Bill No. 82, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Revised Bill No. 82, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Revised Bill No. 82, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 88, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 88, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 88, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.’s 66 and 83, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No.’s 66 and 83, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.’s 66 and 83, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 89, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 89, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 89, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 90, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 90, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 90, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 60 to Bill No. 87 and Added Bill No.’s 92 to 94, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 63, 64, 66, Bill No.’s 80 to 83.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Second Reading of Bill No. 60 to Bill No. 87 and Added Bill No.’s 92 to 94, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 63, 64, 66, Bill No.’s 80 to 83.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Lewis

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 60 to Bill No. 87 and Added Bill No.’s 92 to 94, BE APPROVED, with the exception of Bill No.’s 63, 64, 66, Bill No.’s 80 to 83.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Bill No. 60

By-law No. A.-8683-44 - A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 10th day of February 2026. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 61

By-law No. A.-8684-45 - A by-law to approve the Ontario Transfer Payment Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of the Solicitor General and The Corporation of the City of London for the Fire Protection Grant and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (2.5/2/CPSC)

Bill No. 62

By-law No. A.-8685-46 - A by-law to approve and authorize the execution of the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement CBR-23-0154 between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and The Corporation of the City of London. (2.2/3/ICSC)

Bill No. 63

By-law No. A.-8686-47 - A by-law to approve the Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement between Imperial Oil Limited and The Corporation of the City of London and to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the Agreement. (2.3b/3/ICSC)

Bill No. 64

By-law No. A.-8687-48 - A by-law to approve an Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Thames Valley District School Board and the London Transit Commission for the Secondary School Student Transit Pass Pilot Project. (2.3/3/SPPC)

Bill No. 65

By-law No. B-7-26003 - A by-law to amend By-law No. B-7 being “A By-law to provide for construction, demolition, change of use, occupancy permits, transfer of permits and inspections” to delete and replace Schedule “A” to update setting the annual fees. (Chief Building Official)

Bill No. 66

By-law No. C.P.-1512(fp)-49 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 3334 and 3354 Wonderland Road South. (3.5(a)(b)/3/PEC)

Bill No. 67

By-law No. C.P.-1512(fq)-50 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 5150 Wellington Road South. (3.11a/3/PEC)

Bill No. 68

By-law No. C.P.-1512(fr)-51 - A by-law to amend the Official Plan, The London Plan for the City of London, 2016 relating to 3680 Wonderland Road South. (3.12a/3/PEC)

Bill No. 69

By-law No. S.-6422-52 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Edgevalley Subdivision Phase 1, Plan 33M-757 – Stage 2)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 70

By-law No. S.-6423-53 - A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Marconi Court Subdivision, Plan 33M-809)  (Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure)

Bill No. 71

By-law No. S.-6424-54 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Commissioners Road West, west of Westmount Crescent)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 72

By-law No. S.-6425-55 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Ashland Avenue, north of Dundas Street; and as widening to Dundas Street, east of McCormick Boulevard)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 73

By-law No. S.-6426-56 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, east of Ashland Avenue)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 74

By-law No. S.-6427-57 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, west of Burbrook Place; and as widening to Dundas Street, east of Burbrook Place)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 75

By-law No. S.-6428-58 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, east of Egerton Street; and as widening to Egerton Street, south of Dundas Street) (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 76

By-law No. S.-6429-59 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Dundas Street, west of Nightingale Street; as widening to Dundas Street, east of Nightingale Street; as widening to Dundas Street, east of Eleanor Street; and as widening to Dundas Street, west of Eleanor Street)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 77

By-law No. S.-6430-60 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Highbury Avenue North, north of King Street)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 78

By-law No. S.-6431-61 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Mornington Avenue, south of Oxford Street East)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 79

By-law No. S.-6432-62 - A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway. (as widening to Woodhull Road, south of Elviage Drive)  (City Surveyor)

Bill No. 80

By-law No. Z.-1-263408 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 233 Cambridge Street. (3.2/3/PEC)

Bill No. 81

By-law No. Z.-1-263409 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 644-664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue. (3.3/3/PEC)

Bill No. 82

By-law No. Z.-1-263410 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of lands located at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent. (3.4/3/PEC)

Bill No. 83

By-law No. Z.-1-263411 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3334 and 3354 Wonderland Road South. (3.5c/3/PEC)

Bill No. 84

By-law No. Z.-1-263412 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 965 Adelaide Street South. (3.6/3/PEC)

Bill No. 85

By-law No. Z.-1-263413 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 68-76 Commissioners Road East. (3.7/3/PEC)

Bill No. 86

By-law No. Z.-1-263414 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 80 Commissioners Road East. (3.8/3/PEC)

Bill No. 87

By-law No. Z.-1-263415 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 610 Princess Avenue. (3.9/3/PEC)

Bill No. 88

By-law No. Z.-1-263416 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street. (3.10/3/PEC)

Bill No. 89

By-law No. Z.-1-263417 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 5150 Wellington Road South. (3.11b/3/PEC)

Bill No. 90

By-law No. Z.-1-263418 - A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 3680 Wonderland Road South. (3.12b/3/PEC)

Bill No. 91

REFERRED BACK - A by-law to amend C.P.-1545-41, being “A by-law to establish financial incentives for the Affordable Housing Community Improvement Project Area”. (2.4/3/SPPC)

Bill No. 92

By-law No. A.-8688-63 - A by-law to authorize and approve a Lease Extension and Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Westang Home Services, under numbered company 2162538 Ontario Inc., for Lease of the space located at 177-179 Dundas Street, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.1/3/ICSC)

Bill No. 93

By-law No. A.-8689-64 - A by-law to authorize and approve an Option Agreement Easement between The Corporation of the City of London and The Hydro One Networks Inc., with respect to the City owned land containing approximately 0.12 acres, more or less, over a portion of lands legally described as Original Road Allowance Between Town of Westminster (County of Middlesex) and Township of Yarmouth (County of Elgin) To the Centre Line, Now Known As “Willsie Bourne” By By-law 870207, Abutting Lots 6 to 7, Concession 8 Town of Westminster Designated Part 1 in 33R-7544; Closed by By-law 795345 As Amended By 798677 in the City of London, County of Middlesex; and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (6.2/3/ICSC)

Bill No. 94

By-law No. CPOL.-38(c)-65 - A by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-38-234, as amended, being the “City of London Community Grants Policy” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”. (4.1/2/CPSC)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 9:03 PM.

Votes

41 substantive votes at this meeting (25 contested, 16 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

8.1. 3rd Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee

That the 3rd Report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 6 (2.3).

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.1.6. (2.3) Sunningdale Road West Improvements – Pipeline Decommissioning and New Pipeline Agreement (Relates to Bill No. 63)

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to an oil pipeline relocation agreement with Imperial Oil for the Sunningdale Road Improvements from Wonderland Road to Blackwater Road: a) the financing for this Ag…

✅ Motion Passed (10 to 5)

View roll call

Yea (10): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (5): Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.2. 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

That the 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.2), 6 (2.3), 8 (4.1), and 9 (4.2).

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

That the request for quarterly reports submitted by all service providers to the Community and Protective Services Committee on a quarterly basis BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for clarification of the service providers included in the quarterly…

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

That part a) of the motion BE AMENDED as follows: i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a one-year contract renewal for the procurement framework with an option to renew for one-year; At 2:27 PM, Councillor S. Lehman leaves the meeting. At 2:29 PM, Councillor S. Lehman enters the mee…

✅ Motion Passed (8 to 7) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (8): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (7): Hadleigh McAlister, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

ii) that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review existing housing stability contracts to assess alignment with current operational needs, including transitions from emergency and highly supportive environments, and to report back to Council on any recommended amendments or procurement actions …

❌ Motion Failed (7 to 8) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (7): Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (8): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

a) the proposed system transformation approach and multi-year Housing Stability Services procurement framework as outlined in the December 1, 2025 staff report, BE ENDORSED; At 3:37 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson leaves the meeting. At 3:38 PM, Councillor S. Stevenson enters the meeting.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 1)

View roll call

Yea (14): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (1): Susan Stevenson

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a one-year contract renewal for the procurement framework with an option to renew for one-year;

❌ Motion Failed (7 to 8) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (7): Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (8): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.2.5. (2.2) Good Neighbour Agreements

That the balance of item 5, clause 2.2, as amended, BE APPROVED. At 3:47 PM, Councillor P. Cuddy leaves the meeting.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

8.2.6. (2.3) System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options

That, the staff report dated January 26, 2026 with respect to the System Area Update: Supports for Those Living Unsheltered: Basic Needs and Pathway Options, BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee for Civic Administration to provide a report back on the…

✅ Motion Passed (8 to 7) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (8): Hadleigh McAlister, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (7): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza

8.2.8. (4.1) Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles

That the motion BE AMENDED to read as follows: That the attached by-law being a by-law to amend By-law No. CPOL.-38-234, as amended, to limit the City of London Community Grants Annual Program to the capital funding category, as defined in the City of London Community Grants Policy for 2026 and 2…

✅ Motion Passed (10 to 5)

View roll call

Yea (10): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (5): Hadleigh McAlister, Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira

8.2.8. (4.1) Allocating the City of London Community Grants Annual Stream to Fund Capital Projects Only in the 2026 and 2027 Budget Cycles

That item 8, clause 4.1, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (11 to 4)

View roll call

Yea (11): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (4): Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira

8.2.9. (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows: b) ACTIVATE the Tier 3 Surge Response with the funding to be pulled from the Social Services Reserve Fund up to a maximum of $290,000 whenever it is -15 OR -20 with windchill; That part e) BE AMENDED to add a new part vi) to read as follows: e) INVESTIG…

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 1)

View roll call

Yea (14): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (1): Sam Trosow

8.2.9. (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

That part b) BE FURTHER AMENDED: or when Environment Canada issues an extreme weather alert (yellow, orange, red) with respect to ice.

❌ Motion Failed (6 to 9) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (6): Hadleigh McAlister, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira

Nay (9): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

8.2.9. (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

That item 9, clause 4.2, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.2.9. (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

That pursuant to section 11.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 1)

View roll call

Yea (14): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (1): Sam Trosow

8.2.9. (4.2) Temporary Warming Centres

That the Council recess at this time, for 60 minutes.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3. 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

That the 3rd Report of the Planning and Environment Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 6 (3.2), 7 (3.3), 8 (3.3), 9 (3.5), 11 (3.7), 12 (3.8), 14 (3.10), 15 (3.11), and 16 (3.12).

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.6. (3.2) 233 Cambridge Street - Z-25155 (Relates to Bill No. 80)

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Distinctive Homes London Ltd. (c/o Zelinka Priamo Ltd.) relating to the property located at 233 Cambridge Street, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff r…

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 3)

View roll call

Yea (12): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (3): Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, David Ferreira

8.3.7. (3.3) 644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153 (Relates to Bill No. 81)

That part c) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part iv): iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.7. (3.3) 644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153 (Relates to Bill No. 81)

That the motion BE AMENDED in part c) to request the Site Plan Approval Authority to consider the following design issues through the site plan process: v) provide enhanced all-season landscaping, fencing up to 2.1 metres, and setbacks to surface parking beyond that required by the Site Plan Cont…

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.7. (3.3) 644 - 664 Southdale Road East and 821 Nadine Avenue - Z-25153 (Relates to Bill No. 81)

That item 7, clause 3.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (13 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (13): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Steve Hillier

Nay (2): Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.3.8. (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

iii. Building Height (maximum): 24.5 metres;

❌ Motion Failed (2 to 13)

View roll call

Yea (2): Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow

Nay (13): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

8.3.8. (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

vi. Rooftop amenity shall be prohibited; and

✅ Motion Passed (11 to 4)

View roll call

Yea (11): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (4): Peter Cuddy, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.3.8. (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

vi) the sidewalk and/or access on/through 679 Dunboyne Crescent from the apartment complex development at 767 Fanshawe Park Road East to Dunboyne Crescent shall be prohibited.

✅ Motion Passed (10 to 5)

View roll call

Yea (10): Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (5): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.3.8. (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

that part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to include the following wording: Incorporate transom-style window treatments for all habitable units on the west side yard of the apartment building, designed with a narrow vertical dimension, to allow daylighting while minimizing potential privacy impacts o…

✅ Motion Passed (13 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (13): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Peter Cuddy, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (2): Shawn Lewis, Susan Stevenson

8.3.8. (3.4) 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent - Z-25151 (Relates to Bill No. 82)

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that pursuant to subsection 34(17) of the Planning Act, no further notice be given; That item 8, clause 3.4, as amended, BE APPROVED;

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 1)

View roll call

Yea (14): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (1): David Ferreira

8.3.9. (3.5) 3334-3354 Wonderland Road South - OZ-25140 (Relates to Bill No. 66 and No. 83)

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 111473 Ontario Limited (c/o MHBC Planning) relating to the property located at 3334 & 3354 Wonderland Road South: a) the proposed attached by-law BE INTR…

✅ Motion Passed (11 to 4)

View roll call

Yea (11): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (4): Sam Trosow, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, David Ferreira

8.3.11. (3.7) 68-76 Commissioners Road East - 25147 (Relates to Bill No. 85)

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part iv): iv) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.11. (3.7) 68-76 Commissioners Road East - 25147 (Relates to Bill No. 85)

That Item 11, clause 3.7, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.12. (3.8) 80 Commissioners Rd East - Z-25146 (Relates to Bill No. 86)

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to add the following new part v): v) implement London Plan Policy 399_ in regard to tree replacement at a rate of 1 tree per 10 cm DBH of tree removals, as much as practical.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.12. (3.8) 80 Commissioners Rd East - Z-25146 (Relates to Bill No. 86)

That item 12, clause 3.8, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.3.14. (3.10) 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street - Z-25148 (Relates to Bill No. 88)

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 732 Wellington Street Inc. & London Bridge Childcare Services relating to the properties located at 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly Street, the propose…

✅ Motion Passed (13 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (13): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (2): Sam Trosow, David Ferreira

8.3.15. (3.11) 5150 Wellington Road South - OZ-25135 (Relates to Bill No. 67 and No. 89)

Notwithstanding the staff recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of the Diocese of London in Ontario relating to the property located at 5150 Wellington Road South: a) the pro…

✅ Motion Passed (11 to 4)

View roll call

Yea (11): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Steve Hillier

Nay (4): Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.3.16. (3.12) 3680 Wonderland Road - OZ-25128 (Relates to Bill No. 68 and No. 90)

Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of 1001320818 Ontario Inc. (c/o Miami Developments) relating to the property located at 3680 Wonderland Road South: a) the proposed attached by-law BE APPRO…

✅ Motion Passed (13 to 2)

View roll call

Yea (13): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira, Steve Hillier

Nay (2): Sam Trosow, Anna Hopkins

8.4. 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

That the 3rd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE APPROVED, with the exception of items 5 (2.4) and 6 (2.4).

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.4.5. (2.3) Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 64)

That part c) BE AMENDED to read as follows: c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to apply the required financing to a limit of $880,000 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for the costs of the Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program for September 2026 to June 2028, as required; and

✅ Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Unanimous (14-0)

8.4.5. (2.3) Secondary School Transit Pass Pilot Program Update (Relates to Bill No. 64)

That item 5, clause 2.3, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (9 to 5)

View roll call

Yea (9): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Elizabeth Peloza, Steve Hillier

Nay (5): Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, David Ferreira

Absent (1): Skylar Franke

8.4.6. (2.4) Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED by deleting the words “the term of the loan is extended from five years to ten years” and substituting “and be further revised to a loan term of five years,” it being noted the attached proposed by-law, as further revised, will be brought forward in Stage XII…

❌ Motion Failed (7 to 8) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (7): Josh Morgan, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (8): Hadleigh McAlister, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

8.4.6. (2.4) Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the referral be amended to read as follows: That the Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, in consultation with private sector partners, options for t…

✅ Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Unanimous (15-0)

8.4.6. (2.4) Mayoral Direction 2026-001: Creation of an Affordable Home Ownership Incentive Program

That the referral, as amended, BE APPROVED. At 8:42 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Deputy Mayor S. Lewis in the Chair.  At 8:45 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

✅ Motion Passed (12 to 3)

View roll call

Yea (12): Josh Morgan, Hadleigh McAlister, Shawn Lewis, Peter Cuddy, Susan Stevenson, Jerry Pribil, Sam Trosow, Corrine Rahman, Steve Lehman, Anna Hopkins, Paul Van Meerbergen, Steve Hillier

Nay (3): Skylar Franke, Elizabeth Peloza, David Ferreira

---

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 (8 hours, 23 minutes)

Okay, please be seated. All right, so this is the third meeting of municipal council in this session. It’s February 10th, I’m gonna start by reading and land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples.

We honor respect the history languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the trees that are specific to this area, two row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Haudenosaunee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, and Key Treaty of 1790, London Township Treaty of 1796, and the Huron track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique cultures, languages, and customs. City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for any meeting upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda at London.ca 519-661-2489, extension 2425. And with that, it brings me to our national anthem singer. Sasha Kristoff, a singer and musician who grew up in London, is a singer and musician who grew up in London. Sasha is the lead vocalist and keyboardist for Awakened Dreaming, an alternative rock band that has performed across Ontario and beyond, including twice at the Canadian National Exhibition in Toronto and at venues in New York City.

With over 175,000 streams on Spotify and deep roots in our local music community, Sasha continues to call Southwestern Ontario home. Please rise and join me in welcoming Sasha who will now perform the national anthem for us. ♪ Oh Canada ♪ ♪ The home and native land ♪ ♪ True patriot love ♪ ♪ In us coming ♪ ♪ With glowing hearts we see ♪ ♪ The rise are true, nor strong and free ♪ ♪ From far and wide ♪ ♪ Oh Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ God keep our land glorious and free ♪ ♪ Oh Canada ♪ ♪ We stand on guard for thee ♪ ♪ We stand on guard ♪ It turns us to the first item of the agenda, disclosures of any pecuniary interests. I look to colleagues for disclosures, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. I’d like to clear conflict of interest on the school bus pass pilot project as my partner works for the school board. Okay, I’ll look to others for any disclosures. Okay, seeing none, we have no matters to review that we’re considered in confidence recession for public.

That brings us to council and closed session. We have five items in the regular agenda for closed session. I look for a motion to move into closed session. Councillor Van Merebergen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy.

We’ll open that for voting in the system. Mr. Purple, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, colleagues, we’ll be moving to committee room five. For members of the public, we’ll do our closed session. We’ll return as soon as we’re finished. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

Okay, I’m gonna just gonna loop back in the agenda. I skipped over number two, which is recognitions. I wasn’t sure if we had any, but actually Councillor Trosta has recognition today. So we’ll loop back to number two.

And Councillor Trosta, I’ll turn it over to you for the recognition you’d like to make. Thank you very much. Certainly through the chair, I’m going to be recognizing Mark Alexander Todie. Mark was the president of the St.

George Grobner neighborhood association, and that’s how I know him. He passed away at the age of 55 at St. Joseph Hospice on January 6th. His interests were very broad and wide ranging.

He was a runner, actor, poet, audio file, lifelong Mac user, historian, astronomer, and policy analyst. His contributions to astronomy were recognized by the International Astronomical Union with the naming of the asteroid 178008 Mark Todie in his honor. He earned a BA and received a gold medal in English and anthropology. He went on to complete an honor B.S.

in computer science in 1997 and 2002. He entered the doctoral program at Carlton and earned his PhD in cognitive science, focusing his dissertation on change blindness. He also edited the first book on how collective intelligence can help address global challenges. He served as the curator of the Cronent Observatory and as an adjunct assistant professor at the University of Western Ontario, where he cultivated a deep interest in material culture of astronomical instruments, models, and art.

During the time that he was the curator, he designed three period rooms as permanent exhibits and facilitated numerous exhibitions and talks. He organized an evening of historical stargazing on the Eldenhouse lawn. He was also very active in the Eldenhouse, where more than 50 visitors viewed Jupiter’s moons through replicas of historical telescopes. And he later co-edited a cosmic treasury seeing the skies through poets’ eyes.

He held a longstanding fascination with the history of London, Ontario and conducted extensive works of oral history. It’s specifically in the neighborhoods around Oxford Enrichment, which is where he lived and he served as the president for many years. He was active and at the time of his death, he was the president of the Neighborhood Association in that area. Worked as a senior Mac specialist in IT services at Western and later held roles as the postdoctoral fellow at the Valcili, School of International Affairs.

He also served as an adjunct professor of history at UWL. So, he was a science writer for the Center for Planetary Science and Exploration in partnership with the Canadian Space Agency. Mark’s intellect, creativity and generosity of spirit touched every aspect of his life. He will be profoundly missed by all who knew him.

I was privileged to attend a very well-attended visitation in his honor at Harris Funeral Home on Saturday, January 17th, where I was just so impressed with the breadth of people from different walks of life who were there to honor Mark and he will be very much missed. So, thank you for hearing me. Thank you very much, Councillor Joseph. Any other recognitions?

Okay, seeing that and then jumping back to where we should be on the agenda, we’re actually at confirmation and signing of previous minutes. We have the second minutes from the January 20th meeting. I’ll look for a mover and a seconder on the minutes. Councillor van Mereberg and Councillor Frank.

Seconder, any discussion on the minutes? Okay, we’ll open that for a moment. Councillor Charlton. Noted, thank you, closing the vote.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, on to communications and petitions of which there are a fair number on the regular and added agenda. We prepared a consolidated motion for all of those that refer them to the relevant points in the agenda for all of the items, all of them have agenda items before us. So I’ll look for a motion to refer all of those pieces to the relevant parts of the agenda.

Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, with that, we’re on to motions to which notice was given. There are none submitted, so we’re on to reports. We’ll start with the third report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. Turn it over to Chair, Councillor Corinne-Ramin for presentation of that report.

Thank you and through you. So I am looking to put forward the third report of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. I’ve been asked to pull item six, 2.3, but just looking around the room, see if there’s any added to their pull requests. So I’m happy to put a motion on the floor for items one through five and number seven.

Okay, that’s one through five and item seven. Everybody’s good with that grouping. Okay, that’s on the floor by the chair. Any discussion on those items?

All right, seeing none, we can open those for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, item six, 2.3, is this Thunningdale Road West Improvement, the pipeline decommissioning a new pipeline agreement.

And as it relates to bill number 63, I’ve been asked to put this item on the floor separately. I’ll move that right now, reluctantly. Okay, that’s on the floor moved. Any discussion on this?

Councillor Troceau? Thank you very much. I just wanted to very briefly rise to state my opposition to this motion. I don’t think that’s a good use of taxpayers’ money.

At this point, I’m not going to go into a detailed question and answer about why we didn’t know about this before or what the alternatives would be if this didn’t pass. ‘Cause I know that there was a full discussion about this committee. I did just want to get up and say that I can’t support this. So thank you very much and I’ll leave it at that for today.

Okay, any other discussion? Okay, this is moved by the chair. We’ll open this for voting. Close in the vote.

Motion carries 10 to five. Thank you, that concludes my report. All right, one report down. Good, good pace so far.

We’ll see how Councilor Plaza does. We’ll go to the second report of the Community and Protective Services Committee and turn it over to the chair, Plaza. Thanks. I’ll set expectations now.

Community and Protective Services had a six and a half hour meeting on this item. I think we’ll be a little bit quicker tonight. I’ll note from conversation with the mayor, anticipated dinner break time around 5 p.m. I know I’ve been given notice to pull five and six as requested by Councillor Stevenson.

Number eight’s being pulled. It failed on a tie vote at committee. And number nine’s being pulled as it had language that needs to be cleaned up for staff before they can implement what we intend. I’m not aware of any others.

So I’ll look for you to Mr. Mayor if there’s others. Other items. So right now five, six, eight, and nine are separate, okay?

That looks good, I’ll turn it back to you, Councillor Plaza. Thank you, I will put all remaining items excluding five, six, eight, and nine on the floor. All right, that’s on the floor. Any discussion on those items?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Plaza.

Thank you, I will put five being 2.2, the good neighbor agreement on the floor. I recognize that there was 52 public letters on our agenda as well. And pulled by Councillor Stevenson, but I recognized Councillor Trousa who had something on the added agenda as well dealing with this in a robust discussion at committee. Okay, this is on the floor.

I’ll look to speakers to this. Are you worshiped just a point of order? Councillor Palosa referenced the communication from Councillor Trussell, but I think that was on a different item. Yes, it was.

Okay, perfect, so I don’t want for later then. Yep, so I don’t see any discussion on this. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like to move an amendment.

I’ve provided it to the clerk. It’s regarding, it’s the one that was signed by the four of us on the letter which asked for the quarterly reports that the agencies submit to civic administration be brought to committee on a quarterly basis. Can read it out if you’d like. Yeah, I think that’d be helpful just so we can make sure we get exactly the part that you wanna put on the floor today.

The civic administration be directed to provide the quarterly reports submitted by all service providers to the community and protective services committee on a quarterly basis. I’m gonna look for a seconder while we get that language on the screen for that. Deputy Mayor Lewis is willing to second but we’ll get it on screen exactly as you’ve described but if you wanna, you could do debate now if you’d like while we get that up. I’m gonna wait.

And there’s any other speakers to this and we’re just on the amendment, just the amendment that Councillor Stevenson mentioned. Go ahead Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. So I’ll just be really brief.

I’m willing to second this and support it because I think the reports are being generated anyway and being submitted to staff that it really is not an issue to have them attached to a corporate community and protective services committee report. I recognize that there may be some information in some of those potentially that may come in camera rather than in public but I think as a funder, having those reports come to us is not an unreasonable request so that we can see what’s going on. Okay, any other speakers to this amendment? Just on the amendment?

Okay, Councillor Trussell on the amendment. Thank you to the chair, my, for the mayor, my question is if the council wanted to see these reports, even without this motion, would we be able to come in and see them in your office and staff’s office? Thank you and through the chair, they’re not public documents, so the normal procedure would be that an individual council that wanted to see them would make an amphibious request for this. Is there something about the nature to continue through the chair?

Is there something about the nature of these documents that would come within one of the exceptions to the Records Act that would make these not public? Thank you and through you, I would have to look at them to see if there is personal information contained in each record before they would, in order to determine whether it could be a closed session versus an open session matter. Thank you, I guess what bothers me about this process, including the motion, which I thought maybe was unnecessary, but also the response that I’m getting from staff is, it seems to me as if there’s gotta be a space in between something being absolutely not circulated and you have to go through the process of doing a FIPA request and then there could be all sorts of objections and reductions and it could take months, something in between that and it being automatically sent to every committee ‘cause it doesn’t sound to me as if this is the kind of document that could easily be sent as a matter of course to every committee regularly without staff having to go through a lot of work. At the same time, I do not think that members of this council should be forced to have to do FIPA requests and even if something is subject to one of the recognized privileges, there must be a way to get this on to a closed session or an in camera, no cameras allowed meeting and staff.

So I’m troubled by this and I see that we’re getting a lot of requests for let’s bring this regularly to staff report, to council and that could really proliferate and end up being a lot of extra and unnecessary work for staff. There’s a certain amount of what we delegate to staff that I believe is truly operational in terms of the detail and I would rather have the reports that come to me as a member of CAPS deal with more policy items but I’m wondering if staff could help me out on this a little bit because I’m very torn, I’m very torn on this motion and I wanna say I don’t think it’s frivolous. I understand why it’s being brought but I don’t, I’m uncomfortable supporting it because of the burden that it might create and I’m really unhappy with the response that you just do a fipper request if you’re not getting what you want because I think there has to be a better way. So I think there’s a number of things here, I’m gonna go to the solicitor, I think there’s a couple pieces here, I just wanna clarify.

So maybe you can articulate the difference between an individual counselor asking for a document and municipal council which has its own legal authority as a whole asking for a document to become before council which staff would vet whether that is a public or confidential document and would land it in the appropriate spot because I hear a couple of counselors who asked us, I know there’s been some questions in the public too about the differences in those processes. So if you could articulate that in the response to the counselor’s question, I think it would help create some clarity for members of council and the public as well. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. So that’s really what the issue is when individual counselors are seeking documents, they are in the same position as any other individual member of the public.

And so that is why the appropriate procedure is to go through MFIPA. And that is because the Freedom of Information Act requires an institution such as the city to ensure that there is no improper disclosure of an individual’s private information. So we need to make sure that the corporation as a whole is complying with our obligations under that act. Council as a whole can provide direction to have documents produced.

We would still need to go as staff and do a review of the documents to make sure that we’re not disclosing personal information or confidential commercial information. If that was the case, then that information would be into a closed session rather than an open session. Hope that. Councilor Schosse.

All else being equal, I prefer to go into closed session and have to do a FIPA request. I believe as a counselor that making a FIPA request puts me in a very difficult and untenable and potentially conflictual situation. It’s easy enough to do a FIPA request. But the fact of the matter is if you do a FIPA request and you don’t like the disposition and it goes to the commissioner, then you’re in a situation where even though it’s an administrative body and it’s not subject to the rules of court, you have a sitting city counselor versus the corporation.

And I think that this staff should be going out of their way to avoid situations where we’re put in that situation. Furthermore, if you’re still aggrieved after the decision from the commissioner comes out, you may seek judicial review. So I would never ever want to file a FIPA request unless I was satisfied that I’d be able to, in good faith, see the whole process through. And that includes going to the commissioner for an administrative mediation, which is how they run it, but also potentially judicial review.

So I get very uneasy when I hear, well, do a FIPA request. I don’t think we should have to do FIPA requests. And I guess the legal question I want to ask, and I know this is going to be a long meeting and I don’t want to have to go into closed session again. So I’m hoping this could be answered from a policy point of view, is if a counselor is an aggrieved FIPA requester and it goes to administrative tribunal or ultimately judicial review, does that create an unacceptable conflict for a member of this board, of the city council?

Thank you and through you. So a counselor acting in their individual capacity has the same rights under that act as any other member of the public, which is to take it to an appeal if they wish. So whether that would be a conflict under the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, that would be up to that individual counselor to make that decision for themselves. That’s a true side, you got 30 seconds left.

Okay, I want to take issue with the characterization that we’re like any other member of the public, as part of our role as counselors here, is to act as a fiduciary for the corporation. So I really would reject the we’re like any other citizen. But I guess I’m out of time. I don’t feel my questions have been answered and I was still very uncomfortable doing a FIPA request or asking one of my colleagues to do a FIPA request, knowing how at the end of the process, how contentious it could get.

I was up. - Thank you. Okay, I added myself to the list ‘cause I want to provide some clarification to this. I’ll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Go ahead, Mayor Morgan. Yes, and I’ll go through you to our staff to confirm what I’m about to say for accuracy. I don’t disagree with Councillor Trossau’s concern that that’s the way the legislation treats a member of council, but that doesn’t change the fact that the legislation doesn’t actually prescribe special powers to individual members of council. In fact, there are many things that individual members of council do not have authority to do on their own independent of council as a legislative body.

So as the solicitor said, council has the authority to say bring forward these documentations, which is exactly what the council could put the motion on the floor is doing because she doesn’t want to go through an FIPA process as an individual. If you want the information just for yourself only as an individual council without your colleagues seeing it, yeah, you’re treated like any other member of the public to access that information because the provincial legislation doesn’t prescribe you any special legislative powers to do so different from any member of the public. Council as a body has its authority to bring forward a request of civic administration to bring documents forward and civic administration will ensure that council as an entity is complying with the legislation on what should be in public session and what should be in closed session. So I just want to ask through the deputy mayor to our staff, is that an accurate description on why there is some tension here?

Ms. Pollard. Thank you and through you, that’s a good summary of the legislation. We have to follow the legislation if there’s a different wish then it’s not something that municipality can change because it’s a provincial piece of legislation.

Mayor Morgan. Yeah, and so rather than dwelling on this ‘cause I think it’s gonna be a long meeting, I can agree with the councilors who think this should be different in the future. And maybe individual councilors should have some special standing at the legislation. It’s not the way it exists today for any member of council.

And this is certainly something that we could consider asking the province to change and updates to municipal act and relevant legislation in the future. But right now, the authority of us in the majority of council as a whole, not individual councilors as individual entities, they are treated under the legislation as the same rights as any other citizens. So I respect and will support the councilor’s request through this process, which is the right way to get the information before council with the proper vetting of staff, rather than as an individual having to go through an infrastructure process. Because that’s what the legislation would prescribe us to have to do to access the information.

And all members of council will get that information at the same time in the same way. And I think that’s a fair approach. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you, noting Councilor Palosa is next on the speaker’s list.

Councilor Palosa. Thank you, through you, Mr. Mayor to staff. Could staff give us an idea of how many, as it says, all service providers, how many providers and roughly how many pages would each document be anticipated to be?

Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you. For a point of clarity to the quarterly reports that are submitted are financial quarterlies.

So it’s all the financial information. There would be close to two dozen quarterly reports that our teams receive. That’s not including any associated with portable benefits and other direct service programs like that, but on a typical basis, it’s close to two dozen quarterly reports. We did receive the quarterly reports, January 30th.

The team is still in the process of combing through them, reviewing them, and that’ll still take us some time. So there’s just a little bit of context in terms of scope. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I appreciate it when there’s two dozen. My question also entailed how many pages roughly are each one? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Your Worship. It all depends on the size of the agency or the contracts that are being reported on quarterly. Some might have, it’s all through Excel. They’re financial.

So you would have somewhere between one to two tabs to six to eight tabs, depending. Councillor Plaza. Thank you. That’s the chair at caps.

I appreciate what we’re trying to get to. I would say I found this last week and a half, two weeks, a little bit difficult when one member of council has information as they obtained it a certain way and it did not come through committee. Makes it hard to respond to some questions and understand the background information until that’s shared. My primary concern still lies in the fact that we’re only asking these providers of this service for this information.

We’re not asking it for road painting, tree planting and realizing that it could be up to two dozen organizations and reports coming of finances, potentially being 192 pages of just the timing in which staff can process it and get it to committee and the types of committee conversation we might have of deep dives. Having seen the last week and a bit of just going back to organizations looking for very specific information knowing that we’re going as individual counselors and many of us as individual counselors to those providers of just the time it’s taking up from them delivering services to answer our questions and realizing that in my opinion, I would see chances are that when those reports hit the committee cycle that those service providers would want to come as delegates to be there to speak to the reports and when we have questions, should things have been in the media or misrepresented or even questions asked in media stories on them. So my concern lies in how that information and the conversation’s going to happen after that that of how long committee can go, six and a half hours was not an efficient meeting. And as we see the galleries for a lot of community concern about this, that’s where I don’t mind getting information and my question is what are we going to actually do with it and how much service provider time is it going to take administratively answering all these questions that we’re likely going to have versus doing the work they were contracted to do and those contracts do not currently contain the administrative hours that we’re going to be taking up from those services.

Councilor Roman. Thank you and through you. So I just want to be clear about what we’re asking for and what the motion reads as. So right now it just says all service providers.

I’m assuming that we’re talking about everybody that’s mentioned in the December procurement framework that be clarified by the mover of the motion who is the server service providers that are being outlined. Yeah and I’ll just pour staff for them to respond to that. It’s being an amendment to add a D which refers to that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report data January 26th related to the housing stability framework and the good neighbor clause. So that’s what it’s a reference to to help you answer but that would include.

Oh sorry, go ahead, Councilor Roman. Thank you. No, I’m asking the mover of the motion because the motion connects to the December to first 2025 report. The good neighbor report was supplementary to that report.

So what I want clarification on is exactly who we’re asking for this information and I want it delineated which it should be in a clear motion. Yeah, so it’s not delineated in a clear motion. You can see the motion before us as adding a D and so I mean, I can ask the council what our intention is but what really matters is how our staff are gonna interpret and operationalize it because the motion does not list any specifics there. So does that.

Thank you, no, I’d like the councilor to name it. It’s the councilor’s motion and I do want to ask staff to make sure that there’s clarity in that afterwards but I think it’s important because we wanna make sure that the message mashes what staff interpret it to be and I want that to be very clear. Sure, so the council is willing to answer. I’m happy to go to you.

Yeah, and I’m happy to answer as the councilor said, I think it’s pretty obvious that this is tied in with the framework that we were brought and the good neighbor piece is called the neighbor but we’re talking a lot about a lot more than that here today. So it’s all of the ones in that framework which is about $22 million a year, I believe. That’s a ramen. Thank you and through you.

That doesn’t answer my question which was to name them. Councilor, I don’t know if you have the list in front of you or not but that’s the ask again, you don’t have to respond to another councilor’s question but I’ll see if you’re— It’s readily available to the councilor if she wanted to know. Okay, Councilor Ramen. Thank you.

So I do see clarification and the reason being is there’s an exhaustive list of service providers that are listed in the December 1st report which I have read extensively and I’m very aware of the numbers but in each of the section of blocks contained in the report it has different service providers that are mentioned. When you look at the conversation that was taking place about the good neighbor agreement it wasn’t about all those providers. So which one is it? And that’s why I think we need clarification.

If we don’t have that clarification, this to me doesn’t need to be dealt with today. This could be sent back to CAPS and this could be dealt with just I mean on the reporting piece so that all of the organizations are delineated. Otherwise we’re speculating. I don’t know why we would have all of those organizations.

I can see a number that makes sense because they do connect to the good neighbor agreement conversation but others that are in here doesn’t make any sense. Yeah, I think that we have to clarify the direction. So I would ask that the mover and the second are clarify the direction further or I can’t support it when it’s not clearly defined. This isn’t something that we’re going to need tomorrow so it can come back to committee which is where we should do the work which is where we should provide more instruction on what exactly we are looking for.

Yeah, so Councilor, I’ll speak from procedural standpoint on this, certainly appreciate your desire to get that information. Chairing the meeting, I have to deal with the motion that’s put on the floor. There’s a moved and seconded motion that has the language in it as was read out and if it’s going to be changed it needs to be amended. Otherwise, if we pass this staff will determine what it means based on how it is attached to the current report.

And so I understand why you probably got questions but your option would be amended vote against it for a committee, like there’s lots of options but I don’t think asking question of the Council to list the names is is going to get us anywhere because that’s the names are not in the motion so it’s still going to be what staff interpreted as based on how this is attached from the overall council direction. Councillor Rhonda. Thank you and through you. So I’ll refer it back to committee just part D and that’s just this amendment and it’s for clarification because as we know words matter.

Okay, so I’m going to allow that referral because the rest of the clause is going to stand on their own as they came through committee. Committee can have a discussion about this and provide clarification. So it can be referred to committee. I’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for the referral of just the amendment on the floor to the committee for further discussion.

Councillor, you’re willing to second. Okay, so now referral takes precedent. Referral is on the floor and the referral is just related. The amendment is not a referral of every other matter.

It’s just a referral. The amendment does the council articulated in that motion. We’ll get the language up on that but I’ll add to start speakers list on the referral now. Councillor Raman.

Thank you and on the referral. I just want to be clear. If I’m going to receive information in closed session because it has to be redacted, I want to ensure that the information that I’m receiving in closed session is information that’s pertinent to my decision making. So clarifying what exactly it is that we’re looking for is really important.

There are a number of agencies that are listed within the context of that report. And I just want to make sure that the information that we receive in closed session also doesn’t bind the discussion that we have. What that could mean in my view is that all of a sudden we’re taking these quarterly reports into a closed camera meeting and we have to be very prescriptive of what we can discuss then from those quarterly reports because that is public information as well. So I want to make sure that we have a clear understanding of what it is we’re asking for.

We could end up in situations where all of a sudden we’re having conversations that relate more to public matters in closed session. And as you can see with a full gallery, people are very interested. We want to have these conversations in public. Okay, on the referral as the speakers, Councillor Ploza, then Hopkins.

Thank you. I guess mine’s just regarding intent or procedural realizing this motion I believe could have brought been brought as a standalone motion, direct two caps on its own. My only concern, well, I got many, but is it going to come back as a standalone piece versus this good neighbor agreement that’s under? ‘Cause every, it seems that there’s a tendency that went relates to a prior report it come out of, that whole report inherently is in the background and procedurally in scope to keep doing amendments and other work on things.

And we’ve already heard that that’s also informed by the December report. So in, I’m just looking for confirmation or agreement that it would be more of a standalone piece that the good neighbor piece and the background reports don’t keep getting dragged along and back up through council through numerous cycles. It is the referral to provide direction on the quarterly reports that would be referred to the committee. The committee could determine as is, I think the councilors intent, the scope of what that means and it would be the committee determines.

All the other pieces will still have a chance to vote on unless that gets referred to, but they’re still sitting there today as the committee anticipated. But I think part of the challenge here is the committee would have to determine that scope and then send something back to council. I mean, the committee can debate it whatever way they want, but what they’ll have is this amendment before them to determine scope. Okay.

Thank you. As chair of CAHPS, just for pull disclosure, I will deem that to be just looking for those service providers of the exact reports we’re looking at, not going back into the neighborhood agreement of good neighbors and everything else. Just laying that out there if that’s not intent of others in this chamber right now have it made ‘cause that’s gonna be my interpretation as the chair of community protective services. Thank you, councilor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, your worship and to the chair. That’s exactly why I support it in seconding the motion. I think we need clarification. I understand the movement of the motion needs the information.

I think going to in favor is probably not the right way to do it. But if I’m going to support something and I’m unclear here at council, understanding exactly what we’re doing as it’s tied to another item here, I wanna know exactly what we’re asking. So I am definitely supporting that referral just based on the clarification that I need to support something like this. Other speakers to just the referral.

Go ahead, councilor Ferra. Thank you, sorry, to clarify this again. So the recruitment framework from December 1st is not attached to this referral. So if this referral goes in, it’s a standalone item that will come to CAHPS in a future meeting.

Just to clarify that. And in addition, because I did hear the answer, but I just need to make sure the procurement framework, the good neighbor idea that was come forward and we saw the committee recommendation. This will be separate from that, is that correct? Yes, so this was an amendment to be added to what the committee’s recommendation is.

The committee’s recommendation is still there and we’ll be dealt with after this referral. If the referral passes, it’ll be, that item will be gone. We’re back to the committee’s recommendation. If the referral fails, we’ll be back to addressing the actual motion of the amendment before us.

When this is referred to committee, the committee can decide what to do with it. It’s asking for listed quarterly reports. I anticipate there’ll be a discussion about what quarterly reports we’re getting. Like, that’s what the committee’s gonna have to discuss.

That’s what the council is referring it to do because that’s what the clarification being set. Now, I will say the committee debate can go whatever way the committee debates it. It will have this item before it and it will engage in it. But council will have made decisions on these other items if we proceed and ask the committee’s recommendation today of which decided matters of council and other things would apply.

So this is about quarterly reports being referred to the committee and that’s the process we’ll go through. I hope that provides a clarification. Thank you, it does. Well, I guess we can have this conversation at committee.

Like, I wouldn’t be willing to support the motion as it is. There’s not clarity here as Council Raman has pointed out and it’s something that this type of work, especially at council, is not the appropriate place to do it. But I guess we could have that conversation at committee. I do have my reservations and my concerns of what this would lead to, but I’ll leave that to committee.

I do hope that if this referral was supported, no other amendments come from the committee recommendation. I think we should vote on the committee recommendation. Okay, we’re on the referral. You can talk about the committee recommendation if you wanna get on that list.

All right, well, I will reluctantly support the referral. Okay, others on the referral? Councilor Stevenson and then Councilor McAllister. Thank you, I will happily support the referral.

I always like more opportunity to talk about the reporting and what can come forward. I do just wanna be clear that 2.2 starts with that the following actions be taken with respect to the housing stability framework from January 26th. So there was an outline there. And my understanding is we have never put all the names of organizations, organization names can change and that’s not been anything I’ve seen here.

When we talk about the volume of reports coming, you know, we’ve got the photocopier contract and it’s been hundreds of pages. So I’m not worried about that. Maybe when we’re referring it to another reason to refer it, maybe there’s a better way to have a repository where they can go, where the people who wanna see them can look and they’re not coming forward every quarter. In regards to the public seeing it, talking about it and asking questions, that’s the reason our expenses are quarterly and reported and listed in detail as well.

There’s an expectation in the public, this is public dollars. These are untendered contracts. So when somebody said we don’t do it for road work, well, A, we didn’t declare ask the province to declare a state of emergency. I think that’s moving to debate on the reason why you want to provide the direction in the addition to have the reports.

Right now we’re just talking about the referral, just to provide the clarification. So I think if you could stick to the referral, that’d be great. I think there’s obviously gonna be, if it was referred, a debate and committee on exactly those pieces. Yeah, but I think it’s another reason to refer it.

And we can talk about this more so that the public can have a chance to weigh in on this too, because I hear a lot of interest in the public in terms of this information. They want to know how many beds were used. They want the information as to how we’re using the dollars to best serve. Okay, point of order, go ahead.

Speaking to the mayors in the motion, not the referral. Yes, I was just gonna jump in. So I agree with the point of order. I, Councillor, you are getting it debating the reason why you put the amendment on the floor, which I don’t actually hear too many people against at this point.

The process that we’re on now is, should we refer that to the committee to provide some clarification on that direction? And I think that everything you’re saying sounds like a great part of the discussion at that point in time and a great rationale for why you brought the motion forward. But right now we’re referring that motion for the discussion. So I’m gonna ask if we could just keep it to the referral and then we can move on with the debate on the other items should the referral pass.

Thank you, and I guess what I’m trying to explain is the reasons why I’m supporting the referral. I’m supporting the referral because I think having further discussion, I didn’t know that my colleagues wanted to have more discussion about this, but I’m happy to do that. Happy to gather public input for that as well. So, and for the same reason, that’s what I was saying is maybe there’s other options like a repository.

I don’t, maybe being able to put it in a different place. And maybe it gives us a chance too to talk about this MFIPA requirement. ‘Cause several times when we’re here, the— Okay, so I’m gonna get lots of points of orders. I just, we’re on the referral.

So we’re referring it or not and the rationale for the referral. The MFIPA piece is not like that can be discussed at the committee, it can be discussed as part of the main, like we’re just, we’re deciding whether to refer it or not. So that, I mean, we can make this a really long meeting if, or we can make some decisions and it sounds like people are agreeing with the general sentiment that you’re saying, counselor to refer this and get more information on more discussion and I think that’s great. So, I just, if we could tighten it just to the referral, that would be, that would be great.

I’m supporting the referral because it will give us an opportunity to discuss the MFIPA concerns that were expressed here and I think it’s a good idea because there are issues getting information. Taxpayers believe that we have access to information that we do not have access to. I’m supporting the referral because as mentioned by my colleague, there’s things to discuss because here we’re told can counsel not just go and ask and they not just go to the clerk’s office and see. I’ve been told here that I can and I followed up and I’ve been unable to.

So I’m supporting the referral because I think this is a bigger issue that we can deal with. It’s been expressed by some of my other colleagues. So I’m supporting the referral for all of these reasons that discussing the reporting requirements, the transparency of public funds that are untendered, that we don’t see the contracts for, I think is great. So I’ll be happy to support the referral.

Okay, council approval on the referral. Councilor McAllister on the referral, then council approval. Thank you. I appreciate it.

So I just want to get skipped and lost and mixed there. I’m just, in terms of the referral, I’m just trying to understand that I’m listening to the conversation and I’m personally trying to understand the wording and what will actually be discussed at a committee. I think 100% clarity is important. Where I’m confused with this conversation and where it goes is we’re asking for clarification of the service providers.

I feel like there’s another element which is the scope in terms of what is going to be discussed at committee in terms of the intent of getting this information, understanding in terms of where the conversation’s gone, in terms of having that information. But to me, there’s a disconnect between what will be shared publicly and then what will be in closed session. So I’m hoping in terms of what’s being presented as this referral that will allow for a more fulsome discussion at committee because the way it’s worded right now leads me to think that this will just be discussion about the service providers included in the contracts and I want to make sure the committee is actually able to have a discussion in terms of what’s included, what won’t be included. And so I don’t know if I can look to staff in terms of how that conversation will go.

So it won’t be up to staff. It’ll be up to the committee and how this works is this item will be referred by council to the committee to be dealt with. The committee chair, the council procedure by-law, people’s points of order and questions about scope will be dealt with by the committee. My opinion, although I’m not the committee chair is there’s some language here that does have some room around it.

I don’t know where the committee lands in that room because that’s what the committee process is for, right? So it’s not a prescriptive motion. See, that’s the challenge with bringing a motion to council that doesn’t have all the pieces to it is, we leave a little bit of wiggle room. There’s, these questions are gonna be answered here.

What this motion says and what’s being referred is a little bit broad and the committee will be able to determine the scope of that conversation. What they can’t move into the scope in is decided matters of council without reconsideration and things like that. But there’ll be room around this for the committee to do it. The chair will make rulings, people will challenge the chair if they want.

Like there’s a whole process for deciding that. I don’t think I can provide you that clarification here, the way that the motion is worded today. Okay, thank you. And perhaps there needs to be something supplemental that goes with the referral from those who put it forward.

But no, I’m more curious in terms of, this is more a question for the clerks. Is that language broad enough for the chair of the committee to be able to allow for that discussion? Or is it prescriptive to the point where they can only describe the service providers that are mentioned in the reports? I’ll have the clerk answer.

Sure, Your Worship, that would be up to the chair to determine the scope in conjunction with the committee. Okay, thank you. I just need you to that point of clarification. Again, I can leave that up to the chair and the committee, but I do feel like there’s more to this and that the discussion will probably include other things.

So whatever does come out of the referral, I think there needs to be clear direction that comes with it. I’ll just leave my comment. Okay, thanks, Council approval. Thank you, and through the chair, I would like to make a few comments.

I will certainly support the referral because we need to talk about it more and have a more clarification and direction that we were to give to our staff. If you were supporting this, in the quarterly report, it could be again, staff does the work, and guess what, some of us are not happy with certain results that are that’s reported. I just want to mention, we had a very proactive suggestion and the motion at our committee, and it had to do with reviewing the current initiatives Councilor, what does this have to do with the referral? I’m coming back.

Link it back, okay? Just like Councilor Stevenson did when I asked her to. Because the issue with that is, if we don’t first do direction and staff works with the organizations, we don’t have a clear vision in terms of what’s reported and what’s not. So therefore, if I were to support this, it’s still, I’m going to talk more in detail into the more motion.

I’ll be there that for now. Okay, thanks. Support it for the referral, got it. Other speakers to the referral?

Councilor Rossell? I support the referral. Thank you. All right, sounds like we’ve exhausted the debate on the referral, so we’re going to vote on the referral.

All right, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote? Motion carries 14-0. Okay, so we’ve referred that the main motion has intact.

There’s been some people who’ve spoken to it so far. Councilor Stevenson, you don’t have to stand anymore, actually, but you could get yourself on the speakers list ‘cause all you did was rise and move the amendment. So you can speak to it now or you can wait until I call for more. I have another amendment.

Oh, okay, go ahead then. So it is AI and AI that were defeated at committee. I can go ahead and read it if you like. Yes, if you could please do that.

That civic administration be directed to provide a one-year contract renewal for the procurement framework with an option to renew for one year. And I, I, that civic administration be directed to review existing housing stability contracts to assess alignment with current operational needs, including transitions from emergency and highly supportive environments and to report back to council on any recommended amendments or procurement actions required, consistent with policy compliant procurement processes. Okay, so yes, I see that on page four of the committee report those two pieces of colleagues are looking for the language. Okay, so I’ll need a seconder for those two pieces.

Councilor Pribble wants a second, okay. Look for speakers on the amendment. This is an amendment now of these two pieces. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

So I’m just going to look for clarity. So I guess I’m rising on a point of order because I actually do want to have a conversation about this. But I want to make sure, and you chatted with the clerk, so I’m happy with your ruling chair that whatever that ruling is, that we don’t have to defeat the existing A before we can amend the, put those two pieces in to amend. I’m just making sure that we’re not being contrary and then having a dozen points of order called through the course of this debate.

Mr. Mayor’s chair, they did fail two to four at committee. Yes, and so I understand the point of order. So a motion that was defeated at committee, I don’t, my understanding, and I’ll go to our staff in the service area.

My understanding is the motion is contemplated on the floor, but the contract renewal period and the review isn’t contrary, but maybe it is. I mean some clarification to the direction. Does it stop you from doing A, or can you do both of those things at once? And what we’re referring to is, the motion that came through committee, and then the motion that failed two to four on page four, the committee report related to the two pieces, was an amendment that went to committee.

And the reason why I’m kind of ruling the way I am and listening to staffs is, obviously the amendment was allowed on the floor there. I don’t think it changed A at all, so I don’t think it changes A still, but if I’m missing something from committee, I just want to make sure I got that. Mr. Dickens.

Through you, your worship. I don’t believe that it changes A at all, and shifting from the two year to a one year in I. We can do, I, I is coincidentally, is exactly what our staff report says we will do. That is the framework.

We tell council we’re going to go do a housing stability review, so I is already in the report. Okay, so I’m going to say that’s not in contrary, since I is something they’re already doing anyways, and the contract, whether it’s a two year or a one year within a row, doesn’t impact A, so the motion, my ruling is the, the motion is a good motion on the floor. Councilor Plaza, oh, on the speakers is okay. So, on amendment, you are next on the speakers list.

So go ahead, I’ll look for the speakers. Thank you. This was another part of the robust discussion. Actually— Nope, you’re withdrawing my option.

Yeah, I just want to stop. It’s council, you had the floor, you asked a question, but you should really raise the point of order. Oh, it was just a point of order. Yes, okay, yes, the point of order is no count.

Go ahead, yep. That’s okay. So at committee, another robust discussion on this, did not support it there, will not support it here. As you heard from Mr.

Dickon, staff is already doing that direction. It’s already in the report. I don’t like redundancies as it’s work already being done. My issue with part I, I appreciate what we’re trying to get at, but when I asked for clarification at committee, the wording before us is a one year contract with an option for a one year renewal.

Mr. Dickon’s clear product committee that they could actually implement a two year contract with this wording and the wording that’s already been granted to them through the powers for administrative capacity that’s already been given by council. That was my concerns of why I didn’t support it committee ‘cause I felt it was a little bit for transparency staff could do too, even with this wording, if it was something important they need to do, and having heard from people who hold this service contracts with the city, if it is a two year contract, it allows the more stability for their employees, frontline work, and those waiting for the services to know that those services will have a continuation. And that’s why I didn’t support it committee and will be unable to do it today since we’re already doing the work and staff could do a two year contract even with the wording and I, as it currently is before us.

Okay, other speakers to the amendment. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, so now that we know it’s in order, I will speak to the amendment. I’m gonna start by saying thank you to several folks.

Ms. Moss, I had a good conversation with Ms. Lazenby from the Unity Project, spoken to Ms. Campbell.

Two weekends ago, we were on the phone for a good hour. I appreciate some of the information that you all have shared with me. Continue to collect some of that. So when we talk about the original letter that was on the committee agenda that had been submitted by four of us, that’s why I’m not interested in looking at reallocations right now, changes to programs because I’ve heard what you said about some continuity and needing some resources in each basket.

I think we need to continue though to have a conversation about where, how many resources are placed in each basket, but that is a longer conversation. And I know we’ve started that and we’ll continue that conversation. But I do think that a one and one renewal approach rather than a blanket two year is a better approach from a fiscal responsibility from us as a council. And I know, and I’ve heard it from the service providers and I know Councilor Plaza has too.

And she just said, obviously two years gives you more stability, longer-term planning. My concern, quite honestly, we’ve already seen, we’ve known since December. It’s gonna be talked about in the next item. The federal government’s pulling out $4.2 million in funding locally.

And I’ve said to all of you, that is terrible, but I cannot backfill that from a property tax base. We don’t have a provincial budget yet. We don’t know where some of the provincial dollars are going to be this year. And I don’t know where we’re going to be committing or why we would be committing two years out when we don’t know what that is going to mean for the impact on the municipality to maintain the services that are out there right now.

In fact, I would say we can’t maintain the services that are out there right now with $4.2 million and federal dollars disappearing. So I think we need to say, yes, keep doing what you’re doing for this year, but then also use that time to have those conversations about what resources are gonna be put in each basket, knowing that those resources are gonna be less because the federal dollars are already gone. And that may mean needing to adjust where some of the municipal dollars are allocated because there’s just not enough to go around. So if we know we’re losing the feds and we don’t know what we’re getting from the province, I think we need to have some real discussions before we renew for two years on where the municipal contributions may be landing in providing some of those resources.

That’s why I’m gonna support the one plus one. I appreciate the review, the existing housing stability contracts piece is being done. I concur with Councillor Palazzi, I always hate promotions that are redone into works. That’s always being done.

But I did wanna ask through you, Chair, if Mr. Dickens can provide us a timeframe as to when that report is coming before council. Mr. Dickens.

Through you, your worship, prior to all the referrals from previous committee meetings, it had been planned for the end of March. This process, of course, delays that review. I wouldn’t be able to put a timeline on it, but we’d be out a couple months from March at least. Go ahead.

Okay, so without putting a specific date on it, what I’m hearing for Mr. Dickens is some time in Q2 and seeing nods, I don’t need a specific date by which that’s gonna come forward. Sometime in Q2 is good enough for me. So while I understand why my colleagues wanna put it in there, if it’s already happening, I don’t need to add it to this motion as well.

But I do think that the one plus one is the way to go right now because we just have too much uncertainty. We’re in, as Ms. Moss and I discussed this morning, we’re in a moment where we really don’t know what things are gonna look like even in two or three months from the senior levels of government and so I don’t think we can commit fully municipal dollars for two years when we’re not sure if we’re gonna actually have to move some of those around to adjust so that we still have some dollars now reach and some dollars in the shelter system and some dollars in longer-term housing stability efforts because I hear what you’re saying that we need some in each. But if that amount is smaller, then how much is in each of those baskets?

And so I think that’s a discussion we need to continue to have. That’s why I think one plus one right now is a better approach than a full two. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ferra. Thanks, Mayor.

I’m not gonna support this. It’s decisions like this which are gonna actually create more uncertainty and more instability as it is in our homelessness response. Like I do hear about the one plus one and there’s an attempt to potentially make a little bit more certainty, but I don’t see that at all. How is a service agency supposed to be able to hire good people when the future is uncertain for the ability to pay them?

I hear that there has been conversations with the agencies, but I’d like to ask, what did that conversation include this one plus one year contract? And what was the agency’s response on that? I find it hard to believe that the service agencies that the Councillors may have spoken to would agree to this. And I’d like to hear what it is that they said, what their response was.

I don’t think we should be making a decision here at this council floor for such a significant issue, a significant decision without hearing the full information in the full report. I don’t know if I can pose that question to the agencies and ask them at council if the mayor would permit me or to the Councillors, but I’d like to know if the agencies are on board with this type of motion. Is that a question I can ask? Well, you can ask it.

This isn’t a public participation meeting, so I’d be up to our staff. Well, I think right there, that means that this motion is not at the council. You’re asking, stop for a sec. You’re asking me, would you like me to go to staff to see if they have any sort of response to that or do you want to continue to be?

I’d like to ask the Councillors who are moving this. Well, I can go to them as a courtesy. They’re welcome to answer if they like. If not, I can go to our staff.

The question is, was there consultation with agencies and do you have a sense of what they think about the one over one? Well, you don’t have to answer. Councillors don’t have to answer each other’s questions. Well, yeah, I’m gonna say, your worship, I’ll entertain a brief response to this, but this is not a cross-debate forum.

I spoke to Ms. Moss as early as this morning, and I’m not gonna put words in her mouth and regurgitate all of the sentences because that’s not fair, but we had a conversation. And she said, of course, I’d rather have two. She said, I understand why I think one plus one is a better approach.

So that is the nature of the conversation in a nutshell, and I’m gonna leave it at that because it’s the decision we have to make on the item before us, not a conversation or a PPM here today. I agreed, that’s why I said it was a courtesy to answer not a requirement and Councillors don’t have to answer each other’s questions they participate in debate. Councillor Faire, you can continue. Thanks.

So I’m not surprised that was a response back. I’m not surprised that if all the agencies said that. So the reason that the agencies are telling you that a one plus one or a one-year contract with a one-year renewal option is not the appropriate way to go is because that destabilizes their ability to do the work that they’re doing. Okay, so now I have to pause.

So I appreciate that people in the gallery may want to clap or maybe something opposite if they disagree, but the way that quorum works in the council chambers is whether you agree or not, we listen to the debate, but we don’t participate with either claps or jeers or anything like that. There may be other people in the audience who don’t share your opinion and we want this to be a space where everybody can come listen to the debate altogether. And so you certainly have the right to your opinions, but we’re not gonna create any sort of uncomfortable environment for anybody else in the gallery who may have an opinion difference by clapping or jeering or anything like that. So the council will continue with the comments.

This is just my general courtesy. We make this ask of all of our meetings as part of the decorum of council chambers. And so that’s my ask of you is if you could respect everybody else in the gallery. Again, certainly you’re right to the opinion, but we don’t express those with any sort of noise of any kind.

Go ahead, shelter. - Thanks. So our homelessness response is already stretched thin. Why are we talking about cutting off the hands, our main hands of doing the work that we need to do?

It’s just, it’s baffling to me. And we shouldn’t be looking into making more instability. We should be looking into supporting and uplifting as much as we can, finding the pots where we can. I see that we don’t wanna backfill provincial obligations, but we do it all the time.

I just don’t understand why this significant issue, one of the most important, if not the most important one in the city, is one that we keep on politicking around. I do not support this motion at all whatsoever. Number two was even said to be redundant. Why is it even on the floor?

I think we should pull that one at least, but we should definitely not support one. This is not the way to go, you know. The agencies that are doing this work are the same agencies that have housed how many people in this term. If we didn’t have those supports the way it was, we wouldn’t be able to hold these numbers up and show how many people we’ve housed in the term and show our success.

I think it’s just, I just don’t even know what to say. And I don’t think that this is something we should support. And, you know, the city is watching and this is not gonna help. This is going to make things worse because it is a direct motion that destabilizes our ability to do this work.

I think we should be, first of all, not making this decision on the council floor because I can’t even ask the service agencies questions. I can’t even hear what they have to say. The forum here is not the correct forum. This decision here is not the correct time to make this decision.

This is not appropriate for us to do. So I’m gonna interject on not appropriate. Councillor, you can express a lot of opinions in a debate but a motion that went to committee had the opportunity for debate, had a vote, it was defeated. Councillors have the right to bring it up at council.

And so it’s a legitimate motion on the floor. You don’t have to agree with it. You don’t have to support it but this is a proper process of decision-making according to the procedure by-law. I’ll let you continue.

The movers and the seconders said themselves that the service agencies are not in favor of this motion. They most likely said it because it will destabilize and remove their ability to do work. Okay, point of personal privilege, go ahead. The seconder hasn’t even spoken yet on this item.

So again, your worship, the Councillor doesn’t have to like what’s on the floor but he has to be factual in his commentary. So this is something that’s come up before. Councillors can be incorrect in their information. People have their opinions.

It doesn’t have to be a correct opinion. It can be, I’m not saying the Councillors is one way or the other but it is not the role of the chair to then correct everybody’s piece of information. It’s not the role of Councillors. You could do that in the debate.

Like Councillor can stand up and say, I disagree with what Councillor said here. So I see it, but we’re not going to call out correction of information with points of personal privilege. We can, if someone puts words in your mouth or says you said something you didn’t say, that is a legitimate point of personal privilege. I’d ask that to be retracted.

So I’m just going to say, Councillors can make the points they want to make. In the debate, we can make the counterpoints to that position, should you want to do that. You can support that position if you like, but I’m not going to entertain points of order to say, that’s factually incorrect or that’s correct because people can rise and debate that themselves. Well, I’m just really on this point of personal privilege, then you can do one.

So I’m suggesting that’s not point of personal privilege that we need to deal with, and I’ll move on with the debate. Councillor, you have a point of personal privilege now? In your own, during your own debate, you want to call a point of personal privilege? Does that count towards my time?

No. Okay. So I would say— - You’re the one that’s the floor, Councillor. I would say the information that I got on whether the service is— What’s the point of personal privilege?

What is the point that you’re— What I said is that the assumption, what the agencies of the reason why they would say they wouldn’t support a one-year contract was an assumption I had to make because I couldn’t get the information from them. It’s an assumption I had to make because the movers said to me that the agencies were not in favor of the one-year contract with one-year renewal. Okay, so your, Councillor, I don’t understand your point of personal privilege, like under the procedure by-law. Like you’re allowed to make assumptions.

You’re making an assumption. I don’t think anybody’s suggesting you can’t. If you listen to my ruling of the Councillor’s point of personal privilege, I deemed it not a point of personal privilege. So that’s been discarded.

You don’t have to respond to it. Like you can continue your debate but calling multiple points of personal privilege, we can be here a really long time ‘cause I’m gonna rule most of them out of order because most times they’re not actually points of personal privilege. Just debate the issue, right? We don’t have to use inflammatory language.

We don’t have to put words in each other’s mouths. We gonna, these are tough debates. People are passionate about it. They’ve got a lot of emotion.

That’s fair, that’s fine. But let’s do it respectfully and let’s put the points on the floor that we wanna make and make the case to your colleagues because ultimately debate is about convincing your colleagues to support a position, right? So I want you to continue with the debate. I don’t think you’re on a point of personal privilege here and I think you’re making your points.

We’re listening and you can continue on. You got about a minute and a half left. All right, so the second part of the motion is redundant, I don’t know why it’s there. The first part of the motion clearly will destabilize the hands that we need to do the work that we’re trying to get done.

It’s going to make things worse. We need to have consistency with the service agencies to do their job, consistency so they can hire people, consistency so those people who are working for them know that they’re gonna have a job in the future so they’re not looking elsewhere. So they can keep their mind on the task at hand. With this one year plus one year contract renewal, this is something that destabilizes it.

That is the point, that is the point. It’s not gonna make things better. It’s gonna make things worse. The agencies themselves, as the mover has said, are not for that.

And the reason they’re not for that is probably what I said and even more so. We’re not able to get that information from them. We shouldn’t make this decision right here. I wouldn’t be supportive of this at all whatsoever.

We have seen some success in our homelessness response and that success came from the way the contracts have been made up and operated as it is to the point in this time. So changing these contracts as it is, especially with this. 30 seconds, Councilor. Especially with something that will remove the ability to have certainty moving forward is not the way to go.

This is the way backwards. This will set us back, I don’t know, 10 years, 15 years. It definitely is not gonna help us. Okay, Councilor Pribble next.

Go ahead. Thank you, Councilor Your Worship to the staff. When you talk about the review, can you please tell me how in the review the community organizations, social agencies will be involved in? You can just go ahead.

Three year Your Worship would be a little premature at this point to talk about the details of the review because we’re still looking to land exactly what that engagement looks like. We have a plan to do it on a certain timeline. We’re now pushing that timeline out, trying to make sure we have the right resources to do it effectively. But essentially you’re going to the direct service providers to get input on what’s working, what’s not working.

All that to say, we do that on a regular basis. We’re trying to formalize it in the way of a review, looking out to earlier comments where resources are allocated. When you have a finite number of resources. So what’s working, what’s not working, participant feedback, what’s working, what’s not working, partner feedback and those that are participating in the program through landlords and others and what’s working, what’s not working.

The things that are in our span of control, things outside of our span of control, and then understanding where do we go forward in terms of procuring those things. And as a point of clarity, all of these contracts are in fact tendered. We followed the procurement process. We just need to clarify that, that these are not just untender, they’re unregulated contracts.

Civic administration has followed the procurement policy every step of the way through this entire contractual process. That’s approval. Thank you for that. And for me, the most important part was at the beginning when he stated that the organizations and the agency that they will be very much involved in that process.

This review at the end, will it be including the outcomes results data that will be provided. The reason why I’m asking is because going back to what was said from us five, 10 minutes ago or actually longer now, we are looking at certain things that we want to report, but actually I feel that the review is a must to be done first. Because then from the review, together our staff with the agencies, I assume, and that’s my next question, Mr. Dickens, if it’s going to be include outcomes, data, potential benchmarking, and bottom line maximizing our investments, Mr.

Dickens? Through you, Your Worship. So as we look at the review of the programs, we’ll be looking at the current performance indicators and again, what’s working, what’s not, what are those outcomes, what does the stability look like, what does the turnover look like. I know there’s information in the council package from one area that talks about the very low, low, low number of damage to units and the unit turnover.

So we’ll be compiling that data from all the different programs that participate. So there will be outcomes and metrics, not to be confused with the work the caps will have to do in terms of what they want to see in quarterly reports. There’s been, you know, we receive right now financial quarterlies. Bed usage is not part of a quarterly report.

So the review of the housing program will look at that program specifically. The work of caps will debate and discuss the scope of what quarterly report backs will look like. Keeping in mind, council has already directed us to do a dashboard which has monthly indicators on it, which will continue to grow in scope and provide you more monthly data that may achieve some of the interests that you have, which is a centralized public repository of information. Mr.

Piddle. Thank you for that. I’m very happy to hear that answer. A follow-up question, if currently we are looking or I’m hearing on the horseshoe one year, two years.

But can you answer this question for me that the review is done quarter to provincial and federal budgets are not out yet. What would stop, couldn’t we do, for example, second year that we don’t have to wait till February, March next year? Couldn’t we do the second year potentially in April, May, June? What would be to stop us that currently we go with one year and in three, four, five months, we say we got the review, we reviewed it, and therefore the agencies that are either present here or are listening, they will have half a year to prepare for another year.

Can you please let me know that, confirm that, if we can do that? Mr. Dickens, go ahead. I will defer this response to Mr.

Cooper who is online. Mr. Cooper, go ahead. Thank you and through your worship, the funding is obviously based on allocation letters from the province.

And so should we have our following year allocation from the province, we can begin those conversations and have some initial conversations with agencies. And then once that funding is confirmed, we can then look to move forward with those extensions or with new contracts. I think that is really the defining piece within a timeline is whenever we get that information from the provincial or federal government allows us then to be able to have those conversations with an agency in many of our past procurement approvals. We’ve built in a clause in seeking council’s approval to note that it’s all subject to confirmation of funding source.

And so that would allow us to extend contracts. It allows us to where previous approvals have provided to have those conversations as soon as we get that information versus having to come back to council to then have those conversations. So hopefully that answers the council’s question. Go ahead, council approval.

It certainly has to thank you, you have. So based on what I heard and the questions that were answered, I will not be supporting two years now. I will be supporting one year. I do understand that actually this is the first time I think that I always fought for longer terms and again, not repeating stability, et cetera, et cetera.

But coming back with both higher levels of government budgets, coming back that the review is coming in quarter two. I really don’t, again, not to have the agency stuck that we are gonna wait till January, February, March, or the new council next year. But I really think that this can be addressed way before. But on the other hand, I really don’t, I personally would like to see the review first.

And there’s gonna be even a really good feedback from the organizations. And I had the same conversations that they could be coming up with certain things as well. We need to really think more and more outside the box, but the money is limited. And guess what?

We all know when we walk outside, there’s benefits on the streets or in the encampments. The situation is not getting much better. We are providing other services. And as I said, I’m always proud of our housing continuum.

I think it’s fantastic. Unfortunately, those projects have not happened overnight. So we do have great initiatives. We do, we are helping a lot of people.

Yes, we are, but unfortunately we have more and more. But because of all these reasons, I stated and the answers, I will not be supporting two years. I will be supporting one year, but we should be addressing this within a few months, not to have the agencies hanging for another 11 months. And then one month before it expires for them to start making sweating if they can afford to or offer additional contracts to their staff.

Thank you. Okay, Councillor Stevenson on the amendment. Thank you, through you, the staff. I just wanna clarify that if this passes that two year contracts would not be done and this would override the previous delegated authority, ‘cause I heard reference that they could go ahead and do it anyway, I just wanna confirm that if we say one year plus a one year renewal, that that’s what will transpire.

Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through your worship, yes, that’s correct. Thank you, thank you very much.

So I’m really hoping my colleagues support this for a whole bunch of reasons. We have an election coming up in October. And so to be signing contracts that go until part way, almost halfway through the next term, a council is binding the next leaders of this council. We’ve also got, as was mentioned, a provincial budget that hasn’t been brought forward.

And we also have some legislation that’s in the works. Bill 10, schedule eight is, so Bill 10 is the protect Ontario through safer streets and stronger communities. And particularly schedule eight. I’m understanding it could have a very big impact on the programs that we’re running.

It’s the measures respecting premises with the Legal Drug Activity Act. And I know it’s not been enacted yet, and I know there’s still a bunch of work to be done there. But I just wondered through you to staff, is there any preparatory work being done on that, or how will that impact these contracts if it were to come into play? Okay, that was related to the contracts.

So I’ll go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. And in terms of preparatory work, civic administration, since the announcement was made several months ago, I’ve been trying to see clarity from the province.

We’ve been unable to get any information from the province. So council’s guess would be as good as ours in terms of if this will ever be enacted or when or what the impacts to municipalities will be. I’m sure members of this council that are affiliated with other bodies such as big city mayors or AMO, and those of us who are represented at the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, we have asked these questions on a regular basis, and no information has been provided. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I get the opportunity that lies ahead, but I also wondered as we’re doing these contracts, how are we protecting the corporation in terms of the legal liability that is implied in some of this legislation? Well, so I guess, to tie it in. Well, I got to deal with the point of order, so just give me a sec. What’s the point of order council trust?

Well, if the legislation hasn’t been enacted, there’s nothing on the books that we have to worry about. Okay, council, point of order. Okay, I would say that that’s out of order because she’s assuming something is legislated and it’s not by her own admission. Okay, so I’m gonna stop you.

First off, we’re not gonna use the word nonsense to describe another councilor’s debate. Second, we are, like I said before, people can give their interpretation or their opinion on the council floor. You don’t have to agree that it’s correct in your opinion, and what I hear is the councilor asking about some risk. What I will say is I think there are many answers to that question.

I think it’s a very difficult one for our staff to ask. I would give an example. When automated speed enforcement changes were made, the province actually put dollars on the table to say you might have to break some contracts, we’ll pay for them. So I think there are many answers to the councilor’s question, but I don’t think it’s an illegitimate question.

I also don’t think our staff may have a direct answer to it given we can’t presume what the province is gonna do, but I’m happy to go to our staff to see if they can provide any contact, so go ahead. Thank you and through you. As Mr. Dickens said, it’s at a very premature stage here, so it’s difficult to know what the legislation will eventually entail if it will pass.

It’s quite hypothetical at this point. So at this point, there’s not a lot we can do to sort of gaze in a crystal ball and change contracts with legislation that is not yet enacted. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate that, and I wasn’t looking to change them guessing at what was coming, but just wanting to, I guess point out too, there’s a lot of uncertainty coming, and to lock into your contracts, knowing this legislation is looking to be brought forward and just wanting to be sure that we are protecting the corporation in terms of the programs and services that are built within these contracts may run contrary to some of what might be coming.

So there’s also comments around stabilizing the system, which is what we heard in February 2024 when we did the two year. So we were asked then to stabilize the system while we were moved forward with the whole community. But what I’m hearing, there is a voice out in the public that is concerned about the destabilizing of the city. And so we need to count, we need to watch that as well.

And so I am really hoping for support around this for a few reasons. One, that we’re not tying the hands of the next council. Two, that we leave ourselves an ability to make changes given that we’ve asked the province to declare a state of emergency. It gives us time to see what’s coming in the provincial budget, and it gives us time to see what’s coming in terms of bill 10 and other legislation at a time when there is so much uncertainty locking contracts in.

I don’t believe sets us up for success right now. Sir Hopkins, you’re next. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I wanted to rise on and explain my vote, a committee.

I didn’t support this amendment a committee. And I have not heard anything here this afternoon to change my mind. I do agree with a number of comments though. We’ve just heard the uncertainty that exists.

And I do appreciate Deputy Mayor’s comments around the baskets and the federal and provincial allocations to municipalities. We do not control any of that, and we do not know what those baskets are going to look like. But what we do know, as a municipality, what can we control? We can control contracts.

We can make them two years. It gives the stability to the providers. It shows them that we want to work with them, regardless if it’s this council or next council. I am very careful not to do this political posturing to get people to go on side.

We should be looking at what we’re able to do as a municipality and working with the providers. That’s why I’m not supporting this amendment. I will be supporting the two years that we already have. Sir Raman.

Thank you and through you. So I just need some clarity here. First, I need clarity on my interpretation of this. It’s a bit of semantics and I’ll explain why.

So on the two year versus the one year plus the one year, sounds very similar. In the procurement framework itself, I think what we’re referring to is section 2.5 of that report and a bit of three of that report. And in both parts of that report, it says that we’re going to negotiate new contracts. So we’re in this process where we’re extending contracts to then negotiate new contracts.

And at the time that we negotiate those new contracts, likely within a year, we’re gonna start new contracts. And we’re also having this conversation about binding future terms of council, but we can’t do that. So I don’t know if I need to seek clarification from the clerk just to clarify that anything that we decide does not bind a future term of council. Yes, the clerk can answer that.

Thank you, three year worship. I’ll answer this in this way. There’s a procedural aspect and there’s a contractual aspect. The procedural aspect under the council procedure by less specifically 13.5 specifies where there’s an intervening election.

Reconsideration does not apply. There may be contractual implications for going under a different direction by a new term of council, but the council procedure by a does not permit extending certain types of reconsideration motions beyond the term of council. Thank you, which means that a new term of council could reopen this discussion completely. I wanna go to part 3.0, financial impact considerations that’s in this report that again, we’re tying all this back to, which is the procurement framework.

It states that council has a contractual obligation already. That contractual obligation is then listed as SS 2024-042, which was a contract from February 2024. At that time, we signed, we agreed to allow up to two additional two year extension periods. We have then fulfilled our legal obligation.

We are waiving those two year periods if we agree to this. I’ll give you a second to decide who’s gonna answer this one. Sorry, Your Worship. Could we just get clear in on the last part of that?

Thank you. So we had in there a two year potential wave, or sorry, two year extension period. So that would have been till February 2026, and then another two year extension period, which could be exercised under the additional clause to help with the restructuring of the plan. Can you just, I look sorry through you.

I’m looking for clarification on whether or not this overrides that authority since that’s contractual. Thank you and through you. So if this amendment passes, it would just shift to the one year instead of continuing on for the two year extension. Go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So just to clarify, it wasn’t in a contract. Go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So the two years is up in February, 2026. There is the ability to extend, but we don’t have to. So this amendment would replace the ability to extend and shorten it to the one plus one. No, it’s wrong.

Thank you. And then through the one plus one at any point during the next one year, we are anticipating that we are going to go into a contract negotiation because we’ve updated the framework, we’ve updated our procurement policy. And so based on that, we’re going into a potential contract negotiation within a year of signing this. Can I just confirm that?

Mr. Dickens. That is correct your worship as it’s states and the staff report. The extension is the existing permissions.

That creates a little bit of runway, continuity of service, if you will, so that we can do the proper reviews, that we can conduct the proper procurement, and then we can come back to counsel with direction on what that looks like going forward. So the extensions is the continuity of care, which allows us to do all the critical work around reviews and negotiations. Councillor Robin. Thank you.

And so just to confirm, we expect to receive that back at some point in 2027. Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, that is correct.

Thank you. So we’re having a debate over one year or two year, where one year or two year actually doesn’t have any meaningful, the language doesn’t matter actually at this point, as far as I can see from either the procurement report or from the de-conversation that we’ve had here. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

I support everything that Councillor Hopkins says, and I will be voting similarly. Any other speakers who hasn’t spoken yet? Councillor Troso. Thank you very much to the chair, and thank you for recognizing me, Mayor.

I feel very strongly that we need to maintain the two year funding cycle. We spend too much time at this counsel table, doing renewals, and it takes a toll. I’m gonna start with the toll it takes on this table, and I’m gonna get out to the field. It takes a toll at this table because we’re constantly revisiting decisions that we’ve made.

We make a plan, we make an action plan. We second guess whether we wanna take action under the action plan. We don’t take action under the action plan. Then we wonder why the action plan isn’t working.

And somebody says, you know, we really need an action plan. And it’s like, it’s a perpetual, it’s a death loop. It’s not a good, it’s not a good public policy loop. I mean, a good public policy loop would mean you implement policy, you enact the policy, you monitor the policy, and then you make incremental changes that are needed to the policy.

That’s not what we’re doing here. When we talk about going from a two year cycle, which by the way, doesn’t give the agencies kind of long-term planning, that agencies that are expected to deliver results really need, but okay, it’s two years. But the state should be one year is like, we’re in this perpetual state of uncertainty. We’re in this perpetual state of crisis.

We’re in this perpetual state of staff members saying, you know, I don’t know if I have a job in a few months, not in a few years, not in a few months. And I can’t keep doing this. I’m dedicated, I’m dedicated to the work I do in the field. I’m dedicated to the lives I’m saving.

I feel good about the work I’m doing, but I just can’t keep doing this. Because at some point, I need to be able to understand that I can pay my rent in nine months. ‘Cause guess what? If you can’t, you know what happens to you.

And I think the point has been made very well in some of the letters that we received that many of the people who are just dedicating their lives to doing this work, you’re just a few months away from being a client or a patron yourself. Going from two years to one year is, it’s cruel. And it just creates the type of uncertainty that does not lead to efficiency at this council table. I think it also creates a lot of burden on our staff.

I mean, if we go through this council, this last council, and add up all the time that we spent rehashing things that we’ve already done, in terms of, well, you know, your funding’s running out and now we have to do a one year extension. And it’s sort of like, well, we shouldn’t be like back-dropping the province, but I’ll do it this time, but I won’t do it next time. I wanna add all that up. We have to stop doing that.

We need to focus our attention on the field, because I think I really need to talk a little bit about our homeless residents who are suffering the brunt of this and whose lives are made better, at least the bed, at least for the time, at least for survival, by the work that our outreach, workers are doing and the agencies that serve them. So to bring them to this table, and I think what borders on a punitive way, and we haven’t even started talking about the good neighbor policy yet, I’ll get to that. But right now, I’m just going from two years to one year. In terms of part two, well, if it’s something they’re doing already, then it’s redundant, and it shouldn’t even be on the table, because what happens if we pass it?

It must mean something, and there’s a rule of statutory construction that says every word in legislation must be given a meaning, and if it’s something they’re already doing, what meaning is there in part two? So I would say unless somebody can identify some meaning in part two, we should just strike that. We should just strike that. I’m not going to ask for these to be taken apart, because I’m going to vote against both of them.

Because I think both part one and part two is very bad policy, and we should reject it. But in the end, we’re not binding the next council. What would happen if we couldn’t pass contracts that would go past November, 2026? I mean, I’m not going to ask the city treasurer to give us a whole list of obligations that we’ve already made that they go past 2026.

And I think if I started mentioning what some of them were, I’d be ruled out of order. So I’m not even going to go there. Vote? - No, please.

Good times up, council. - Thank you. Okay, so we’re on the amendment. I think I’ve exhausted the speaker’s list.

So this is on the amendment. Both parts one and two are together. Point of order, go ahead. Sorry, a question.

As we’ve gone through this conversation, as it relates to II, staff had said they’re already working on said report, questions of redundancy with II. Maybe the committee chair should have liked this at committee, which would have been me. If we vote no on it, will staff stop working on the work they’ve already been directed to do? Like I’m just going to see, is it a mute point?

Or staff are already doing it, so that’s why I was voting no. But if voting no stops the staff report they’re already working on, the direction council has already given them, does that? Which one, Trump’s wide? Just give me one second.

Mr. Dickens, I’m going to let you answer, but I got to deal with a procedural piece too, but do you want me to do that first? All right, because it might impact your answer. So I was kind of hoping, Councillor, you wouldn’t ask that, because the clerk and I were talking about this at the start of the meeting.

And it’s probably going to drive me to a procedural ruling that is going to be a little bit complex. And I understand why you’re asking it. And so the crux of the question here is in an amendment that adds something to the motion. If that fails, we added to the motion, ‘cause we’re at council, is that a decided matter of council, and thus civic administration would interpret it as don’t do it.

The reason why that’s a little bit nebulous is it probably needs to be a decided matter of council to avoid someone just bringing the same amendment back to council every week. So if council says we’re not doing that amendment, there’s a reasonable interpretation under the procedure by-law that we’ve dealt with this, we’re not amending this anymore. I think there’s a piece here, though, it’s just getting added to the main motion. So should we have a vote of the main motion to decide whether to feed it or not once it’s added?

That’s the complexity of it, that we, the procedure by-law is kind of nebulous on that. So I could make one ruling, a different chair could make another ruling, we probably have a challenge to the chair situation. So I agree with you, it would have been great to kind of head off a committee, but it’s here now. So I think from the perspective how I would handle this today is it’s an amendment to add it.

So if council decided not to add it, then that precludes us from trying to add it each and every meeting. Unless staff would interpret it differently, I don’t think it excludes them from continuing to do something that they’re gonna do. If we want them to stop doing that, I would prefer council make a direct motion to say, don’t do this thing you told us you were gonna do. So I think if the amendment gets defeated, it doesn’t preclude them from still doing this work, but it would preclude us from providing that direction over and over and over again in future council meetings.

That’s the way I wanna rule on it. I know that there’s probably maybe some different interpretations on how to, but Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and thank for that clarity.

Staff’s interpretation would be that the A part of this motion is to endorse the framework. The framework spells out how we’re going to do a deep dive and review of every component of the system and bring that back to council. So if II is separated out in a vote or it’s withdrawn, we would still follow the direction that is in A. The framework in A tells you we’re going to do this review.

So we will not interpret it a no here on II to be don’t do the work. We actually need to do the work. So that can kind of concurs with where I landed too. So that’s how we’re gonna proceed.

So everybody’s on the same page. I will say there’s a couple of things that have come up through council meetings that involve a cleanup of some of the procedures in the by-law to be much more definitive. I will endeavor to work with the clerk to bring forward some amendments in the future about this and a couple other things that have come up through council that we’ve discussed could use a little bit of tidy up so that I don’t have to rule on it over and over again. We can make a decision as a council, but that’s a separate issue.

So Councilor, I hope that provides the clarification on your point of order. Okay, then I don’t have any other speakers. I’m just gonna request that you call the two separately. Absolutely, we can call them separate.

We’ll just take a minute to separate the two. Okay, well, yes, your worship. That’s okay, we haven’t, let me tell you what vote we’re on first, councilor. No, okay, thank you.

You get on? Thank you. Thank you. Councilor, just watch your mic.

You’re not quite muted there. So I’m sure everybody’s just saying nice things about us. We’re now voting on part I, which is the direction to provide the one year contract renewal for the procurement framework. Okay, so we’re voting on that now.

So we’re open that for voting. You can proceed with the verbal voting. Thank you, chair, your worship, all vote, yes. Sorry, they’re both showing an e-scribe.

I and I are just all together. Yeah, we’re counseling that and putting them up separately. That was just a misfire on the button there. And now the votes, you do verbally vote again, councilor Cuddy.

I vote, yes, your worship. Close in the vote, motion carries, eight to seven. Yeah, now we’ll bring up the second one. I vote yes, your worship, thank you.

noted, thank you for our closing the vote. Motion fails, seven to eight. Since the motion was amended with one of those two parts, I need to move on a seconder for an as amended motion, which is everything that was before plus the change to the contract term. Someone’s got to move on as amended motion here.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Stevenson. Okay, so we have the as amended motion, which is all the things that came through committee plus the addition that was made there, Councilor Stevenson. First, I also just wanted through you to staff ask for part C where it talks about the execution of service agreements coming back to us. Do we need to put an amendment on there to say by Q2?

Is that a reasonable timeframe or is that not required because we’re gonna get it back during that timeframe anyway? You just give an estimate on the timeframe that’s coming back. Thank you, Your Worship. We’d be more comfortable if it was just back to it the way it’s worded now.

I wouldn’t be able to put a timeline on that right now. We always endeavor to move as quick as we possibly can, recognizing contract negotiations, sometimes take time to execute, but we will report back as soon as we can. Mr. Stevenson.

Thank you. I guess my concern there is sometimes it takes a long time and this is important that we see these contracts but this is only the second time that we’re doing this in this term of council. Are the contracts, do they not need to be done by March 31st? I mean, I noticed in looking at a whole bunch of them, sometimes it’s three, four, five, six, seven months, even right into the term.

Is that a potential or did the contracts need to be done by their expiry? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’m gonna go to Mr. Cooper on this. Mr. Cooper.

Thank you and through you, Your Worship. We do endeavor to try and have the contracts executed as early as possible, ideally. It would be before March 31st, but we do recognize that when both parties are in agreement to extend the contract, then the work takes what the work takes. We do, as Mr.

Dickens indicated, try to endeavor to get it done as quickly as possible, but a lot of times our teams work with agencies. There’s a lot of contracts, all that wants to be done with a small team within our HSS, their Housing Stability Services team. So we work through them as diligently as we can. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, just a follow-up question then, maybe through you to legal, to just confirm that there’s no risks involved when the contract, when people are providing service and there’s no contract for several months. Go ahead. Thank you and through you. Legal is also always engaged in these contract renewals, and we take steps to make sure that the legal risk is mitigated.

Thank you. I just want to confirm to you that payment isn’t issued until the contracts are finalized. So sometimes the agencies are left waiting for that first payment. Mr.

Dickens or Coop? Thank you, Your Worship. And yes, through you, that sometimes is the case. And that’s why we try to move as quick as possible.

Some of these organizations also try to align with board meeting schedules. We undertake a legal review. Sometimes there’s amendments coming back and forth. So neither party wants us to drag on.

It’s just, as Mr. Cooper has said, sometimes it takes the time it takes, and we always try to meet those deadlines. Okay, thank you all. Make my comments for the main motion.

I guess I have a different perspective on this than some of my colleagues. You know, I hear about stabilizing the system and wanting certainty for employment and everything. And while I understand, if I have a job, I want that too. This is a crisis, a humanitarian crisis.

And I would hope that we aren’t stabilizing that. I mean, I would hope that all of us have a goal that there won’t be this need for this volume of services going forward. And I’m hoping that we’ll see changes in the next year that would mean that our service provision would change because we’ve made progress in one area or there’s needs that have arisen in another and that we’d want to be adaptable around that. So I guess it’s a different perspective, but this was a crisis.

And I know the projections are not good, but that’s what should call us to more scrutiny, more accountability, more public discussion around how can we get better results? How can we get a trend where homelessness is decreasing? And we’re looking at providing employment in prosperity instead of trying to keep people alive on our streets. The thing is too, we were asked in February 2024 to do these contracts for two years to stabilize the sector while we transformed the system.

And I’m still not sure what that new system is looking like. I’m not hearing what that’s going to be. Maybe we’re going to find that out over the next little bit. But that contract, that stability of the sector, came after a hunger strike and after this call for more services and that two-year contract that we’re renewing a gown for another year, the cost went up by 40%.

And there was almost no extra additional service to the people who most need it. And now we’re going to renew it again and we’re still not going to talk about it. To my knowledge, we don’t have metrics since March of 2023 showing how many beds do we have? How are they being used?

Where are the issues? What’s happening with our services that we’re providing? What’s working? What’s not working?

How can we make it better? I have a couple of questions through you to staff. I heard that in the past there was something called a start guide and I wondered if that is something similar to that in play or is there anything that administration can share? Because I’m just wondering what operating guidelines and what are we doing to ensure that as we renew these contracts that we’re meeting the need the best possible way?

Sorry, Councilor, I’m wondering what your item has to do with the scope of the matter before us? Well, we’re talking about execution of service agreements and I’m wondering in our service agreements, I heard that in previous councils, there was something called a start guide that was used through administration to ensure that there was a high level of accountability with agency. So I’m wondering if not that, what now? Okay, I understand that was in a previous contract.

That makes sense to me. I’ll go to go ahead. Thank you and through your worship. I believe this was in the late 1990s through our community grants program when we issued community grants to not-for-profit organizations.

At that time, there wasn’t a rigid agreement process in the community and city staff came together and talked about requirements such as doing police checks, vulnerable screening checks for volunteers and staff. That wasn’t previously done in the 1990s and not-for-profit organizations. So there were requirements like that. We had a committee of both city staff and not-for-profit organization leaders and we reviewed the chairs, the boards, the guidelines and the policies that not-for-profits created in order to support as safe and inclusive not-for-profit organization and services for everyone.

By the early 2000s, a lot had changed with the province. We had also then created a community grants program and as part of that program, we built in all those requirements into our grant agreement that was then approved by council and was created with legal and risk. So there was no need to have a start guide anymore because we created all those agreements, particularly vulnerable screening for all volunteers and staffs, which is now a given in all-not-for-profit organizations across the city. Councilor Stevenson.

Thank you. So I guess what I’m wondering is so now, can you just, can staff maybe just outline for the public? Like what is that process? When we decide to bring a staff report to council recommending the renewals, what is that due diligence that staff?

Okay, hold on a point of order. Thank you. Just the councilor comments are for staff to outline for the public. It’s not a public discussion or a vote today.

It’s the council’s to vote. So if it’s information that I need to vote as a councilor interested to hear it, but just sharing information of staff procedures for the public’s good only, I don’t believe it’s in order. Yeah, I’m not sure I’m gonna be able to under the procedure by law enforce that. I think councilors can speak in a language they want.

They can say they’re doing something for the public. Ultimately, what we all know here is we’re making the decision. It’s ideal if councilors are speaking to each other to convince us of a position and support it, but that I can’t preclude a councilor from asking for the information phrased in a way that includes members of the public in any sort of way. So I certainly appreciate the ask.

I just don’t think there’s anything I could draw in the procedure by law to restrict that in some way. So I think councilors are gonna use different language in the debate and some of it might be under this in this way. So I’ll let the councilor continue. Well, it was a question to staff to just let us know as we endorse sort of these renewals, what is the process, you know, our inspections done?

Do, are there policies that they have to follow like city guidelines in terms of operational standards? I’ll go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Worship.

In all of the contracts are scheduled set out in terms of service standards and expectations. Throughout the course of a year, civic administration, members of our team have regular check-ins with service providers. Those check-ins allow for the parties to get together to talk about trends to see what’s happening, look at emerging issues, sometimes share data across different spaces in terms of what other spaces are seeing. We get our quarterly financials.

So a lot of this contract discussion about bringing forward an extension is looking at what the financial actuals look like. Someone’s projecting a deficit. Someone may be projecting a small surplus if staffing was an issue. We also get our monthly updates in terms of the bed usage.

If it’s a shelter, we get updates on some of the key performance indicators as it relates to outcomes and those sorts of things. So some of those are already publicly available. Some will become publicly available on the dashboard. And if there is something that council would like to see, we welcome that direction to bring those reports back.

But staff do this work day in day out. We connect with organizations on a monthly basis. And cumulatively, all of that leads to making decisions on contract renewals. Quite often organizations are very blunt with us.

There was a question baked in there around stability of the sector. Yes, the costs went up because we tried to stabilize what was a woefully underfunded system. Frontline workers barely making ends meet. The acuity level in our community reaching a humanitarian crisis level.

And we were trying to stabilize we didn’t lose organizations who do this life saving work. We had hoped that the province would step up and fund a more broad pub system with 24 hour, seven day a week, wrap around care to meet the health needs of our vulnerable populations. That didn’t materialize. That doesn’t mean the community or civic administration or in fact, the council plans that you’ve endorsed didn’t exist and that there’s no plan.

And we’re just wandering in the wind. There was a plan, it wasn’t funded. These organizations have been stabilized. They still require stabilization.

We see it every night at Boyle with 100 people showing up with significant health concerns. So all of this informs the professional opinions of the organizations and the professional opinions of staff when we recommend the continuity or an extension of a service contract. Where operators are underperforming and that’s no different if it’s in London Regional Employment Services or a contracted agency under Ms. Share’s area.

If there are major service delivery concerns and those conversations are had, remedies are put in place and contracts are brought forward or not brought forward. And we have done that year in and year out trying to make London a better place for our vulnerable populations as do all the agencies that do this work every single day. So when we come forward, it is well thought out. It is well scrutinized.

It is with intent. And we will continue to do that work for you as council. Council Stevenson. Thank you.

I appreciate hearing all of that. And I just, my one last question to staff and then I wanna ask how much time I have is there were shelter guidelines that were in the process of being updated and I just wanted to know if that had process had completed and if those are available. Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Your Worship. Those guidelines have been submitted for administrative review with the city manager. And then as we entered the procurement process, we felt it was best to come back to council with those shelter guidelines as part of the procurement. So the council can actually weigh in on the guidelines, make decisions about what they would like to see.

And then we embed that right into the contractual obligations. Councilor Stevenson. Perfect. So apologies.

I have a follow up to that. And then so what guidelines are the shelters following until those come into places at the 2011 ones? Mr. Dickens, go ahead.

I’m going to defer to Mr. Cooper on that. Thank you. Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through you, Your Worship. The easy answer on that is yes, that is the guidelines that our teams are working with shelters to administer. Recognizing that a number of pieces in those guidelines are outdated or may not be legislatively required as per a number of changes across the province since 2011.

So the need for the update is happening. And as Mr. Dickens indicated, it will be brought back to council for that council’s consideration and input as part of that procurement process. Councillor Stevenson.

Can I just get a time check? 40 seconds. Okay, thanks. So the last comment I want to make is just about the good neighbor agreement.

I, you know, obviously there was not a lot of willingness at council or at committee, I should say, or with the agencies. But it was interesting to see what happened at the city of Windsor and how it was passed unanimously by their council and the mission and others were fully on board with it because they wanted to be good neighbors and they wanted to be able to make sure that we can coexist that we’re not putting the needs of one over the needs of another. So it’s interesting to see how different cities show up. I’m going to be looking into that a little bit more to sort of figure out how they were able to get— 10 seconds, Councillor.

To get support for that. Because, and I had hoped it was going to come out of our whole of community was that the whole of community would get well together. Okay, other speakers, you want to speak to the amendment or the as amended motion, Councillor, go ahead. Thank you very much, I was looking forward to supporting the staff recommendation and I was looking forward to supporting CPSC recommendation.

And I really have a lot of problem with in terms of what to do because on the one hand, most of what’s in, I guess I’m looking for some guidance from some of my other colleagues, but most of what’s in here is what we recommended, but I do think the one year is sort of a poison pill. So I’d be very interested in hearing what others who haven’t spoken think about this. Right now I’m thinking of voting no, but at the same time there’s work that needs to be done that was reflected in the, I think, good work that the CAHPS committee presented to this council. And I think that’s being frustrated here.

I also think, you know, there are different contexts in different communities and Windsor did what Windsor did and what I really like about the added agenda and the agenda items, all the letters that we got from so many people, including the petition, is it created a very rich context for what’s happening on the street in London. So I’m less concerned about what Windsor may or may not have done than I am, what I’m hearing from our eyes in the street. And you know, people are talking about data. We need data, we need metrics, we need reports.

You know, one of the first things you learn when you take a research course is there’s quantitative data, you take surveys, but there’s also qualitative data, which is the rich experience that people in all walks of life feel when they’re making their own observations. We should not be dismissing the observational data that we are consistently and reliably getting from very credible sources. And I think it’s a little insulting to the research program generally, as it’s understood, and also the people who have been our informants to say, well, I don’t have enough data here to know what’s working. Well, we need more data, sure.

Nobody’s saying don’t do more studies. But what I am saying is don’t continue a plan. That’s a viable plan because there could be a better research design. And I’m sorry if I’m phrasing this too much in terms of academic research methods.

But I think we’re turning the research project on its head here a little bit. When we ignore the observational data, that I consider to be very reliable and very persuasive from people who are in the street. So since I can’t ask how much time I have left and since I can’t come back to this, I want to say that I’m very troubled by how many of us on this council are dismissing, are dismissing the observations, which is a credible form of research that we’re getting from people. This is flawed.

This is fundamentally flawed. And the fact that we’ve already voted once eight to seven on what I consider to be a dreadful amendment really bothers me. And I don’t like the direction, this is going. So I think I’ve made my position on this very clear other than the fact that to do with this main motion.

‘Cause it’s fundamentally flawed and there’s a poison fill in it. So maybe we could take that out although we’ve already voted on it. I don’t know, procedurally. How could I be satisfied that I’m voting for what I think is a good report that we received?

Well, we can split that part out. It was added to the motion and you can vote on that separately if you want. And you wouldn’t consider that redundant. No, it was added to the motion.

We have to vote on the motion. If you want that part dealt with separately, we can deal with that part separately. Okay, then, in closing, really, really. What do we need to hear from people who are going out there every day at great danger and discomfort to themselves for a little pay?

30 seconds, Council. And little job security. What more do we need to say? Thank you very much for what you’re doing.

We’re gonna support you. And yeah, we’d like more research. We’ll work on that, but you keep doing what you’re doing and we’re gonna give you good funding. What else do we really need to do, really?

Other speakers to the as amended motion. Okay, Councilor Plaza. Thank you. Speaking on the as amended motion, I’ll state that the good neighbor agreement as in the committee package was not staff’s recommendation.

Council asked me to go look at it, bring back some ideas of what it could look like. This is what they brought back. Concerns and conversations that happened at committee focused around the administrative burden that beyond organizations to meet all these requirements, they’re by pulling people off frontline services, also highlighting that the provincial and federal dollars that we’re flowing through are not eligible for those costs. So we would need to subsidize that with municipal tax dollars to funnel all this administration work.

Phone from the Councilor’s point, just as London did, London asked what an agreement might look like. Staff went out, did the work, brought it back for our consideration. Windsor has not implemented a good neighbor agreement. They voted to have staff report back with what one might look like.

So I would say they’re a little bit behind us in the process of where we’re at today in this discussion. I had major concerns about the onus and responsibility of where the work would lie and the community outreach in it. In my opinion, it would hold those service contracts providers to a higher standard for public engagement than even we do here at Council in the administration that goes with it. So wasn’t supporting that, just when I highlighted, as I believe there’s a few things that were not accurately stated.

Other speakers, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. So just before I start, just to clarify again, we can have the committee recommendation separate and apart from the amended parts that we saw here and we can vote on them separately. Well, I can separate it anyway.

So right now, how I’m gonna do it is I’m gonna do A first, then I’m gonna do the new added I part second. And then from what I hear so far, I can then I can do everything else after that. So I’ll do it that way unless someone has an objection. Thank you.

So I guess some of the comments that I heard, I appreciate that I will say, I will support the committee recommendation, but the added items are items that will destabilize our ability to do the work. We have heard from staff that the procurement process is very well vetted and scientifically backed. We’ve heard from my conversations with service agencies of what they require and kind of how to move forward, especially considering the nature of the work that they’re doing. And I struggle to know that, you know, the communication is very clear of what the needs are, but Council here is kind of set in their course and is going the course that they’re going.

And when it comes to the response to homelessness, you know, we shouldn’t be politically or ideologically motivated. This is a scientific process. We should be as scientific as we can. I heard Councilor Trussell speak to the quality of data and good data.

We do get good information, but staff are the ones who vet that information thoroughly and they work with the agencies that are actually doing the work. They have years and years and years of experience working in this and they know what works, especially considering the type budget that we’re on. And I would say that, you know, considering the nature of the issues that arise with respect to homelessness, whether it’s affordability, whether it’s addictions, whether it’s mental health, you know, we can’t be ideologically motivated on how to solve these issues. The type of addictions that people are suffering, for example, for today are of the most potent nature.

And, you know, we talk about a hard hub system with only 60 spaces, but that takes a long time for someone to go through the process, especially considering the potency of what’s on the streets today. That is not enough capacity to move people through the system. We have an affordability issue that’s kicking more people out on the street again and again and again. And it’s outpacing our ability to move forward.

And if we’re not scientific in our approach, if we’re not working with what we know works and what we know doesn’t work, then we are not gonna be successful. I hear that, you know, this is a crisis of epic proportions. We have asked the province to state declaration of emergency to declare this as a crisis. But looking at some of the added additions here to this motion, I’m starting to think this is a crisis by design in some areas.

And it’s just really hard for me to be able to speak to the people of this city and explain to them that, you know, we brought our best efforts forward to actually respond to homelessness in the best potential way because motions like this are not that, not even close. I really struggle with some of the information that I’ve heard from some colleagues on what is backing their decisions and what’s backing the information that’s driving them. And I know some of them is just largely incorrect or based on reports or contract service agreements that are out of date. And I just wonder, you know, how is that possible?

I see one counselor has left the room, but I would say to that counselor if she was here, the report that she’s referring to all the time, look at page 23 and 24, demand that you see page 23 and 24 of that contract that she’s speaking about. Even though that contract is an outdated contract, if you look at that page, ask her to reconcile what she’s arguing with those pages because it doesn’t make sense. Sorry, I’ll stop on that part. Good, so what I will say is we need to be scientific on how we move forward.

If there is a crunch in the budget, we need to advocate to the other levels of government to help us out and give us that money. If we are strictly looking at how to do this work in an ideological or political lens, if we’re looking at how to do this work to bring reports back before an election cycle, if we are looking at how to do this work with just a budget oriented mindset, then what’s the point of doing this work? Because we are missing the biggest aspect and that is the reality of how to approach the effort. Staff gave a great response on the procurement process and they worked that way in there.

Why are we ignoring them? That’s what I don’t understand. So I’m voting for the committee recommendation. I’m not voting for anything that was added at this council because I know when I stand in front of my constituents and they ask me, hey, what’s going on?

I can say at least I took the right approach. I am tired of creating prices and making it worse. Your time is up, Councillor. Other speakers, Councillor Preble.

Thank you, Your Worship. As you know, I supported the one year and I did state it when I would read a couple of things. I know we are talking or it’s kind of more of a negative move instead of one year, two years, but I do think that there is a certain commitment for one year. I don’t think that it’s very fair or I don’t know if I could use or use unacceptable if you tell me no, let me know.

But to come back one month before or two months before and say announce additional funding or other potential initiatives, I don’t think that’s fair to the organizations. With the organizations, I have a very conversation as well. I do want to thank you for what you are doing. There’s no doubt.

There’s no doubt and I was with one outreach organization last Thursday and very sad situation out there. Having said that with this one year, I truly believe we don’t have to address this in 10, 11 a month from now. We will know the provincial federal budget and we are going to have to review. And I really think that potentially from the review from some of you will come certain suggestions, ideas outside the box and hopefully we’ll be able to leverage every dollar further than we have till now.

But I do agree that we shouldn’t give it to you one month before that’s very unfair to you, to your staff, to your teams. And for when I say strategic planning, I don’t mean four, five, six years, but at least to get you one, two years. But anyways, I just want to say, I will support certainly the recommendation from our committee and thank you all. There’s fingers to the estimated motion.

Just your microphone, Councillor Pribble. Okay, good, all right. Then we’re going to divide this vote up into some sections here. Okay, so the first is going to be just part A without the I.

The I will do separate after we ask part A. Then we’ll do the I, which is the amended piece that was added in. Then we’ll do everything else, unless anybody wants a broken down further than that. Okay, let’s start with part A then.

Sir cutting, my apologies, yes. Noted, thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Now part I.

No, no, no, I’m going to turn that along. That’s fine. Yes. Noted, thank you.

Motion fails, seven, two, eight. This one. Okay, and so now the remainder of it. We were fighting down it, it’s not comfortable.

It’s actually quite nice, I don’t know, it’s nice. Councillor Cady, your microphone’s still on. If you could just mute it, that’d be great. Yes.

Sorry, I would do the wrong way. I would do the wrong way. I would like to work on something. Yes.

Councillor Cady, we’re not voting. Someone in the, can I just, did we just vote on I, which is the one year that we passed? Okay, in that case, I will vote incorrectly. So you vote yes, so that was on.

Oh, sorry, it was about one year. But when I went on it on I, on a current vote, it showed me. Councillor, I’m just going to take time because you can ask for reconsideration. You weren’t the winning side of that vote.

And that vote was the piece to add, make it one year. It failed, so now it’s still two years. So if you wanted to be one year, you voted wrong. If you wanted to be two year, you voted right.

You want, I must have clicked on the wrong one because it showed me that I would have no, so I must have clicked on the wrong one. I voted yes. And this one, in your records, did I vote yes? Yes, you voted yes.

You voted correctly. Sorry, the vote was looking at the wrong one on the screen. It wasn’t popped up yet. Okay, well it was confusing me because it went opposite way now, so.

Yeah, I voted the different way. Based on the vote that happened before that, I was going for wider consensus. Not everybody supported it, so I changed my vote. Then it’s all good, thank you.

Okay, so now we can vote on everything else. Everybody’s good. We’re going to open the remainder of all the clauses. Councillor Cutty.

Second call, Councillor Cutty. This is for the remainder of everything. Noting Councillor Cutty absent, closing the vote. Motion carries 14-0.

That’s it for that item. Back to Councillor Closa. Thank you, in your worship. I did anticipate this committee report might take till five p.m.

to get through it. So we are at number six now, which is 2.3, which is the system area. Update supports for those living unsheltered, basic needs and pathway options. We had a couple of addition communications, including something from Councillor Trousa.

This is the one that belongs to, putting it on the floor. Thank you, thank you very much. I submitted an added agenda motion to pass 2.3. And I’ve heard from several colleagues that actually I should just stick to making the motion.

Yeah, so what I’d like to do is refer the motion to caps. And I have language specifying the language of the referral, and I’m wondering if that could be put on the screen or whether myself or my seconder would like to read it. So Councillor Closa put the committee recommendation on the floor. Councillor Trousa, you wanna refer— Sarah just nodded, yes, do it.

So Councillor, I just wanna be clear. You want to refer the committee report back with some pieces. Can we just read the motion so that people can— Yes, I think that’s a good idea. Yes, I don’t know if certainly the public has a senior motion, so if you could read the motion as you submit it to the clerks, we’re just gonna make sure that that’s the version we have on the screen, and then I’ll look for a seconder.

This is a motion to substitute, to refer the committee recommendation CPSC 2.3 as follows. Quote, that the staff report dated January 26th, 2026, with respect to the system area update, supports for those living unsheltered, basic needs and pathway options. Be referred to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, for civic administration to provide a report back on the feasibility of negotiating a contract extension with 519 Pursuit Umbrella Relief Programs, Inc. For the provision of outreach support for basic, for outdoor basic needs, for the period of April 1st, 2026 to March 31st, 2027, at an upset amount of $341,049, excluding to be funded from the Social Services Reserve Fund, it being noted that a verbal delegation from S.

Campbell Park Age Street Mission, with respect to this matter was received. Okay, so that’s how we have it worded, that’s great. Is there a seconder for the referral of Councillor Preble? Okay, so we’ll have debate on the referral.

Speak now, or you could hold to later, Councillor Trostoff, but I’ll give you the first option. My sense in doing this was the work that Pursuit 519 is doing is important enough that it warrants a little bit of additional conversation, and I think that that’s been lost, while the other matters that would be, that were before CAPS, received a lot of consideration and debate, this particular piece of the CAPS agenda was not a tied into in the level of detail that I would like, and rather than try to debate this and make motions and make additional amendments, at council, I think it would serve everyone’s interest, especially given the time to refer this back to CAPS, therefore I’m making that referral motion. All right, I’m gonna look for other speakers on the referral, Councillor Ferrer, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor, appreciate Councillor Trostoff doing the work on a significant weekend for himself too, and putting this together, I won’t say why, but I’m obviously gonna support this, I told him I’d support this before, I think it’s appropriate that it comes back as soon as we can.

When is this report coming back? Sorry, okay, yeah, that’s good. Coming back to the committee when it does, and it’s gonna be timely, but these services, these organizations that are listed here, they do good work, and we definitely need to kind of continue that, I do hope that we can get some funding from other levels of government, I’m sure if we do, that would be able to assist as well, but in the meantime, I’m gonna be supporting this as it is, and I’m looking forward to the conversation at committee. Other speakers to the referral, Deputy Mayor Lewis, thank you, Your Worship.

So, I was prepared to receive the report that came through committee, I’m not prepared to support a referral, because what this is, is a request to backfill a portion of the $4.2 million removed by the federal government, because that’s where that funding was coming from, and I will, and this is related to why I don’t support the referral, it’s we cannot continue to backfill the senior levels of government when they withdraw funding from a program, and this is happening across the board, 4.2 from the feds on this funding is just one example. Five days ago, we heard Bill Tucker say, another round of cuts is coming to the Thames Valley District School Board, ‘cause the funding formula there from the province has left them with a $32 million deficit. We know we’ve had delegates here from LHSC a variety of times, they’re facing a $150 million deficit because of the funding formula, and we’ve had delegates asking us to backfill some of the costs that go along with things like physician recruitment. There’s all kinds of things that the senior levels of government fund and then withdraw from or don’t fund adequately.

We cannot continue to backfill every one of those, and when we talk about the Social Services Reserve Fund, two items from now, we’re gonna be talking about another $540,000 drawdown for changes to the warming centers, which I support. We also, in a couple of items, are going to talk about our desire to have a winter response next year that instead of the 60 spaces at Boyle has 100 spaces. The only source of funding we have for that right now is the Social Services Reserve Fund. There’s no other source of funding for those warming centers right now, which is why we have to draw down to increase them even for the remainder of this year.

And if we do lower the thresholds, then we will have even more pressure on that Social Services Relief Fund or Reserve Fund. So there comes a point where we have to say, we cannot backfill for the senior levels of government. We will do what we can, and we’re gonna talk about the warming centers and a couple of items, and that’s something that we can do here. But we can’t backfill this funding removal from the feds, and I know that the council is only suggesting the feasibility on the 519 pursuit.

The Salvation Army is going to lose funding from this. So are we going to entertain backfilling for them as well? Other organizations, I know from talking to Ms. Campbell, there’s gonna be an impact on the arc.

We don’t have the ability to backfund $4.2 million in federal funding. And to say that we would support it for one year, puts us right back in the same position next year. No federal dollars and no source of funding to backfill it. So I don’t need a referral to ask staff to go do some work on something that is essentially another level of government deciding to end a program.

And we can disagree with their reasons, but we have to take the steps that we can take as a municipality. And so I recommend that we do not refer this, that we go back to the original recommendation, which was to receive the staff report, because it’s been very clear from the feds this money’s not coming back. Whatever new money comes, if new money comes, and I’m not hopeful that new money’s coming, but it will have an entirely different set of criteria attached to the funding that they were ending today. So I’m not, I don’t need to have a referral on this.

I’m prepared to receive the original staff update and move forward. Councillor Ploza. Thank you, Your Worship. I would say as chair procedurally, a referral always takes a presence.

And I know it’s an order. My concern is twofold. We have the comments made of some are just ready to move forward. And it’s true staff confirm that there is no back filling of this money coming.

There’s no new program announcement. They’ve checked and it’s gonna be a $4.2 million gap. But procedurally, when we keep referring every report back to committee, we get to enjoy each other’s company on one committee report till for four hours here and six and a half hours at committee. And it’s just this cycle.

Whereas motions can come independent, realizing the source of funding. As it’s been stated, there are other gaps that I find quite concerning within this report, including the 18 beds for women at risk at the center of hope in addition to other water and meals. So there are community conversations out there that I’ve had from different faith leaders of how others in the city can step up and start filling this is something that I’ll need to work at committee of bringing a motion forward separate from this as I was not prepared with the full conversations today with committee and community having different ideas that would not have the impact to our budget. I will highlight and transparency as chair that the social services reserve fund does have the money available in it for this.

You can certainly ask Mr. Murray, but he does have those numbers available and it is a couple million of that funds. So funds are there. It just depends where we wanna go with it.

So just making those comments that for me procedurally having independent things versus saying the same full report back every time to committee just leaves everything on the floor. And very disappointed that there is no backfilling from projects and things that we know are desperately needed in the community for this funding and the needs especially as we stand up our housing at the micromodular shelter sites. As a community trying to gain capacity of those 70 beds and here in this report, we’re gonna be losing 18 due to a loss of funding. Other speakers to the referral.

Go ahead, Councillor Preble. Thank you. So I hope their colleagues that you will support this. I do want this.

First of all, it would normally come to the CDSC committee. It will end up being on our in front of us at the council, but this is one of the no doubt one of our valuable organizations that helped tremendously. And I really want to stay this on the table. And when I say on the table, I’m not saying that I’m talking over the 341,000, but I really think that this is certainly one of the organizations.

And again, when I mentioned an hour ago that last week I was with one of the organizations, this was one of them. I’m just like volunteering nothing else, nothing more, but just in that day, there were two people that went to the person I was with thinking for saving their lives. So I hope it’s referred because it should have been there first at the place at the CPSC anyways. So let’s refer it.

Let’s keep it on the table and let’s see what happens in terms of higher levels of funding. But I just don’t want this now. If we are gonna not refer it, if it’s gonna, I don’t want this to die. I want this to stay alive and let’s see what happens.

So please do refer it. We will work with it at the CPSC. I think I don’t know if the other CPSC members already spoken to it. But let’s keep it alive and let’s work with it.

And let’s, as we always say, well, certainly including the mayor lobby, the higher levels of government trying to get the money. But on the other hand, I don’t want this if we don’t refer it. So what’s in front of us? So it doesn’t die and it stays alive.

So please do support the referral. Thank you. Other speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. Just a couple of questions. One is in terms of our procurement policies, I’m often curious when this kind of thing comes forward. And earlier there was a talk that there was a tendering process.

And my understanding of tendering is it’s a competitive bid. So I just wanted to tell you to staff like comments on us bringing forward something in this manner. Like, what kind of general comments I’m not sure where to go? Like, maybe a more specific question.

Well, in terms of procurement, we can just pick an agency and amount and put it in here. So the question is, would making a motion like this for council be in alignment with parameters of our procurement policy or not? Go ahead. Thank you through your worship.

So based on the way I read the motion is it’s referring to the feasibility of negotiating a contract extension. Because it’s, I’m assuming it is based on an existing contract that the council is wishing to extend for a longer period of time. That would be in order given it is the same services delivered by the same contractual provider at this current time. Where we go beyond what is permitted in procurement policy is certainly designating a provider to do something new that was not put out through a process that considered all proponents that might be able to provide.

So certainly in line with our procurement policy based on it’s an existing contract. But certainly where we would have concerns is where there is anything that goes beyond simply identifying the services and the period of time for the amount of money that the council wishes to support. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you for that.

The other question is, you know, the motion says for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs. And, you know, the organization sent a letter and in it included a story around a high acuity individual that’s been denied access to the other shelters ‘cause of barriers regarding their disability. But it says here that they provide PSW care supporting them to go to the washroom, creating clean, comfortable bedding, moving them physically when needed to provide comfort, feeding them at times when it’s too cold to hold a fork. And then dealing with, you know, some really tragic foot care requirements that were ultimately refused, they refused service at EMS unfortunately.

But I just wondered when we do these contracts for outreach services, are we delineating? Do we have any parameters on what we are funding? And does this provide any liability risk to ask when we have a public document here stating this is the kind of work that’s happening? And then we contract it as outreach supports.

But Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.

So I’ll defer to the city solicitor if there are additional comments. The contracts, especially the previous to this motion, the existing contract is through the emergency treatment fund. So a federal health grant, Health Canada. And really what it sets out to do is a series of life-saving basic needs support.

So meeting people where they’re at, trying to reduce the impact of living outdoors, try to ensure people have the necessities of life within the limitations of the current system. I don’t perceive that to be a liability that organizations be a 519 pursuit or any organization that does this work. I’m not sure there would be liability if they’re going above and beyond to save a person’s limb or life or to assist them in any way. We are asking them to go out and provide outdoor basic needs because a person has no access to indoor space or limited access to indoor space.

So what they do in terms of that would fall within the requirements of the contracts. What you see them doing and what the stories reflect is that these organizations routinely go above and beyond and we thank them for that. Okay, thank you very much. Last question, I guess, is if we were not to do this referral, what is the process with, as we mentioned, there’s a few organizations providing services, we’re staffed because we just approved something that said find more funding for basic needs.

So were there plans for staff to bring us forward their recommendations in terms of how to address the funding shortfall? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, worship, I’ll start this and I’ll pass it to Mr.

Cooper. Staff have been engaging the federal and provincial governments looking at any continuation of these one-time grants or these one-time funds. So that was part of our go out and try to find another source of funding. Unfortunately, the federal government has made it clear these are time-limited grant programs and those that receive funds would be very unlikely to receive additional or continued funds.

Civic administration continues to seek out where we can find alternative sources of funding as per the council direction, but I will pass it to Mr. Cooper as he’s on screen. Mr. Cooper, go ahead.

Thank you and through your worship. I don’t have, thank you and through your worship. I don’t have a lot to add to what Mr. Dickens had said.

I think what we were trying to do with this report is recognizing that the delayed procurement report had a clause or had a recommendation or had direction to seek additional funding. Our teams have already done that. And so we wanted to get this back in front of council ahead of when those contracts will be ending at the end of March to have this conversation to explore these opportunities. Councillor Stevenson.

No, that’s everything, thanks. Okay, other speakers to the referral. I have myself on the list, so I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Go ahead Mayor Morgan.

Yes, so I want to speak to the referral. And I want to first say, I appreciate Councillor Trostau’s approach of trying to refer back for a conversation. I will say as much as it is easy to say, this organization supplies a great service. It was funded by the federal government.

We want to continue it. The $4.2 million is associated with about, I think about 30 FTEs across the system being impacted by the ending of this funding. And so I’m inclined to, although I understand the approach, I think we need to take a bigger step back approach to how we address the larger issue. I appreciate our staff have gone and tried to seek funding.

I was in Ottawa last week, meetings with the prime minister and federal ministers on a variety of needs that municipalities have, including needs in this particular space. You know, we’re not the only municipality impacted by this. And remember, this funding was a funding that came together on a temporary basis, had to be some provinces matched in other provinces negotiated directly with municipalities. It’s a very patchwork series of fundings that have different arrangements in different provinces.

It’s unlikely that the federal government is going to continue it under the existing structure because it was a little bit all over the place in the way that it came together. That being said, there are significant asks before the government with the continuation of really critical operational funding that can support a number of the areas impacted through the expansion of the reaching home funding and the continuation of it because it’s been extended a couple of times but it still expires in 2027. The parliamentary budget officer says it needs to be dramatically expanded to meet the government’s own goals on addressing homelessness. And I don’t know where that conversation goes, but that is an act of conversation between municipalities and the federal government, but the needs.

There always is capital dollars that gets put on the table and never the operating dollars to kind of operate the capital. And this continues to be a challenge for municipal governments. This is an example of something we were able to use for operational dollars that is not long enough, not stable enough, not permanent and continues to put pressure on municipalities in the space where we know we have the most pressure already, particularly within the healthcare-related, provision of healthcare-related services, which is not a municipal jurisdiction, but provincial and federal. And so for me, I don’t think I’ll support Councillor Troso’s referral.

I would say to Councillor Pribble, it doesn’t actually kill the conversation in any sort of way. If the referral doesn’t pass, we can still receive the report. There’s nothing as precluded from having future discussions on any of these matters in any way at future committee meetings. And I think a larger strategic discussion like the mayors have had in Ottawa, we need to start thinking about that and the runway on how we actually meet our needs from an operational perspective for critical services in our community when capital dollars are readily available.

But in some cases, we may not even be able to access those fully without operational commitments. I look to some of the envelopes within the Build Canada Homes Fund where you can get money for support if I was in, but you have to show you have operational support. Well, if you don’t have the operational support, you’re not going to access the capital money. There needs to be a better alignment between all three levels of government to get funding programs in place so that we’re kind of staying in our lanes, but we’re also working together to make sure that critical services are provided.

So there’s a significant impact in the system beyond what Councillor Troso’s motion is trying to address. And I think, I recognize that’s in the staff report, but a strategic discussion about how we approach this is warranted. And it’ll be a difficult discussion because there’s not going to be enough resources to do all the things that we’d like to do. And there’s not going to be enough operational dollars to do all the things that we no need to be done.

And that’s why we have people at warming centers and people who need micromodular shelter space and other things. Like this is the fundamental issue that we have and it is not restricted just to this outreach agency. There are multiple other agencies impacted by the ending of this funding, particularly on the operational side. So I’m going to not support the referral.

I don’t think it includes a strategic discussion of the committee about the larger issue though. Thank you Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you. Okay, any other speakers to the referral?

Okay, seeing them with the referral for voting. Your worship, this is on the referral? That’s correct. Yes, I vote here with you.

I vote no on the referral, thank you. Opposed in the vote, motion carries eight to seven. So that item of the committees is addressed. I’ll turn it back to the chair for the next item.

Do we not have to still receive it, your worship? No, the receiving was all incorporated into the referral. All of it’s been referred back. That was what the motion was constructed is.

What was the vote on that? Sorry, the referral passed eight to seven. Eight to seven. Okay, thank you.

Yep, sorry, thanks go to there. My brain skips ahead to the next caps meeting. No, David, I don’t need that, thank you. Sorry.

So this takes us on to eight being 4.1, being the allocating the City of London Community Grants. Annual Strength and Fund to Capital Projects only in 2026 and 2027 budget cycles. This failed at committee on a tied vote of three to three. So putting on the floor, just receiving the communication.

And at that point, procedurally, if somebody else in the letter wants to move it, it would be the time to do it. So that’s on the floor. Yes, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

So I would like to move the alternative language that was provided at committee, which was to move to just capital funding for 26 and 27. So first off, thank you for being prepared in advance. There’s not only the direction, but also the alternative bylaw that we need to be passed. That’s always very helpful for us addressing a council.

So we have a like a motion drafted that kind of addresses all of that, that amends it all and then kind of updates the bylaw that we would consider tonight. Think, ‘cause I don’t think it’s on, it’s not on the added agenda. So I’m probably gonna read it out. It should be an e-scribe.

And if you wanna count, read out the motion and I will seek, I know you have a second here, but I’ll just seek the second. That way it’s for the public and hear exactly what the wording of the motion is. Absolutely. So that the motion be amended to read as follows, that the attached bylaw being a bylaw to amend bylaw number CPOL38234, as amended to limit the city of London community grants, annual program two, capital funding category, as to fund the city of London community grants, policy four, 26, 27, be approved at municipal council, meeting on February 10th, 2026.

It being noted that the communication has appended to the agenda from Councillor Ramen, Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Eepalosa, with respect to allocating the city of London community grants, annual stream to fund capital products, only 26 and 27 budget cycles was received. It being noted that communication has appended to the added agenda and a verbal delegation from MCASD pillar nonprofit network, or with respect to spanner were received. Okay, and a seconder for that, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, so that amendment is on the floor.

I look for debate. You like to go now or, okay, go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. And I’ll keep this brief as I did speak at the committee on this item as well.

So just with respect to our capital projects stream and using this money specifically and only for capital projects for our annual stream. Part of the reason why I’m supportive of this direction is in looking historically on how we funded the capital stream in 25, 24, 23. I noted that there were in 25 only one project, for instance, that came through and funding. And that was, in my view, had to do with the limitations of the amount of funding available.

24, 23, we see some additional requests come through. But again, it’s that limitation. We know organizations are out there that are requiring and needing support for their capital projects. That capital money that we can provide can be leveraged by them to get support for other levels of government.

And right now, those capital dollars are significant in our community. I hear about the need for them all the time. One of the things I hear about is the opportunity for capital funding that will allow for more space for an organization that would then allow for, let’s say, more participant space for programming that supports things that we’re doing here in the city. So for that reason, I’m asking my colleagues to consider this at the time.

Yes, I know it would make changes to our innovation. It would get rid of the innovation stream and the grassroots stream. But at this time, I think having stable capital funding, getting shovels in the ground in some cases for projects, making sure that we have opportunity to purchase equipment for organizations that are in need as well, I think, is really critical. Okay, other speakers to this?

Is there Trossa? Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Here I am again.

I can’t support this because I think there are really good reasons why, as the Councilor has stated, why we should be giving organizations the opportunity to apply for capital funding. Yes, there are really good things that could come out of that. But not at the exclusion of operating funds. We should have a fluid process where in this funding stream, organizations, some of whom are not yet at the point in their development where they are even thinking about shovels in the ground.

And I think it’s exclusive and I think we should be more inclusive is what I’m trying to say. There’s no reason why grassroots organizations should not be able to utilize this funding source to apply for operating grants. Because in many cases, it’s those operating grants that get them over the difficult period in their history as a nonprofit where they’re even at the point where someday they can be thinking of capital grants. So to say no operating grants, just capital grants, really misses part of the need, the very, very demonstrated need.

And I’m thinking back to what the delegation was telling us. We’ve got new, very innovative organizations that are coming forward asking for operating funds. We should not cut them off at the knees because they are not yet at the place in their development where they can be doing capital grants. It’s discriminatory.

It’s highly discriminatory against newer startup organizations that are the most deserving who are often serving, who are often serving the most dispossessed from our population. So I would say please vote no on this amendment. And we’re gonna have a good application process. We’re gonna have a good jury process.

We’re not going to let through bad applications. That’s not the problem here. So let’s say no on this and encourage our nonprofits to be innovative whether or not they’re gonna be put in trouble. I’m very, very gracious.

Please tell me for that. Councillor, Councillor Kadi, you’re not muted. Oh, I’m sorry. Okay.

Can I move? Yep. So just to just to repeat that last part, whether or not you’re at the level of your development to be able to engage in capital projects with shovels in the ground should not be the determining factor here. So please vote no on this amendment.

I think I’m repeating myself at this point. So thank you. Other speakers to the amendment, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you.

Similar to comments that Councillor Trussell has made. I’m not gonna be supporting this as it is. And the reason is it’s like the perspective of really, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to incubate the little people or the little person?

Are we trying to incubate the established ones? Now I’m not saying we shouldn’t incubate both or help both. I’m just saying if we are already dealing with a funding cut and a pause kind of going into and changing the way we have the program operating itself is something that I’m not really interested in. I did reach out to the clerks and I did ask if we were to vote this down with the programming stay the way it is.

Obviously they told me it would because I did wanna see the funding get re-implemented into the community grants program as it was. I don’t feel like it was very fair to cut the program as it is. And when it comes to the capital side versus operational side, it is easier to fundraise for capital projects. It is not easier to fundraise for projects that focus on people.

And I think that that’s a very true statement. And the way this is going, especially because we have limited funds, if it’s just focusing on the capital side, how are we supposed to really focus on the smaller organizations, the ones that actually focus on people, the ones that don’t actually have any infrastructure or any buildings or anything like that. I’d like to see the incubation of new startup community organizations. And this is how I see we can do that.

We would cut the innovation stream, we’d cut the grassroots stream. Both of those streams are more suited for smaller types of organizations. And I just wouldn’t agree with this as to be the way to go. I will ask this to staff though.

I did wanna bring a motion to committee in the future for seeing if we can re-implement the funding and send that to the budget cycle. And my question would be, is if we were to change the programming now, if I were to bring that motion forward, would that motion preclude the operational side? And would it only be able to be towards the capital side? Or could I bring a motion that has funding for both the capital and operational?

So I think that’s a, there’s a lot to that question, Councillor. One, the budget’s actually after the election in the future. So technically, any decision can be revisited at that point. Obviously, there’s operational logistics work and commitments that are made in the interim based on the program and the timing of the program, which may restrict it.

So I don’t think, I don’t know if there’s a clear answer. I can have staff attempt to answer your question as much as possible. But there’s probably a, there’s a number of things that play there. And also the concept of referring things to a budget that is actually the next term of council.

Like that’s, I think that’s a whole other conversation that we can have another time about whether that’s a good idea or appropriate or not. But go ahead, Ms. Smith. Thank you and through your worship.

Currently, the funding is for the annual stream, regardless of what type of projects we fund is 250,000 a year. This comes from the Community Investment Reserve Fund based on that there’s a minimum of a million dollars balance in that fund each year. So we will be allocating 250,000 this year. And again, in 2027, in 2027 council has asked civic administration to do a thorough review of the community grants program.

We will do that review and bring that back as part of the next multi-year budget. And at that time, there may or may not be an ask through the next multi-year budget for the community grants program, whether that’s the multi-year stream and/or the annual stream depending on the new community grants program and policies that council approves in 2027. Does that helps, Councillor? Just the microphone.

It does help. Okay, so I guess a follow-up question to that would be with this direction, if approved by council be taken into consideration or be considered as a direction for that annual review in the next term for the community grants program. So my question is, I think Ms. Smith, okay, I’ll just stop there.

Thank you, and through your worship, we are reviewing the program as it is right now. So the decisions made today wouldn’t impact that the reviewing the full community grants policy as it is today. That’s good. I’m still not gonna support this, but I’m glad that it’s not gonna affect the next term or the potential review.

So follow-up question then would be if we were to be, if council were to support this, as soon as this comes into force and effect, community grants are only restricted to capital items. Okay, so I’m not gonna be supporting it because this is not the right direction. I am glad it’s not gonna be a direction for the next review though, so that’s good. But still, there is a time between now and then.

So I’m not gonna be supporting as it is. Okay, any other speakers to the amendment? Go ahead, Deputy Mervous. Yeah, so I will absolutely be supporting this amendment.

I could not disagree with Councilor Truss-Almore that it’s discriminatory. I think we get to set the criteria on grants because we’re not obligated to hand out any grants. So we do get to set the criteria in terms of what categories they can be applied for under. That’s our prerogative as council.

And this is not, and I’m not gonna get into a litany of listing some of the programs that I think we’re very questionable in their funding, but when we’re talking about a dance program or somebody who’s making YouTube videos in their basement and having used some of our grant money to do that, I don’t think that that’s actually a good examples of innovation and startup grants, grassroots grants. So I’m just saying. Okay, I have a point of privilege, councilor. I wanna make a point of privilege on behalf of the arts and culture community that this is really insulting.

That people engage in arts and culture endeavors and they’re legitimate. And to denigrate it like that, really, really, I just say, I know I’m maybe not central in that community, I’m a musician, but I just take that as a real insult to people that do arts and culture. And I wanna make a point of privilege. I think the comments could be interpreted in different ways, I recognize that’s the way that you interpreted it.

I’m not sure that’s the way everybody would interpret it. So I recognize that that is a point of privilege, but I’m just not sure that I’m not sure it was phrased in the way that you interpreted it, but I think we’ve heard your comments. I’m gonna allow the comments to continue and recognize that, yeah, I’m not sure how to handle that one, so I’m just gonna let the comments continue. I’m gonna listen carefully to see if there’s anything that crosses the line.

Let’s go ahead. Yes, well, as I was saying, I don’t think that that qualifies as what was characterized as being critical to the most dispossessed in our community, which was a previous comment that was made. It’s not our obligation to be a startup funder, and we do have a multi-year stream that we fund ongoing programs. There’s some, there has been some great programs done by Reforce London by the London Impuse Women’s Center among others that I’ve been very supportive of.

This doesn’t touch that multi-year stream because those things are attached very much, in my view, to our strategic plan. I don’t think that everything that has been approved under the grassroots category actually does achieve a marked goal towards our strategic plan. I’ve never been satisfied, and I’ve made it very clear that I don’t think having an adjudication panel whose name’s counsel doesn’t even know is an appropriate way to handle grant money. And so for me, one thing that is definitely better about focusing on grants until the full review comes back from Miss Miss Division is it’s very easy to measure.

You get capital dollars to do a project or to purchase equipment, and you go and do that. Other measurements along the value of, and to Council Trust House Point, something that is perhaps in the arts and cultural area, are subjective. There’s not clear metrics attached to all of them. It’s a matter of a subjective evaluation after the fact.

This allows us to focus in on some really clear needs that we’ve heard are out there for a short period of time until the review process is finished with good clear metrics. So that’s why I’m encouraging colleagues to support this moving forward. Let’s focus on the things where we can have an actual measurable impact, and doing it on the capital side is where we can do it best right now. Other speakers to the amendment.

Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open the amendment for voting. It’s okay. Yes. - Noted, closing the vote.

Motion carries, 10 to five. Okay, now we need an as amended mover and seconder. Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor ramen. So as amended, our lieutenant speakers will open the as amended motion.

Yes. Okay, Councillor’s cutty’s vote was noted, closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to four. That’s our proposal.

Thank you, Worship. That moves us onto the final item of the community and justice services, which is the 4.2 being the temporary warming centers. You can allow me, I’ll put it all on the floor. I’ll note that we were pulling from that social services reserve fund as there were some amendments made at committee.

Staff have confirmed that there is those adequate funds available for that. And I believe there’s something that needs to be clarified in there as it relates to the environment to Canada, which color staff can speak to that. I believe the clerk was aware of that conversation behind the scenes with the deputy mayor. So just flagging those two things as well.

And thank you for the community who sent in 29 added communications in regards to this, that’s in your added package. Yes, okay. So the only thing I’m aware of about additional information is someone wants to amend or pull parts of this apart and change the language. I’m going to allow that to happen as an actual change rather than I’m not sure what the other piece of information was that staff were going to provide unless I’m missing something.

You worship for clarification. Believe that was in our part B, we had a conversation of environmental Canada issues, warnings and stuff. We’re looking for some clarifications as it goes by a color code. So I’ll flag that as we move through the conversation, staff might need to interject looking for some direction.

Yes, so that’s the part about the environment Canada warning system actually covers not just cold weather, but fog and other things. And so it probably isn’t an appropriate measure. I mean, we’re going to have to deal with that through changes to it since this did come through committee. So I think that’s the piece that someone’s going to try alternate language on.

So I’m just going to allow that to proceed. But was that the only piece that needed to be raised was that the warning system’s fairly broad. This covers a lot more things than cold and hot. Yeah, okay.

Got to be aware of those. Yeah, so I’m going to lead into that a little bit as it suggests some changes here. And I’m going to seek the clerk’s guidance, of course, on how to best do this, ‘cause there’s a couple of conversations. And it is exactly around that environment, Canada piece, your worship.

And so what I’m seeking to do is remove the reference from the environment, Canada issues extreme weather alert from part B and in the investigation under clause E, move it to there so that staff can report back with some additional recommendations on what operationalizing based on an environment, Canada alert means, because as you alluded to, there are conditions. The city of Winnipeg was under an extreme weather alert yesterday for fog. I don’t think that’s the intention of the warming centers being open under an environment, Canada alert. So seeking some guidance procedurally on how to best move that piece down to clause E.

Okay, I think procedurally, it’s best to deal with that as an amendment. That way we can focus the debate on doing that. I can divide it, but basically it’s going to be amend B to read, we have some language, and then in part E amend it to add the new piece that would be investigate that component. So we have language on that, I’m going to get it up and make sure you’re okay with this.

There’s a seconder for making that change, though. Okay, Councilor Stevenson, okay. So there’s a moment or seconder. So we’re just going to put it on the screen so that everybody can see it.

And then when I get it on the screen, I want you to read it so that the public knows exactly what the changes and colleagues can see it. So just give us one sec. It should be up now if you refresh. Quickly read that over.

If that aligns, then if you get to read it out so people know what we’re debating. Yep, I’ll read that out. Now the motion that part B be amended to read as follows, B activate the tier three search response with the funding to be pulled from the social services reserve fund up to a maximum of $290,000 whenever it is minus 15 or minus 20 with the wind chill. And the part E be amended to add a new part B, I, to read as follows.

Investigate and report back to a future meeting of the community and protective services committee by the end of Q2 2026 with respect to the options for the 2026, 2027 winter season and enhance tier three plan in addition to the existing tier one and tier two extreme cold response options, including the following cost and scenarios, part VI bracket options to further align with Environment Canada extreme weather alerts. I just want to go to our staff to make sure that that language addresses the concern. If it doesn’t, that was the purpose on. Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you and through your worship. Sorry, I wasn’t at community and protective services. But I want to make sure we’re accurate. So options VI to align with Environment Canada extreme weather alerts, just to know, so Environment Canada extreme cold weather alerts alert at minus 15.

So if there’s, I believe in A, you’re asking us to open at minus five degrees Celsius at minus five Environment Canada wouldn’t issue an extreme weather alert. If A is aligned with VI. So no, there are different pieces. The part in A is referring to funding local agencies who do open at minus five and the number of spots that they would make available.

This B is being changed to get rid of the Environment Canada direction completely because it’s just not going to issue something for a fog alert and the way the language is there we would. But it’s moving that like investigating the Environment Canada and extreme weather alerts. And it’s kind of broad because you might not do all of their extreme alerts and they kind of report back option for what are the things that we could do to align with Environment Canada in some way. But there’s a lot of flexibility there to do it in a way that makes sense as was the concern.

But A is related to a different portion of the tiered winter response. So I think it might cover everything that you need. I might be able to clarify a little for Ms. Smith because I know she was away and conversations were happening with Mr.

McGonagall while she was away and now she’s here today. So apologies that wires may have got crossed along the way. But part of the conversation previously was about, and in particular, the reference was on the December 26th Boxing Day ice storm. And that would have been an exception to the temperature threshold but would have constituted an extreme weather event where perhaps it would have been appropriate to open.

The temperature thresholds wouldn’t capture that. On Environment Canada, the extreme weather alert for a winter storm may have captured that. But the extreme weather alert the way the language is written was just any extreme weather alert which could cause high winds, fog, many things. So we’re asking you to come back having evaluated this new color code system that Environment Canada has created and advise us if there are any particular alert conditions which we might also want to consider activating the warming centers for.

So seems like the language is okay for that. So amendments on the floor, it’s been read out, it’s moved and seconded, we’ll have debate on the amendment. And I think there’s might be debate on the wider motion. Like this is really just moving the Environment Canada piece out of that and into a report back to options.

So again, I want the debate just to be really tight to this. We’re gonna have debate on the wider piece after we get this part amended. So debate on just the amendment piece speakers. Do you wanna start?

Yeah, I’d like to just continue. So I think there’s actually general agreement on pretty much everything else. I think there really is and that’s a good thing that we’ve got to consensus around the table, I think, on this. For me, and just in terms of operationally, I mean this came up.

I know other members of council have had conversations with staff as well. We just wanna be really clear what the thresholds are. That’s really important and it comes back to that consultants report that was done on what do we do for the warming centers. They recommended having very clear criteria for activation.

In fact, we got so clear that we actually had an and instead of an or that made things a little bit challenging. So we wanna make sure that we get it right this time. And the Environment Canada color coding alert system is a new system. I admitted at committee G’s.

I thought we were still going with the old system. I didn’t even know they had changed it yet. It’s that new this winter. And there are a lot of things that qualify for an extreme weather alert that aren’t necessarily related to activating a warming center.

And as I said, the fog alert and Winnipeg yesterday being a great example of that. So this would give staff time to go back, look at this new system that Environment Canada has rolled out, which quite honestly, I’m not sure if Environment Canada completely understands, but that’s a whole different issue. But come back to us and say, there are five or six of these alerts from Environment Canada that Council may wanna consider as an exception. We don’t wanna do them all.

We wouldn’t be able to do them all, but we can do some of these if Council directs us to do so. But giving them time to parse through those three different color codes with a whole bunch of different weather conditions and come back with a list for us so that we can be precise so that it’s consistent and people will know what to expect in terms of when a warming center would be activated. So we may end up putting a bunch in. We may end up putting only one or two in, but I think moving it from all to come back and tell us which ones are applicable for a warming center activation is reasonable.

I hope colleagues will support that because I think some of them will still be applicable, but some of them won’t. And so I think we can still hopefully gain some consensus on this, make the changes today that will be in effect immediately, getting that and an or fixed. And then with the other reports that are coming back to us in Q2 of 2026, with the other potential moving to 100 spaces next year instead of 60 spaces, two locations potentially instead of one location, staff are gonna do a bunch of work on this and come back. So let’s let them incorporate that into the work that they’re doing.

Okay, any of the speakers on the amendment? Seeing none, I’m gonna open the amendment. Councilor Troso, you’re speaking or not? Yeah, I’m not gonna support this amendment because I think the intention of the amendment, which could have been more precisely drafted, of course, you never have perfection in drafting this, but it’s to remove some nights that would meet these other criteria, but we really need it.

And I think that we have to look at this from the point of view of the people who very badly need the services of the warming center and to say, well, you know, we might have drafted this in a way where there might be some nights where we’re gonna open the warming center under this criteria where we really didn’t have to. Well, I think we have. And again, I think it’s just for the amount of money we’re gonna be saving here and hasn’t really been made clear to me. Let’s face it, by the time this goes for the investigation, it comes back, the season’s gonna be over.

This is an actionable improvement that’s going to improve people’s ability to access our warming centers in the short run. And I’m fine with looking at all the other things later on, but to remove this now just seems like it’s a false economy. Can staff give me an estimate as to how many nights we’d be saving if we’ve actually made this amendment right now? So I don’t know if staff can answer.

I mean, you can try to answer, but you’re asking the answer based on weather that doesn’t happen yet and alerts. But I mean, I saw you put your hand up, but I don’t know. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify. So in the amendment, which I’m looking at right away, we’re increasing the community spot.

So currently in tier three A is our community. We currently have approximately 25 bets. And often at night they serve 30, that’s three A. It’s not the city’s response at three B.

So A of this is approving right away those organizations, arcade and lending cares, if applicable, to open from minus five. So right away, we’re now, where before they would open at minus 15, they’re now opening at minus five from now until April 30th, 2026. So it’s my understanding and conversation with Mr. Dickens and arcade.

They currently have a spot where they can open 30 net new bets. So that means that we will be able to increase our 25 bets with arcade to an additional 30 bets and our 20, sorry, warming spaces and our 25 warming spaces with lending cares. So now you’re looking at 50, 80 warming spaces that we can open as soon as they are able to at minus five instead of minus 15. Tier three B is the city’s activation at Boyle.

We will open if this amendment goes forward at minus 15 or a windshield of minus 20. So we will open at minimum 60. Yes, we’ve been getting on average 87 to 90 people when we activate at Boyle. That will only be at minus 15, but we’re now moving tier three A, our community response to activate at minus five, not at minus 15.

That’s a true sign. Well, I’m terribly confused now because I don’t think part A is part of the amendment that’s on the table. If I understand the amendment. Councilor, maybe I can explain the amendment ‘cause I’m not sure that you’re not on the same page.

The challenge with the amendment as it came through committee is it applied to all environment Canada alerts, including things like fog and other stuff. Maybe there is an environment Canada alert that beyond the improved threshold that makes sense like freezing rain or something. So we’re just pulling that out, putting it into the staff report back piece. But your question was, how many nights does that save?

Like staff can’t predict the weather. So we’re gonna deal with the, there are multiple improvements on the committee. This is one change that’s moving the environment Canada piece from like a for sure into a figure out how to make it work. And then report back.

Yeah, my problem with the report back is, what if we have evenings that are nights that are, well, what if we have nights where some of these criteria would be satisfied and we’re just gonna not open the warming center? I just don’t think it makes any sense. And I just, I’m getting glares from staff. I don’t understand why.

That’s not a glare kit counselor. Just to be clear, just to be clear, my intention here is to provide the maximum level of warming center availability in a humane and medically consistent way. And not say, well, you know, maybe it would be fog and we really shouldn’t have to open it. If there’s fog, it’s a false saving.

If people are placed in the freezing cold suffering without our warming center, you know? This was a compromise. This was a compromise. And I’ve gotten plenty of feedback from people saying, why are you even keeping the 15?

We should be using the minus five as the health unit recommends. So this was a compromise to try to do this in a reasonable way. I’m not sure where the other counselors who supported this motion are on this, but I just don’t think we should pass this amendment if it’s going to have the possibility of removing an evening a night from the warming center. And I’m just having a real difficult time with that.

Thank you. I’ll go to other speakers. Councilor Ferreira. Thank you.

So I’m looking at the amendment. I think we can figure something out here. I do hear what Councilor Trosso’s saying. And the way I read it is like we could have freezing rain or snow squalls at zero degrees or negative one.

And I see that this is reporting back for the next budget or sorry, another community protected services cycle by the end of this year Q2, but that would be implemented in the following winter. So that’s correct. So I hear what Councilor Trosso’s saying. This we are looking for like an immediate response.

And I do understand staff’s concern on the fact that Environment Canada Alerts could be considered as fog and there’s some distinction that needs to be there. Is there the potential that we could have staff report back just on that piece? Just to clarify that up for not the next CAHPS meeting ‘cause I know we’re out of time for that, but the following CAHPS meeting for an immediate implementation because I do share the same concerns is what Councilor Trosso’s saying. We still have a little bit of winter left.

I shouldn’t say a little bit. We have quite a bit of winter left seemingly. And the intent here for me anyways was to ensure that we kind of capture all of those significant weather events that could detrimentally impact people who are outside on the street. And from conversations that I’ve had with people, people who were waking up in the middle of the night with freezing rain on them.

And it could happen at a temperature that’s below the threshold. We would preclude that from our immediate response that we’re trying to do here if we take out these Environment Canada Alerts. So is there the possibility that staff would be able to report back just on that piece just to clarify that up so we can remove any types of issues with fog and those type of significant weather alerts and just focus on the ones that are in the focus of what we were trying to intentionally bring? Is that a possibility?

So Councillor, I want you to stick to the amendment on the floor, right? Right now there is an amendment to do that. I just don’t think you’re happy with the timeframe. So your question is, could they do it quicker?

Yeah, go ahead. So yeah, from what I’m reading in this amendment, it looks like it’s gonna come back in Q226 with some other things. My question is, can we pull just that Environment Canada Alert piece out and review that and bring that at the soonest potential community protective services committee meeting so we can have it for an immediate implementation. So we don’t, because what I’m seeing here is that review is gonna be done, but that review is gonna be done a little bit late and it’s gonna be done and implemented potentially in the next winter.

And I would like to avoid that and see if we can implement that in this winter. Hopefully I clarified that. Go ahead. So through your worship, we have a three tiered system.

So we have tier one up to 20 beds that is open right now. It opened in November, it’s goes to March 31st. We have tier two and additional 70 beds that opened in November up to March 31st. We’re looking at to increase tier three A with respect to additional funds from the social services review fund.

For us to go back and look at that, it will be March, unfortunately, I hope, extreme weather alerts tied to a warming center. So in the cold would be over by then. So I’m not sure how much quicker we get it. We’re talking about the next couple of weeks that it potentially could impact, unless there’s direction now to look at us and investigate opening our tier three community beds additional times.

Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, that’s what I’m considering. Like I understand the tier one is November to April and it’s open, not on a temperature basis, but on a seasonal basis. And then the tier two is the 70 beds, which are from what I understand at capacity already all the time.

And the 20 beds are also at capacity all the time. This environment, Canada alert wouldn’t necessarily be, what I’m asking for, it wouldn’t necessarily be based on the tier two or three recommendations. It wouldn’t be based on negative five or negative 15 or windshield of negative 20. It would be based on like freezing rain, for example, which can occur from zero to negative five.

So that’s kind of the question that I’m asking. And I really want to know if we can just focus on that piece for the next potential cycle of caps to bring back so we can distinguish with that. ‘Cause if we had that information, I guess, if we were, if we had that information before us, we could implement that right now and plug it in with the emotion as originally came to caps. So my question is, can we approve what we saw from caps, clean up this amendment just a little bit and change that part specifically to come back to the next community protective services committee for implementation in the immediate term?

You know what, I know our staff are trying to answer this. Let me be frank, Councilor, not a great debate for Council. There’s three tiers to the system. There’s multiple ways from wind warnings to freezing rain activated at multiple pieces.

The same staff you’re asking to do the work are manning the warming center multiple nights a week. There’s only so much they can do in a short period of time. And on the fly here at Council is not the best time to be saying, let’s try to figure out something here. Like this is committee work, should have been done at committee and we’re trying to fix something committee did that just doesn’t make sense because we’re not gonna open a warming center ‘cause it’s a fog day, like we’re not gonna do that.

And right now the wording and Council’s wording is binding on staff is not great. So the amendment on the floor is fix that, figure it out. You can try to compress the timeframe but they actually need time to actually do the work. It’s not just every weather alert.

There’s multiple tiers, multiple types activated in multiple ways. Some of them are something might come but it might not. Others are, something is imminent, right? Like there’s a lot of complexity to this and I understand you’re trying to get it done here on the floor.

I just don’t know if that’s gonna be possible. And even a subsequent committee cycle is two weeks and then back to Council, we’re a month out. This is kind of very late in the process to try to do this in time for this year. Could be done for the future for sure.

But like I’m just trying to provide some clarity. I understand your frustration. I understand what you’re trying to do but our staff can only do so much with the time frames that we have on something like this. And I think what the motion’s trying to do is figure this out so that we can do it in the future as soon as we can but we need the runway to figure it out.

I’m saying the same thing that you are. I don’t wanna have extreme weather alert or environment can weather alert that activates a warming center during fog. I’m not asking staff to do the work right now. I’m asking as far as I’m concerned or as I know, I’m not an expert here but this is a smaller piece from the whole framework that we originally asked for.

This is just to distinguish it would be reviewing environment Canada alerts, seeing which ones there are and then picking out the ones that we know we’re actually speaking to when it comes to the cold weather warming framework. When it comes to like staff would be able to go in and say freezing rain. Yeah, that’s clearly one fog. No, that’s not one.

So, squalls, that’s one. High rain potentially, I guess that would be a distinction. I’m just saying it’s a smaller piece and I would like to think it doesn’t take too much time but I’m not asking staff to make that decision right now. I’m just asking if we can clean it up and have that come back for the immediate response.

That’s all that I’m asking for. Mr. Dickens. Why not?

Through you, you worship. So, if council were to pass this, boil would be open at minus 15 or minus 20. I think we’re all good there if that passes, boil is activated. What you’re asking is can staff quickly turn around to report and come back and say, in addition to opening at minus 15 or minus 20, boil would also be activated if these certain environment Canada alerts are activated or are notified.

And so we would say environment Canada, based on our Google search has six different activations or alerts. We think these two or three are applicable to opening up boil. So, we walk out of this room today. Boils open at minus 15 or minus 20 plus A and all that other stuff.

And then we come back and say, we’ve reviewed all the weather alerts at yellow, orange, red. And these are the ones that we think are applicable. Council, do you want us to open boil if we hit those three or one of those three? Is that clear?

That’s exactly what I’m asking. Yes, let me just be practical. The next committee meeting is in seven days of which the agendas and reports are due. We’re gonna keep staff here until God knows when.

And then it’s gonna report into council on March 3rd. That’s the very soonest. The next one is what it’s after trying to say is they can look into it. But we’re talking about council on March 31st is when you have that happen at the fastest possible time.

If you’re gonna be reasonable to let them actually do the research and write the report. So, I know what you’re trying to do. But I gotta interject on some actual logistics here. Like it’s just very difficult to actually achieve that in the timeframe that you’re talking about for the instance or two that maybe comes along, maybe, where we might have that situation that you’re talking about.

Because we’re already enhancing in multiple ways the response. It just might not be every possible, you might not be able to do every possible contemplated scenario in this moment at this council meeting right now. Knowing that it’s not a good idea to wordsmith this on the floor. I appreciate that.

I’m just concerned if we were to have freezing rain tomorrow or the next day. And we could have caught that, I guess now, or if we did, I’m not gonna recommend any special community protective service meetings or council meetings. I’m just saying, I think there is a path forward that we could make it work. I don’t wanna wordsmith anything on the floor, but I’m just concerned with this pushing that part out because that was a pretty critical and essential piece.

So I will leave it to you, Mayor, and hear what other councilors have to say. But I think we can, I think something can be done here. I don’t wanna lose that piece. I like the amendment here.

I just, that one piece, I have significant concerns with that because that could be the make it or break it. I have Councilor Frank next, so you get to hear from her and we’ll go to her now. Thank you, and I appreciate the discussion on this. And I think perhaps we could have wordsmithed this a little bit better committee.

I’m wondering if we can just add the freezing rain and ice storm one, ‘cause I feel like that’s the one that most of us can agree that is probably problematic for people being outside in the fog. And some of the other ones might be something we can look at later and try to add. But I agree like this mainly came forward because we didn’t open during the ice storm at the end of December. So those are the way we do this.

I totally agree that this makes sense moving forward. But I also wanna clarify, ‘cause I did hear from staff a couple of times, the looking at the environment can extreme weather alerts is not just for the cold weather alerts. It’s for all of them in relation to that. ‘Cause it doesn’t say cold weather.

It says extreme, environment can extreme weather alerts. And then the, so yeah, I’d be fine to do this, but is there a way we can include extreme weather alerts for ice storms and freezing rain? So procedurally, we can amend anything. There’s a practical component about what they can actually do in the timeframe that they have given the analysis.

So the answer, like, and again, there’s multiple tiers, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, worship, and just for clarity around, and we appreciate what we’re trying to do here. We’re all gonna get it.

Extreme weather alerts, you’re talking all season, right. Okay, so bring back a report of options to activate boil under any extreme weather alert through environment Canada, whether that’s a yellow, orange, or red, any time of year. As it relates to the previous conversation, we’ll just know there are labor impacts here, so we use city staff. We do predictions based on the forecast of temperature, where we can then give people a notice to come in and work overnight.

We’re not using shifts, or people who work overnight shifts, so they’re doing that on top of their regular data work. The environment Canada alerts, a yellow alert, for whatever reason, five to 10 centimeters of snow, can come in at any point in the day. They can release them at seven p.m., and I don’t wanna set up false expectations here that there was an alert, and Cheryl Smith didn’t open boil at seven p.m., because we can’t turn around the space or the staffing on a dime like that, unfortunately. When it’s tied to temperature, we have a little bit more of a range.

Mr. Latiser and his team have a little more options when it comes to that. We don’t have that control or predictability when it comes to environment Canada alerts in the cold, or I would imagine otherwise. Thank you, yes.

I didn’t ask questions, I’m not sure how that answered the question I didn’t ask, but I appreciate the information. So again, the only thing that I’m suggesting is add the extreme weather alerts in regards to ice storms, and freezing rain for this current period. The rest of all of this stuff, and the reporting back would come in June. So we’re not implementing anything else, we’re not talking about the snow storms.

So I guess that’s what I’m asking is, can I please put amendment on part B, where it says negative 15, or negative 20 with wind chill, or when environment Canada releases an extreme weather alert for ice storms or freezing rain? Yes, you can make that amendment. Okay, I’d like to make that amendment. Okay, is there a seconder for that?

Councilor Trossa. We’re gonna have a debate on the amendment to the amendment, of which there’s no language, so I’m gonna wait for the clerks to draft it, and then we can talk about it. You want the extreme, the red version of the alert? There’s yellow, orange, and red.

Yellow happens all the time. Reds are more severe. Please, they’re trying to draft this. Yeah, so my understanding of how the extreme weather alert system works is all of them are called extreme weather alerts.

And yellow, the ice storm that happened at the end of December was a yellow. Red is like a tornado, like extreme extreme. So yellow is still pretty extreme. So when I say extreme weather alerts, I mean all three, and so that’s why I’m trying to specify the ice storm and the freezing rain.

So do you want ice or the subcategory freezing rain? There’s like dozens of categories here if it breaks them down. We need to be specific. Our staff are gonna, like this is wording at council, so which one do you want?

We need to get the language perspective. Ice storm and freezing rain. Ice storm isn’t a thing, it’s ice. Freezing rain is a subcategory of ice.

Ice. Freezing drizzle, flash freeze, they’re all under ice. Ice. I think we got that language for you.

I’m gonna put it up so you can read it and be okay with it. So flip that up now. Your worship when we get there, I’ve been willing to move an extension to go past six. Okay, good with that language.

Move in seconded, okay. We’ll have debate on this, just this piece, just the addition of this part of the weather Canada alert. Do you want to debate that now, Councilor? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you, yes, and I appreciate the efforts being made. I understand that this is not the ideal location, or I said that. But essentially the only thing that I had wanted to add was I would have liked if we had opened during the ice storm at the end of December, and I’m hoping that this captures that. I understand that we have limited staff resources and they’re doing an incredible job keeping boil running, and they’ve done incredible work over the last couple of weeks.

I’m not trying to get them to have to do more, but I just felt that it would have been really great if we had boil open during those two days during the ice storm. So that is all I’m trying to capture with this. Okay, other speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis, then Councilor Trossa.

Thank you. So I too appreciate what we’re trying to get to here. And I hear Councilor Frank very clearly about the Boxing Day event. I mean, that’s where I think a lot of this conversation originated from.

But I did hear concerns from staff around labor implications and the ability, and I do know that we’ve had instances where we’ve had freezing rain, ice storms in the forecast got nothing, passes by. We’ve had some that come up and we’re told it’s coming three days previously and we’ve got lots of warning and it does punch us. And then we have other times where there’s no warning at all and it still happens. So I’m not sure how having heard the previous comments about the 12 hours notice and the staffing implications, staff would perceive activating this, particularly how we would deal with situations where we don’t have warning or we don’t have sufficient warning.

If the alert comes at 7 p.m., we don’t have time. And so I’m trying to understand ‘cause I appreciate where Councilor Frank’s trying to get us. This is why I think that the piece needed to be reviewed and reported back on. I guess I’m just looking through you chair to see if staff have any more comments about how they would even conceive of operationalizing this in the short term, given as the mayor’s pointed out practically, we realistically have four weeks or so to do this before we’re kind of out of implementation anyway.

And what I’m reluctant to do is start calling staff in and having them report for duty and then sit there and not activate because the weather misses us or not being able to activate because we didn’t have sufficient warning and sufficient staff. So I’m just looking to see if we can get any sort of comment because I 100% understand the importance of having noticed to bring staff in. They do have another job they have to do. Ms.

Smith. So number one, Boyle Community Center, even when we’ve activated it for the last 21 days, we work our best with our contracted company to clean it and open it. We are very successful in opening it for afternoon and early programs with yellow, orange and red alerts and looking and understanding what that means. If one of those alerts happens in the morning, I’m gonna have to shut the community center down.

The staff who staff at at night, we have a team of seven city of London staff, a recreation supervisors in my area, some in Kevin’s and some of our human resources staff. They’re working their day shift. We would then have to tell them like we do now that you finish your day shift and come on in at 8 p.m. I’m assuming we’d open and we’d open overnight as we’re doing now for all this.

If it doesn’t, we have to put on social media that we’re open. We also now have St. John’s ambulance there. So with us to support us and we also have two police officers there.

So we’d have to make arrangements to bring all that staff in. We have our contracted security. We have to give them notice and our corporate security staff. So we would staff that up as soon as we saw an alert and we would have to make those or close the building.

So we would probably, if we continue this until the end of March, we would probably look at some of the programs that we have now on an ongoing basis and we try to move them to another community center. So we’re not canceling people at the last minute over and over again. Go ahead. Okay, I appreciate that.

It still would be a best case scenario and doesn’t really address the, if we get a five PM alert, we just don’t have people to come in at eight PM at that point. So when we’re providing direction that they can’t operationalize, I don’t know how I can get there on supporting that. It’s a frustration because we can get long range temperature forecasts. We can see three or four days of what the anticipation is and generally reasonably close.

But the actual precipitation piece whatever that looks like is a little bit harder and not always very consistent. So I’m gonna listen to what other folks have to say. I really appreciate where Councillor Frank is trying to go. I just don’t know operationally that we can provide staff that direction and expect them to deliver.

Councillor Rossell. Thank you very much. I seconded the motion because I appreciate the direction Councillor Frank is trying to go. But to tell you the truth, we were there at caps.

I mean, really, if you look at the motion that we passed the caps and included all these things, I don’t believe there was any opposition at caps. I believe that I think we’re moving backwards a little bit and I think that there may be legitimate reasons why we’re moving backwards because of some of the operational difficulties that we’re having. I’m sorry, I just need to say it for a second. We’re having serious operational difficulties and I think part of that could be dealt with in the future through just assuming we’re gonna be open more.

But I think for purposes of this motion today, I’m gonna support, I’m gonna support the amendment. I don’t really fully understand why we just can’t stay with the committee. We’re not coming up with new language here on the floor. We came up with this at the committee and there is an amendment to pull that back a little bit which I’m opposing, but this is better than the amendment.

So I’m gonna support this. And I really have to say that the problem with fog is visibility has decreased. What are homeless people doing at night when there’s no warming centers open? I understand from everything we’ve been told that they’re walking around in the fog.

And this is just very dangerous. And if we’re looking at this from a harm reduction point of view, which we should be doing. If we’re looking at this from the point of view of trying to avoid injuries or deaths, whether it’s from frostbite or whether it’s being hit by a car, I just really wish we could just stick with the CAHPS motion ‘cause I think it was well drafted and it was well thought out and it represented a variety of details. Now that’s being amended.

So there’s an amendment to the amendment that I’m gonna support, but the amendment, so I’ll have to figure out where this all lands. But I’m very disappointed that we’re pulling back on the limited. And according to many people who wrote in, not adequate. Sort of compromise, the CAHPS crafted.

So I’m sticking with the CAHPS motion. I think that was a good compromise. But if it’s gonna get pushed back, at least Councillor Frank’s motion helps that a little bit with respect to the ice. But I think it’s a real mistake to say, well, if it’s just fogged, that’s not dangerous.

‘Cause there are automobiles out there that are slipping. They’re gonna hit people. And there, there’s a risk management liability question. So I’ll support this amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Palosa. Thank you, a question through you to staff. As we talk about operationalizing intentions, we heard about programs, perhaps having to be canceled, last minute staff trying to come in and other partners that need to be, I would say on standby or part of this response.

In regards to the amendments on the floor, if it’s, say, environment Canada says, ice might be coming, they issue the warning. Ms. Smith, this is gonna be for you. But if they issue the warning, it’s coming.

We anticipate it coming. We start standing it up. Start on socials of like, we’re gonna do it. And we’ll say a few hours later, the weather pattern changes, it’s gonna miss us.

At that point is Council’s expectation that Council staff still completely stand it up, even though the threat has passed. If we do stand down, ‘cause the warning has been cleared, and people show up at the center. Like he said, it puts the weather, we see it coming. It’s a forecast, we have time to plan.

But if it’s, something’s gonna happen and it narrowly misses us, how would staff handle that? Realizing if we’ve started standing it up in the public’s anticipating it’s hit socials, do we follow through, or do we back down once it’s been removed? Go ahead. Thank you, and through your worship.

If we’re letting our community partners know in one of my first steps after I informed Council as I inform all the community partners, including police and everyone. So if I’m informing them, I’m opening up a warming center this evening, then I’m opening it up regardless because people will show up. Thank you, I had anticipated and hoped that would be our level of service. So if we said we’re out that we’re gonna do it, we’re gonna go through with it.

Just concerned that if it’s not needed, it was funds that was operationalized with good intention that didn’t need to be used at the time and programs canceled. Any other speakers to the amendment, to the amendment? Councillor ramen. Thank you through you.

So I just wanna, I would rather this go back to committee and we get more clarity on what we mean at this point because I don’t think just generally stating when there’s ICE and on any of those alert colors is at this point clear enough. I think we could have other extreme weather situations that would then fit better with that category, which is why we’re asking for that report back. But I do understand addressing the fact that we had a significant weather event that prompted the discussion and why we’re also having this discussion trying to make sure that we cover off as many angles as possible. I guess what I wanna understand is, could we not just have it where there’s staff discretion on other circumstances where they would be inclined to do so in the interim?

I think this leaves it a little bit to vague just to say ICE at this point with any of those prompts. So I wanna support it, but I’d rather find better language than do this this time. And I think that better language is coming through a report. And so I’m just trying to find a way forward, but I’m not sure that I can get there with what’s in front of us on the amendment to the amendment.

Okay, thank you. All right, I have no other speakers on the amendment. Okay, go ahead on the amendment to the amendment. Thank you.

I think maybe it should say freezing rain rather than ice because freezing rain is freezing precipitation, which is the issue. Like ICE could obviously happen just with water on the ground or a thaw and it being cold. And I feel like that ICE category is a little broad and might capture some conditions that we don’t necessarily wanna see. I think freezing rain might be better.

I would note that just a quick review. I remember the freezing rain storm that we had in December, but a quick Google review showed that there was only one significant event like that this year. So I think kind of hedging our bets with that aspect, we may not see another one. But my real concern is what if we do?

And what if we do five days from now or the next day? And we’re trying to clean this up so we can capture just kind of the real conditions that we’re trying to address. But it would be a shame if we had this discussion today and then tomorrow there was a freezing rain event and it’s the exact type of event that we decided to bring this to committee in the first place. So I know there’s an amendment on an amendment.

I don’t even think I can make an amendment. Folks are saying no. No, you can’t. Also, this is why having this stuff sorted out of the committee is good.

Ice includes freezing rain, freezing drizzle and flash freeze, right? These are technical terms that are on the Environment Canada’s website, it means a number of things. So ice means all of those things. So a little bit of drizzle, freezing rain, full out flash freeze, all included in this.

Okay, so if that’s what it means on the Environment Canada site, then my question would be to staff, would you take this amendment and take what it says on Environment Canada and use those conditions only? And not just ice in general? I see Councilor Hillier, I’ll put you on the list. Thank you and through your worship.

To be really clear, we would follow exactly what’s up there, Environment Canada issues, yellow, orange and red with respect to ice. And as the mayor said, when you look at it, lizard freezing rain and ice pallets, ice fog, snow, windshield and cold temperatures and winter storm. So we would look at all those yellow, orange and red with respect to ice. And just to clear this means that we would then open tier three, both of our community warming spaces at our gating cares.

And we would open boil for those extreme weather alerts as identified on the further amendment on the screen. Okay, so it seems like this is refined to the point that I would be satisfied. This ice word would be captured the way Environment Canada dictates it from what staff have just described. And I guess I would also make the point that, like I said before, we’ve only seen one event that would be captured in this category as far as I can see.

So I think just kind of hedging our bets, just to be safe, we should support this. And because, like I said, it would be a shame if this was the type of event that led to this and then we didn’t capture this type of event after we make this decision. Councilor Hillier. Yes, thank you.

A question to staff, how would we transport staff or people to these shelters during ice events safely? It is my understanding that during ice events, we are asked to shelter in place. Thank you. And through your worship, that’s a very good question.

We were talking about and staff have been emailing me about when it comes to an ice storm. So that’s something we’d have to take into consideration. Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you.

So I might understand now that if we pass this, we might have to cancel because it’s unsafe for staff to attend. I’ll go to the city manager. Through you, I’m gonna start by saying that we endeavor to provide all services every day that we provided the city of London. Providing temporary warming services is one of those.

And while we are setting parameters, we’ve set parameters and we’ll continue to set parameters on how we provide those services. We’ll continue to endeavor to provide the services and councils directing us to do. So I’m not gonna ask, I would ask that you not ask our staff whether or not we’ll be able to do something in this situation. If you give us direction to run a warming center, we’ll make every effort to do it.

Ultimately though, I’m still accountable to ensure your staff, our staff are safe. And so that applies not just to the warming centers, it applies to every other situation that we have here at the city. So I wanna be clear that we’ll make the effort and we will ensure that we provide the service you tell us you want us to provide, but we’ll ensure staff are safe in doing it. Councilor Hillier.

My only concern is that we will cause us, we will say yes, it’s an emergency, we have a nice storm, we’re opening the shelter, but then the staff that we direct to go there cannot get there. That’s why concern is with this. Okay, any other speakers to the amendment to the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting.

No, closing the vote. Motion fails six to nine. Okay, so now back to the regular amendment that the Mayor Loose put on the floor. Any further debate on that?

That’s a frank. Thank you, and I just wanna say thank you again to all the staff that have been working up oil. I know that it’s a lot of work and I think it’s incredible. And I know this will add a bit more to the plate and I just appreciate everything that they’ve been doing.

Okay, any other speakers to this? Okay, we’ll open this for voting. Yes, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one.

Okay, and now I need someone to move the as amended motion. Councillor McAlister, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. That means you get the stand up and you move in motion, Councillor McAlister. I don’t know if you knew you volunteered for that.

Any debate on the as amended motion? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to say again, it was a pleasure to be able to collaborate with my colleagues on this one. I had put a letter in a couple of others had and we were able to come together and thank you to my colleagues for doing the work of collating them.

Just a couple of little wording changes from me. It was probably one of the easiest things I’ve seen go through. I just wanna acknowledge too that the request was made to notwithstanding our policy to not have resting spaces on the main street of a BIA, that when that was brought forward, I was happy to support that because it is winter and people need to come inside and consistent with past times. I’ve said, even though it’s not a good idea, that has to trump whatever else is going on on the street.

But we do need to still have that long-term vision of finding more appropriate places for people. The same is with the Boyle Community Center. I do support as opening it more often because it’s the right thing to do. Despite the fact it has been an incredible burden on that neighborhood and I’m getting increasing calls and messages and photos and despair.

Now, I know it was exceptional, I don’t think any of us expected to have it open for so many days for so long, but regardless, the way that we are operating that program, and I just wanna say, like kudos to staff and I can’t even imagine what everyone has done to do what has been done over the last little while and to open up spaces in this cold weather. But the way that we operated that warming center, even with staff operating it, has been not a good neighbor, you know? And when I think about that, if we can’t even do temporary overnight staff, supervised programs without horrible consequences to a family neighborhood, then we need to reevaluate what it is that we’re doing to have come and go privileges all night long. I don’t know if that happens at shelters and resting spaces, but we’ve got people doing drugs on people’s porches throughout the night, we’ve got tons of garbage, just open drug use everywhere in a family neighborhood.

People are, you know, they’re driving around, they’re walking, they can’t go out at, they don’t feel safe going out at night to walk their dog at 10 o’clock at night. It’s unacceptable. So I still support it, I’m still gonna vote yes, because people need to come inside this winter. And I love the idea that we’re gonna look at new options and what we can do for next winter.

I really support that. I support it being in other neighborhoods, but I don’t want this in other neighborhoods. I don’t want two to four neighborhoods suffering the way all these village suffers. So we need to re-look at what it is we can do, where and how can we provide the supports that are needed without putting families, children, seniors, pets, everybody else at risk.

It’s illegal activity, it’s dangerous. There are vulnerable people who are housed and what they needs and their mental health needs are important too. I’m gonna fully support this. I support everything staff has done, but it’s not working.

So for next year, for 26, 27, I’m not moving an amendment, but I am talking about it. And I’m asking that at the time that we bring forward new models for next year on how we can do it and how we can provide it in other areas of the city where it’s needed as well. How can we do it in a way that is a good neighbor, possible? And I wanna be a part of that if I can help in some way I can.

Otherwise, I’m fully supportive, even though it’s oversaturated in my ward, even though it’s been the same thing year after year after year, it’s the right thing to do. I appreciate the work on my colleagues, but we can do better than this. Any other speakers to the asthma and the motion, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.

And I wanna thank the Councillors that came together on this motion, supported it at committee. I did not support D as it relates to adjusting the morning closing time at Boyle Memorial. And maybe through you, Your Worship, I’d like to go to staff. Is there, I would like staff to have that flexibility when they close down the center in the morning.

I don’t want to sort of create a problem for them to close, clean. And I’m just wanting to have a better understanding if this clause D creates more of a burden, because by the way, I do appreciate those reports that you give us every day on what’s going on at Boyle, but I also do note that there’s a lot of work that’s being done to move people out and then to clean. So again, does D give some flexibility to allow staff to make the decisions on when things should close in the morning? Through Your Worship, since the CAHPS meeting in the last couple of weeks, when I’ve been back, we’ve been working hard to clear the area with our colleagues and police and with CIR and with myself and my team to clear the area by the time the bus picks up right on near Boyle.

We’re doing the best we can. We’re getting people on their way. Programs start to work. We have bus tickets.

We have CAHPS, accessible CAHPS if needed. So we are striving very hard around 5.36 a.m. to slowly start waking people up and looking and seeing what are their opportunities for the day and supporting them to get to those opportunities as soon as they can. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thanks for that. So there is a little bit of flexibility. And again, thank you for all to staff for all the work that you do there. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have.

So the as amended motion, I’m gonna open that for voting. Ready votes, yes. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Ploza.

Thank you, that concludes the CAHPS report and I’m willing to remove. We’re going past six, I’m moving in. We’re going past six, great, I seconded. We’re just gonna vote on that.

Okay, motion to pass six. Well, the meeting ends if we don’t pass the motion. I gotta look to see if it’s debatable ‘cause I got a Councillor asking me the question. This is the motion to extend the meeting past six, Councillor.

It’s a procedural motion, the meeting ends at six because we don’t pass the motion to allow the meeting to go past six. Okay, yes, that’s a yes, your worship, thank you. It’s not debatable, so we’re just gonna vote. Yeah, no, sorry, not you.

I was talking to Councillor Trozak. We appreciate your voting online there, Councillor Cudi. We got your vote registered. Opposed on the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

I thank you, I would like to move that break. You said there was dinner, you want one hour? It has to be an hour, that’s what it’s gonna take. Well, there’s— Yeah.

Yeah, so moving in hours, this was our holiday dinner that never happened at the holiday. Right, it was rescheduled, senior. So, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, I’m gonna open that for voting.

How do you vote yes? Opposed on the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. All right, we’ll see you in an hour. I’ll see you now, but we’ll be back in an hour.

Okay, please be seated. We are on the third report of the Planning and Environment Committee. Councillor Layman, take over. Thank you, Mayor.

Third report of the Planning and Environment Committee. I’ve had a request to pull the following items. Seven, eight, nine, 11, 12, 15, and 16. Okay, does anybody want anything else pulled?

Councillor Ferrera. Can you please pull six and 14? So, there’s one through five, 10, 13, 17, and 18 left. And we deal with those together?

I will move those. Okay, that’s moved by Chair. Any discussion on those items? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

How do you vote? Councillor Ferrera. Opposing to vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Councillor Layman.

Thank you. I will move item six, regarding 233 Cambridge Street. Councillor Ferrera, I wish this to be pulled. Okay, that’s done with separately.

That’s on the floor, any discussion? Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. I spoke to this one at committee, but I would not be supporting it. This is a property that they’re dividing into two, and they’re looking to make a double unit there.

It’s in a near-campus neighborhood, and worried about just the potential amount of vehicles that would be associated per bedroom, ‘cause this area does see a lot of student rentals, and we already have a lot of issues when it comes to parking on the street in the neighborhood. I had a few residents reach out in the area with the same concerns. I live in the area as well, so I know what I see at firsthand every single day. So I’m not gonna be supporting this.

I hope that council would not support this either. Okay, any other speakers? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Any votes, yes?

Those in the vote motion carries 12 to three. Thank you. Go to number seven, this is regarding 644 to 664, Southdale Road East, and 821 Nadine Avenue, Councillor Palosa, I had requested to be pulled, as well as Councillor Frank. I had mentioned this one as well.

Okay, so— Yeah, number seven, yeah. All right, number seven is on the floor. I’ll look for speakers, Councillor Palosa or Frank. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. I figured since this was being pulled, I would add this, my amendment that, believe is on the added agenda. Yes, okay, in regards to implementing the, let me pull it up. The direction to say plan approval authority in light of the current status of the city’s tree protection by-law to implement an implant policy 399 in regard to tree replacement at a rate of one tree per 10 centimeter DBH of tree removals as much as practical, and I need a seconder.

Is there a seconder for that, Councillor Palosa? Okay, I’d like to provide any further rest now. Sure, I’ll just be really quick. So for this one and then for the two others in regards to this, it just essentially gives at site planning approval authority a bit more leeway for staff to be able to ask for the maximum amount of trees to be planted on the property.

And I spoke with staff and they said this would be the direction to take to try and move towards that. And I know that there is further work on the tree protection by-law coming to us in March. So this is kind of an anticipation of that. Okay, any further discussion?

Councillor Palosa. Thank you, absolutely for tree protection. Residents have been asking for it and just hoping that we have the conversation once on this item and then it’s just germane to the other three efficiencies. So thank you.

Okay, any other discussion on this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, just through you to staff. Are you sure I know the answer to this already?

It’s a direction to site plan approval. That means it’s part of the discussion. It’s not a requirement. It’s not gonna hold up the development.

If in fact, that ratio is not able to be met. Thank you, through your worship, yes, that’s correct. And the language as much as practical was included so that we could achieve that. Thank you.

Great, any further discussion? All right, so this is on. Councillor Frank’s amendment. We’ll open that for voting.

Just you need it. All right, we’re good. Move to seconded. We’ll open that.

Yes. Motion carries 15-0. Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

Mine was circulated in the agenda. It is just an amendment for under site plan to be considered. Residents had requested perhaps a higher fence. Staff indicated a work with staff on this language.

1.8 is usual, can go up to 2.1. So that’s the change you see and see. I and IV was just, they’re still designed their underground parking and residents raised the concerns as we’re seeing through other developments. It is just not enough parking on these sites and it’s filling to neighborhoods that they’re just gonna be requested to consider one space per unit.

Thank you. Okay, that needs a seconder as well. Deputy Mayor Lewis, any further discussion on that? We’ll open that for voting.

We’re gonna open it in a moment for voting. Opposed, yes. All right, should be open now. Closing the vote.

Motion carries 15-0. As amended, I need a mover for the as amended. Are you willing to do that, Councillor Layman? Yes.

Okay. I need a seconder for the as amended motion. Mr. Frank, any discussion on the as amended?

Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Any votes, yes. Motion carries 13-2. Councillor Layman.

Thank you, moving on to number eight. This is regarding 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunboyne Crescent. I’ll move that. Councillor Pribble, I’d request it.

Okay, that’s on the floor. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and I do have an amendment. There’s four parts, but what I would like to do is actually, I would like, I have a question through you to the staff on the budget.

Sure, and then. And the question is regarding the west setback. If we currently look at the table, the table 12.3, which was distributed, or which you saw before, according to that table, it should be the height should be more than four stories. And can you please answer this question based on the table, based on this west setback?

If you can please answer it. Thank you. Okay, go ahead. Thank you through your worship.

There’s multiple components in that table, even including the rethinking zoning, which is not in force and effect. It’s under review by city staff in public consultation. There’s elements that build in terms of the high requirements. Recognizing the applicant had made this submission for a side yard setback of the 6.5 meters.

Staff had taken a look at that, recognizing there’s a site constraint on the property with the Imperial oil pipeline easement, and wouldn’t allow for much wiggle or setback from that. Having said that, as part of the review staff, looked at the incremental height in relation to the side yard setback, also allowing for a sufficient setback for tree preservation enhancements, fencing and such in terms of that mitigation measure. Okay, thank you for that answer. So I do have a amendment that was included in the added agenda.

I don’t know if you will want me to read it or just go straight to the four points that were added since the PAC meeting. If it’s in the added agenda, you don’t need to read it out. Okay. Is that a seconder?

Okay, perfect. Okay, so just a couple of, there are four parts that have added, and I’m gonna read them now, and then I’m gonna add some rationale. So rooftop amenities shall be prohibited. Then the sidewalk and access on the on or through 679 Dan Boing Crescent from the apartment complex development at 677 Fenshaw East to Dan Boing Crescent shall be prohibited.

And I don’t know if you had a chance, but there are two parcels. There is the one adjacent attached to kind of Fenshaw, and then one to the southeast corner of it. The applicant owns both parcels, and the residents, they were worried, so there is no sidewalk or any pathway coming from 677 Fenshaw to Dan Boing so the people don’t park in those streets around. So there was the reasoning for that one, and the civic administration be directed, hold a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan process.

This is, this parcel does have the Imperial all pipeline going through it, and some of you have reached out to me, and I just wanna let you know that yes, it is the same one as along Sunningdale, but even though we were talking about moving this, the part of the Sunningdale Road, this part will not be moved, because some of you ask me, is this gonna be moved? So no, it is not. It’s gonna stay the same way, and there is a minimum requirement of 20 meters to the west that the building cannot be on. So if you look at the parcel, the building is really in the northeast, and sorry, in the northwest part of the land.

There are quite a few concerns from the residents, and a lot of them have to do with the submissions that will be done through site plan, and therefore that’s why a lot of residents reach out to me if there could be public participation. And the last one, the fourth one, is the building height, which was in the staff recommendation 28 meters, in my amendment, it’s 24 and a half, and the only rationale behind it is this, if I look at the level of fensha, and then the grading going down to the three streets, where the homes are, which is on Dalkeeth Damboyne and McLeod, then there is a grading, and this grading is for the residents are stating accurately that if they look at the building, it’s more nine stories than eight stories. So those were directional for these four amendments. If you have any questions, we’ll be more than happy to answer.

Okay, those amendments are moved and seconded, and there was a by-law that was prepared in advance of this, so we can deal with that tonight. I need to bait. Go ahead, Councilor Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then Councilor Ronan. So first, I guess a question with respect to the by-law, ‘cause two of the components are site plan, with the sidewalk access being prohibited from Damboyne, and the prohibition on the rooftop amenity.

I’m assuming that either by-law that’s been prepared would capture those two things, and so we could vote on a by-law that would approve those two site plan things without supporting the height adjustment. Just need to confirm with staff if a by-law exists to do that. Thank you, through you, Your Worship. The rooftop amenity is provided in the by-law.

It’s not specific to the site plan approval authority, so because that was the request we’ve created, or the staff have created a separate by-law for the Councilor. I don’t think that’s— I don’t think that’s the worship I need a clarification. I know, I think I know what you’re asking. So there might be a desire of colleagues to divide this piece, like not support the height reduction, but support the other pieces.

I’m very clear, like we can move forward with those sorts of things if we have proper by-laws at the meeting. So I guess the question is, what by-laws do we have available to us tonight, and what decisions can we actually make on this, and what ones can’t we without referring it back? Thank you, through the chair. Yes, you can vote on the by-law separate to the site plan approval authority matters.

But within the by-law, there’s the rooftop amenity and the height, I think, contained within the same by-law, is it, or no? Through the chair, my understanding that Clerks has prepared two by-laws, so one that deals with just the rooftop amenity, and another one that includes the rooftop amenity, plus the height. Okay, so that means you could vote against the height, and we use that by-law. Okay, thank you, Your Worship.

So I’m gonna need Clerks to figure out how to separate this, because I can’t support reducing the height, 28 meters to 24.5 meters, with no planning rationale. And I say that with all due respect, Councilor, but the effect of your amendment is to restrict the height to six stories, rather than eight, where eight is as of right. So all your amendment is going to do is land us at the loyalty. It’s as of right eight, to restrict below that, without a planning rationale recommended by our staff, absolutely not something I can support.

But I can absolutely support the prohibition on the sidewalk from Dunwine. It’s perfectly reasonable, and it’s a concern we heard during the PPM. So I can support that. I can support the prohibition on the rooftop amenity, because I think when we’re talking about a rooftop amenity, that should be specifically limited in the by-law as well, so that it doesn’t get converted into residential.

So to see this, okay, I’m fine with that. But to just unilaterally lower the height, without any communication from the applicant, without any support in the staff report for a justification of that, the slope, the topography of the land, is not something that we can use to justify lowering the height, despite the fact that the OPA says eight stories is as of right. So absolutely, I just cannot get to supporting that. It’s just going to land us in an appeal.

And one that our staff won’t be able to defend, because it’s contrary to their recommendation. So that to me is a significant piece. I know this is in site plan, but I’m also not supportive of holding a public participation meeting with respect to the site plan. And normally it’s not a public participation.

Normally it’s a public site plan meeting, because site plan is not subject to back and forth between the public and staff negotiating what the public thinks that is a better fit there. A lot of site plan is very technical, geo-hydroological, those kinds of things. I know there was concerns about the storm water, but that’s what we have water waste water engineers to look at in the site plan process. Going back and forth with the applicant’s engineers.

And I know that some of your residents cited 10 Marley Place as well we did a public site plan meeting there, so why not here? There’s a very clear difference between 10 Marley Place and this property in that at 10 Marley. Given the issues with the boundary trees, there is actually the potential for how the building sits on the property to move. And in fact, we saw a presentation from a member, a planner from the public in the gallery, suggesting that rather than two separates that they be combined and he explained the reasons with the boundary tree and that made sense.

So the fact that the actual design of the building could change at Marley Place and where it’s located on the land, that’s a valid reason for a public site plan process. Because it’s not going to be what they saw in the renders, potentially it could be something fairly significantly different. The density would remain the same on Marley, but the actual physical design of the building might change. In this case, there’s nothing in the site plan that’s going to change the design of the building in terms of where it fits on the property.

It’s been pushed front to Fanshawe to increase the privacy. We’ve restricted the balconies to the Fanshawe Park facing side of the building to protect the privacy and the imperial pipeline encumbrance, again, is a very technical piece for engineers, but that pipeline, as you said, is not moving. So there’s not a negotiation with the public as to whether or not that building should move. The 20 meter encumbrance for the imperial oil pipeline has to remain, so the building is not moving.

So for me, and however the clerks need to break this out, that’s fine. I can support the two additions of the site plan authority request to prohibit the walkway and to prohibit the rooftop amenity. I can’t support your public participation meeting, and I absolutely can’t support the change in height, which is for certain to land us. Even if this developer was to flip the property, sell it and say, I’m not going to build it at this height.

The next landowner could take us to the OLT because we’ve restricted the zoning to a meters of height that is not consistent with the OPA in terms of the Azovrite height. So I think it’s a very dangerous path to go down to start limiting height below the OPA and opens us up to all sorts of challenges if we start to do that, particularly when it’s not recommended by our planning staff or the applicant’s planning staff when it’s just a number of councils being asked to pick arbitrarily. So however we need to divide that up, please divide that up accordingly. I can support part I, sorry, part VI, and I can support, sorry, I’m trying to see the clause for the prohibition of the rooftop amenity.

Okay, so I can support VI, I can’t support VI, and I can’t support the bylaw with the alternate height. Other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Trossall and Stevenson. Well, through the chairs, while we don’t normally hold public participation meetings at this level, is there anything in the Planning Act or our internal rule saying we cannot hold the public participation meeting, which is another way of asking is this something that’s within our discretion?

Thank you through the Your Worship. It’s a public site plan meeting, a public site plan, and the site plan approval authority is delegated to staff, so it normally it’s an administrative process. However, there is policy in the London plan that allows at the discretion of council to request a public site plan meeting. That purpose of that meeting is for site matters, very much like what’s in this motion here today with the connections for the sidewalk and additional height or of fencing, additional enhanced landscaping, how the site functions, essentially.

But we would only take that under consideration council, that’s the direction from council at that point. Thank you, that’s very helpful. So I would be in favor of going ahead with the public site plan meeting, notwithstanding the objections. The other benefit I think of a public site plan meeting is if you’re thinking of doing something that could get you in trouble at the tribunal, why not try to put some more evidence on the record?

It’s very likely that what would come up at this meeting would be evidence concerning the particular configuration of this property that’s not the usual configuration of a property, and that could help support this requested amendment. So by all means, I think we should go ahead and invite people to come in and say what they want to say, and we should remain flexible. You know, just because there’s a gen, whenever a developer wants to go above, we’re told that’s just a guideline. Yeah, so should that apply across the board?

Especially when you have topographical, did I say that right, features that suggest there’s something special about the property? Yeah, so I would support all parts of the amendment. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you through you to staff.

I just wanted to confirm when it says the sidewalk and/or access would be prohibited, I received some emails about people concerned during the construction process, that that would be opened up and there would be construction equipment in the street and then people cutting through, is there a way to address that concern? Go ahead. Thank you through your worship. Yes, through requirements of the development agreement, we can restrict where construction would occur.

We’ve had other construction along Fanshawe and they’ve conducted construction onsite. Go ahead. Thank you, so does that require an amendment to what we’ve got here in order to ensure that that isn’t used for construction walkway then? Thank you through your worship.

That’s pretty much our standard requirement through the site plan process. Excellent, that is great news. And I just want to say thank you to Councillor Pribble for doing the work on this. I did receive several emails and I’m happy to support most of this amendment.

All right, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, your worship. And I, given the debate that’s going on here in particular as it relates to the height where eight stories is allowed, I recall a number of years ago, there was a development not too far from this property, where we allowed through the site plan process to allow for the windows. What are they called?

It just escapes me for a moment. Sorry, the transom windows, which will allow for privacy. We’ve received a number of comments from the community. They’re concerned around the privacy and again, going up with the height.

So I’m wondering if there’s an opportunity for maybe a friendly amendment to allow to look at these transom windows through the site plan process, given the complexity of the debate that’s in front of us. So there’s no friendly amendment. I would need to be an amendment. Or an amendment.

Could be something that people feel as friendly, but we have to actually do it by process. So this is an amendment and it could be amended in some way, for sure. But I don’t know, staff have a comment about that’s a possible thing that we could do. Thank you through your worship.

Yes, certainly entertain matter. This matter for consideration to the site plan approval authority. There’s some language provided to the clerk’s office through the counselor with regarding transom windows and again, to allow daylighting into these habitable spaces, but to, we’ll say mitigate over a lot onto the neighboring adjacent properties. So if I can bring forward that amendment and maybe through your worship, could we just look at that through the site plan process or do we have to more or less state if it’s on the west side of the property or not?

I don’t know if we have the amendment up here. I have not passed anything on, but I can do something very quickly. Okay, well, maybe we’ll just see, give me one second. Here’s what we’re gonna do.

I just wanna make the meetings as efficient as possible. We’re gonna deal with Councillor Pribble’s amendment now and should it either pass or fail. I’ll allow Councillor Hopkins to make a subsequent amendment to the main motion on just this piece at that time. That gives us a little time to get the wording down ‘cause the wording is not up here but and focus on Councillor Pribble’s.

So we’ll deal with the window amendment after we deal with this particular amendment. Okay, Councillor Frank. Thank you and apologies if I missed this. Just in regards to the sidewalk access.

So that would be after the development is done. People who live at the new apartment building will not be able to walk through a pathway and get on to Dunboying Crescent. I’m seeing a nod. Okay, and we’re gonna pull these all apart and vote on them all separately, correct?

Some of them, yes. I don’t know if all of them, yes. We’re gonna do a lot of it separately, including this sidewalk connection completely separate. Thank you, yes.

I won’t be supporting it because it looks like there’s a park and a school and a community pool and I just wanna add 10 minutes extra walking if there’s people with small children ‘cause I know it can be super annoying. I have a toddler and to add 10 minutes is actually fairly substantial for a short walk. So thank you. Okay, others, speakers.

Yeah, you’re already two minutes and 30 seconds. You’ve already spoken on it. So can’t speak on the amendment. Okay, great, Councillor Ramen.

Thank you and through you. So I just wanted to ask a couple of questions just regarding the change in height that the Councillor has put forward. So I heard my council colleagues say that it was as a right for eight stories. I just wanna confirm because the way that I read the report, I understood it that it was also related to context because we were dealing with the imperial line on the property and making some changes to allow more density because of the way that it had to be configured on this site.

So I just wanna clarify how much of this is the configuration to fit this into the place with the density we’re allowing, which then affects the height we’re allowing, et cetera. I’m just wondering if you can help us fill in that context a little bit more. Thank you, through worship. It is permitted height.

And so it’s being asked as a one-story reduction, but it was really, really in regards to the side yard set back of the west side yard. And that’s the constraint is the imperial oil easement. So there isn’t a whole lot of room to shift at east, the building east, effectively if with reduction, let’s say the side yard set back, then that would effectively constrain the building and losing units on part of that one end of the building. Go ahead.

Thank you, that’s helpful. I understand the concerns that residents have had at this height, especially in what I find challenging with some of the developments that are coming forward where there is a primary transit area main street address, but there is also another property that’s being contemplated in this as well, which is the 6679 Denboying Crescent, where you have the two properties making up the assembly of the land. It feels like it should have different policies associated with the Denboying property versus the Fanshawe property. But I understand the issue is that it fronts on to Fanshawe, so that’s why the eight stories is there.

Not happy about it, but I understand it. The reason I’m not happy, I understand that what the concerns that neighbors are bringing forward that live on Denboying, and that this feels like a lot for them to adjust to this height increase at eight stories from the back of their properties. So, again, I understand it. I wish there was a way forward that wouldn’t put us into litigation and potentially an appeal.

So, I would reluctantly have to support it just so that we wouldn’t face some legal consequences. We’re still on the amendment council approval. So, you’ve already spoken, yeah, other speakers. Yeah, you can only speak once at council.

That’s, I think that’s the distribution. You spoke for two minutes, 30 seconds, but you only get one go on the amendment, one go on the main motion. Any other speakers on the amendment? And again, I’m gonna call these all separately, but we’ll get the debate out now.

So, we already spoke, Councillor. One minute and 38 seconds on the amendment. On the amendment? Yeah, you are.

Council, one time speaking in a council. I’ll take Councillor Rosas, Mike. So, anybody new, okay? Okay, so here’s how we’re gonna divide the vote on this.

We’re gonna do the building height first, rooftop amenity second, sidewalk access third, public participation site plan process meeting next, then anything left will be after that. I think that division works for everybody. Okay, so first, we’re gonna open the vote on the building height. How do you vote to know?

Closing the vote, motion fails two to 13. Next, we’re gonna do the change regarding the rooftop amenity being prohibited. All right, apologies. Your worship, is this the rooftop?

That’s right. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. This one’s the sidewalk access change. We’ll open that for voting.

How do you vote yes? It carries 10 to five. Next one is the site plan public meeting, so open that. We vote no.

Mr. Stevenson, closing the vote. Motion carries eight to seven. Now we can go to Councillor Hopkins, who wanted to make an amendment.

Yes, and my apologies for being late to the game, but we have just approved an eight story building. And again, how do we create more privacy, more light, for people living in the building? I would like to make an amendment that, and maybe it could be a fee to be the site plan approval, authority to be requested to consider looking at transit windows through the site plan process. And again, we have done that in other developments, and again, it creates that bit of privacy and— I just need to check to make sure there’s a second there for that.

Yeah, okay, there is, can Council approval? Okay, now you can continue your— Thank you. And I’m hoping you can support the amendment, thank you. Okay, and I’m gonna read it because no one’s actually seen the language, that a part B of the motion be amended to include the following wording, corporate transom style window treatments for all habitable units on the west side yard of the apartment building design with a narrow vertical dimension to allow daylight when minimizing potential privacy impacts on adjacent low rise residential properties.

Good with that language, good. All right, that’s amendments on the floor for discussion. Councillor Hopkins has spoke to anybody else. We’re gonna open that for voting.

I know it’s yes. Can I just make a point something out? I have a bracket here, parentheses, close. That’s fine, we’ll fix it.

There’s gonna be an as amended motion, it’s all gonna get cleaned up, don’t worry. Correct. Councillor, we just don’t know what number it’s gonna be in the as amended motion, so that’s why it’s got a bracket there, it’s just a space holder. Mayor’s absolutely correct, closing the vote, carries 13 to two.

Now I need to move her for the as amended, all the changes we made, please. Councillor Pribla, are you willing to move the as amended? Okay, Councillor Stevenson, willing to second. I need to debate on the as amended motion.

Councillor Layman. Seconded. Oh, I got a seconder in Councillor Stevenson, I thought you wanted to debate, yep, I need to debate. Okay, so as amended, we’ll open that for voting.

Ready votes yes. Those in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. So that’s all, that item’s all done, the alternate by-law will deal with the proper one that incorporates all of the changes we made at the end of the meeting. I’ll go back to Councillor Layman.

Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to move on to number nine, this is regarding three, three, three, four, two, three, three, five, four, Wonderland Road South. This was requested to be pulled, so it could be voted on separately. Okay, so that’s on the floor.

Any discussion, Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, I asked for this one to be pulled. I’m not going to be supporting it. I appreciate this bit of history on this one.

It’s come back to us. The intensification is not too much has changed since we sent it back. And I also do have some concerns around the ecological issues, so I just wanted to pull ‘cause I won’t be supporting it. Thank you.

Any discussion? - Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Petty votes, yes. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 11 to four. Thank you, moving on to 10. This is our 965 Adelaide. Nope, sorry if you did that one, 10 by fall.

Number 11, 68, 76, Commissioners Road East. Councillor Frank, request this, we pull. Councillor Frank. Thank you.

I’d like that same motion that we did before for Southdale for this one. There’s a lot of trees on these two properties, so it’d be nice to be able to put as many back on as possible. Okay, so you want to make the same similar motion that passed as part of number seven. Thank you, provided some rationale there.

Councillor Palazzo’s seconding. Any discussion on the amendment, which is the direction to cite plan on some true preservation. We’re gonna open the amendment for voting. Petty votes, yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. As amended, if you’re willing to put that out. Opposed in the vote.

Seconded by Councillor Frank. Okay, the as amended motion, any debate? Okay, we’ll open the as amended motion for voting. Deputy votes, yes.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, I’ll put number 12 on the floor, move it. As regarding 80 commissioners road east, Councillor Frank, who is eager to stand up, is here out of my purple. I would like to speak to this.

Councillor Frank. Thank you, same thing. All right, so just for clarity for the public, Councillor Frank’s moving an amendment to provide some direction on essentially true preservation to the site plan authority. Seconded by Councillor Palazzo.

Any debate on that? On the amendment, we’ll open that for voting. Deputy votes, yes. Councillor Madam, here we go.

Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, as amended, Councillor Layman, you’re willing to— - I’ll move the as amended. Seconded by Councillor Frank, any discussion on the as amended motion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Deputy votes, yes. And carries 15 to zero. Councillor Layman. Thank you, moving on to number 14.

This is regarding 732 Wellington Street and 282 Piccadilly, Councillor Ferriar, requests to be pulled. Okay, on the floor by the chair, any discussion, Councillor Ferriar? Thank you, I spoke to this when I committee, but a lot of the residents and specifically the businesses as well, they’re not in favor of this application, parking issues like before, and I guess I’ll just leave it at that, so I’m not going to be supporting it. Okay, any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Deputy votes, yes. Motion carries 13 to— Councillor Layman. Thank you, Mayor.

Moving on to 15, this is regarding 5150 Wellington Road, South, Councillor Hopkins requested as people. Councillor Hopkins, are you looking to speak or? Yes, I asked this for this one to be pulled again. I appreciate the work that was done, but I am supportive of our agricultural land and uses in long-term range policies, so I will not be supporting this one.

This is 311, I just want to make sure I got the right one here. This is where it’s converted to a cemetery, yep, thank you. Any further discussion? Go ahead, Deputy Ray Lewis.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, really need to encourage colleagues to support this. Well, I appreciate folks may feel that the outline provided by staff around the agricultural land has some weight in their consideration. This property has not operated as agricultural land in more than 60 years. Current zoning is already a CF-1.

Requested changes to a CF-4. It’s a community facility zone piece of land now. They’re just looking to change the community facilities zone use so that the Roman Catholic Diocese can create a new cemetery there. And of course, I’m sure we all heard those of us who stuck around for planting that long, heard how there actually is no long-term planning right now in the PPS for future cemetery lands.

There are issues obviously to be dealt with there by the province, but again, this is a CF-1 to a CF-4. The adjacent property is Regina Mundi Secondary School, also Catholic Diocese Property Holding through the Catholic School Board. And so for those reasons, this is a good use of land. And particularly when we’re talking about all the discussion we’ve had over the last year about the urban growth boundary.

This is the kind of place where you want a cemetery so that you reserve the urban growth land inside the boundary for growth and development. So I encourage colleagues to please support this. Any other speakers? Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Cutting. Yes, thank you. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Councillor Layman.

Thank you, moving on to 16. This is regarding 36 AD Wonderland Road. Councillor Hopkins requests those to be pulled. Okay, this is separate, is there any discussion?

No, okay. All right, we’ll open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Councillor McAllister.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to. Thanks to myself, I’m good. Go ahead, Councillor Layman. Thank you, Mayor.

I believe that to complete the third report of the Planning Environment Committee. Great, okay. On to the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for Deputy Mayor Lewis to present that report. Thank you, Your Worship.

I am pleased to present the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I have been asked to pull number five, the secondary school transit passed by the program. Councillor Frank, obviously as indicated, she’s got a conflict there. Item six, the mayoral direction on the creation of an affordable home ownership program.

I’m not aware of other items that colleagues wish dealt with separately at this time. Would anybody like anything else to help with separately? Okay, go ahead. All right, so I’m prepared to move one through four, as well as seven and eight.

And noting that the micromodular shelter site update, we did receive a verbal act committee to update the report, which was already dated at the time of publication. Any discussion on these items? Seeing none, we’re gonna open them for voting. Deputy votes, yes?

Opposed on the vote, motion carries 15 to 0. And I’m not prepared to put item five. This is the secondary school transit passed program item on the floor. Okay, that’s on the floor.

I’ll look to speakers on this one. Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. I’d like to move an amendment to part C.

Right now, the civic administration be directed to apply the required finance to a limit of 1.04 million. Based on what we passed at committee, the amount would actually be closer to 880,000. So I’d like to make that amendment, since it’s already in what we agreed to. I got multiple people seconding.

I saw the deputy mayor first. So you got a seconder in that. We’ll move right to the amendment then. The amendment is to change to reflect the value since the committee basically removed the summer piece.

So that value is high. So the upset limit can be lower. Any debate on that? We’ll open the amendment for voting.

Deputy votes, yes. Okay, that should be open now. I apologize to your worship. County votes, yes.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to 0 with one recusal. Okay, and I needed a mover for the as amended motion. Deputy Mayor Lewis, a seconder for the as amended motion. Seconder, the as amended motion.

Councilor McAlister, thank you. Okay, the as amended motion’s on the floor. Any debate or discussion? Okay, we’ll open this for voting.

Sorry, did I miss? I know it’s been a long meeting, but I just wanted to make a comment. I will be supporting this. I do think it’s really important for this pilot program to be successful is that students and parents participate in whatever we need to do to encourage the board to educate and encourage students to take advantage of this program.

I will be there. Yes, I’ll just be very brief as well. I know we had a substantive debate at this committee. I don’t need to re-litigate all of that, but I will say I know that there are a number of students from Clark Road Secondary who are watching us on our YouTube stream ‘cause I was asked to text them before this item came up.

So while we were in planning, I said it’s coming up. So I know that they’re watching with interest because they do see some value of that. And I know that we’ve got some folks from JP Robarts Elementary School, some parents who are watching as well because they’ve been keenly supportive of this program. And so to Councillor Hopkins’ point, for those of you who are watching, it will now be up to you to prove that this can work and show that this can change a cultural change at our schools and that perhaps we can continue our discussions with the school board to move this forward on a more permanent basis and see this rollout eventually citywide and work with the school board to start to replace where the yellow bus pass or the yellow bus program is and move on to transit passes.

But it will be up to those of you who are watching and your fellow students, both who are going into grade nine next year and the following year to take us up on this opportunity and prove it’s going to work. It’s a proof of concept, but it will ultimately be up to you. And so I’ll leave it at that. The speakers, go ahead, Councillor Ferriero.

Thank you Mayor, it was heavily debated at committee. I would say it shouldn’t be up to the students to prove with this work. So it should be up to the program itself. It should be able to be measured on its own objectively.

As you can see in the report and as we discussed at committee, the metrics are not there to be able to actually see if this is successful or not. This is not a pilot program. This is free bus pass for Clark Road. I agree it should be citywide.

I agree, I’d like to see the sample size get bigger. I’d like to see other schools in the city included. But because this is not measurable and it shouldn’t be up to the students to prove that it works or not, it should be able to be measured on its own. The system itself, the metrics itself should be objectively, they should objectively have the ability to measure a success or not, which the report obviously showed that that’s not there.

That’s why I’m not going to be supporting it. So my position hasn’t changed. Any other speakers? Okay, seeing none, we’re going to open this for voting.

She seems fine. Any votes, yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries nine to five with one recusal.

Go ahead, you worship. I’m prepared to put number six on the floor. This is the mayoral direction creation of an affordable home ownership and center program. Okay, well, I wanted it both.

So I’m going to hand over to the chair for my speakers list. How about Councillor Ramen, can you chair this? Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Okay, I’d like to put an amendment on the floor to change the timeframe from 10 years back to five years for the program, I have that prepared and I believe I have a secondary in Councillor Lamen.

Thank you, I will confirm Councillor Lamen that you are willing to second. I am, thanks. Thank you, so just making sure that the clerk has the language that’s just changing from 10 years back to what was originally proposed, which is five years, I have a mover and a seconder, I will be in debate. Would you like to begin, Mayor Morgan?

Yeah, I’ll just go off the top so I can provide the rationale. So first off, I appreciate that this came before Council for Council’s input and discussion and amendments and changes. I think Council made a number of changes that I can be supportive of. Ultimately, an incentive program is meant to incentivize and the feedback, the wide feedback that I’ve heard is moving it to a 10 year period is not going to incentivize anybody to actually move in and have uptake on the program.

And I don’t think it’s worth moving forward with an unviable program. I’ll give you a couple of examples. You know, really given the changes Council’s made about focusing on new homeowners and Londoners, we’re really talking about getting people into entry level homes where they’re probably moving for renting to buying something for the first time. It’s not gonna apply to single family homes, the price point isn’t high enough for that.

It’s going to be something smaller and more focused. People who move into their home for the first time, and I can tell you this was my experience as well, tend to stay there according to the real estate professionals, about five to seven years. Sometimes they have a family, sometimes they need more space, sometimes their job changes, they’ve got to move to a different part of the city. They don’t tend to stay there for 10 years.

As well, the way that Council structured this through the amendments, moving it to 10 years means on the city side, which if you left before that timeframe, you’d have to essentially pay back the city’s portion of the loan, not the money we’re leveraging for the building community, but the city’s portion. You’d move to if you left in year nine, the $30,000 of development charges, which would be on a single family home, and I know that might not apply to this, but that’s an example. You’d end up having to pay back $62,000 because of the interest over that timeframe. There’s nobody who’s gonna do that, right?

A five year time period is reasonable. People are probably gonna stay that long, but no one’s gonna lock themselves in for a 10 year period, knowing that they would end up having to pay an exit fee of almost double the benefit they got at the start, and you can see from the correspondence that we’ve got from those who work in the building and development community, they don’t anticipate that they would have buyers at this level, so I’m asking Council to change it back to five. I’ll be pretty clear, and I take no offense to this. If we keep it at 10, I intend to flip my vote and vote against the overall program ‘cause I just don’t see this a viable program, and I’d much rather release money back into the housing accelerator fund for infrastructure, which is the other thing it could be spent on at that point.

So if we wanna actually give this a go, I think we need to do it at five. And if we don’t, that’s fine, but it’s just not viable at 10, so I’m moving the amendment to make it a viable program so that we could actually proceed with it, but my intent would be not to support it if we don’t move it to five. I just don’t, and I would encourage others not to, because it’s just not viable at the 10 years. There just will not be the uptake, and I would anticipate an update in July that said there’s not a lot of uptake on this program.

So if you wanna see if it works, I think we have to make this change. So that’s why I’m suggesting we make this amendment. Thank you. I will look for speakers on the amendment.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I’m the one that moved the amendment to 10 years, and I guess through you to staff, we have home buyer down payment loan program that where people have to stay in for 20 years. They have to own that home for 20 years before they get the forgivable taxpayer money.

So I don’t know if it’s a reasonable question, but through you to staff, like can you, I’m not gonna put staff in that spot, but we have an ownership program where people stay for 20 years before they get that free taxpayer money. And I believe the reason that that works is because we were meeting an affordability issue, such that people were able to grasp home ownership that maybe felt out of reach previously. And so just to be able to own a home was fulfilling the objective, and therefore keeping it for 20 years is a dream come true. I didn’t support that program for other reasons, but at least it meets that need.

It helps somebody achieve something that they treasure so much they’d stay 20 years, and then they get that taxpayer money. Don’t have a huge problem with that. This one, if the objective of this is to get the money out the door, then we can lower it from 10 years to five years. If that’s what we wanna do, is hand money out so that people can buy a house and then move up to a bigger house in five years, that’s not an affordability program.

Now we are selling inventory. And now I think it puts us into trouble with the taxpayers and trying to say why when we have a $100 million infrastructure gap, are we making sure money goes out the door to make sure that people buy houses that they can move up into bigger homes in five years? We’re talking about taxpayers who are calling us saying, I’m gonna lose my house, I can’t pay the property taxes. And we’re gonna tell them that we used money that could have gone to infrastructure to help people buy a house so they could buy a bigger house five years later.

I’m gonna encourage colleagues to say no, I’m wondering though, and I don’t know if I can do this mid amendment, but I’m wondering about maybe referring it back because I would love to find our way to make this work, but this doesn’t work, five years. And I don’t wanna have a program that there’s no uptake on, I agree with that, but this is not sellable to the taxpayers who expect us to represent them and what they need and what they need is just to reduce pressure on them going forward. And this is not it. Councillor, so before I give up the thing, am I able to do a referral at this point?

Thank you, just a moment. So my understanding is right now you’re asking to refer the amendment. The amendment is from 10 to five. I would suggest a referral on the main motion would make more sense just so that we have the full motion to discuss that committee.

Okay, I’m seeing a nod from you. Okay, so I have a couple speakers on the list now. I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer.

So through you and follow up to a couple of the comments that we’re just made, I’m gonna ask a couple of very clear questions to staff. When we talk about the infrastructure gap, the housing accelerator funding dollars can actually be only used for housing enabling infrastructure that creates new housing opening up that opportunity. It cannot be used for general infrastructure replacement of aging infrastructure. Is that accurate?

Okay, thank you, Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m gonna keep you on the amendment right now. Your question’s more of a main motion question. Right now, we’re just on the five to seven years, but if you can tie it back in, then we’ll do so.

And then I’ll listen to your question, thank you. It will be tied back to the five years. There are two questions that need to be answered to tie back to the five years. That’s one of the two.

Thank you all for that reason, Mr. Mayors. Through the chair, the housing accelerator program, it is accurate that it needs to be used towards the infrastructure for enabling housing or incentive programs, which is what this is in this purpose we’ll be used for. Thank you, Deputy Mayor on the amendment.

Yeah, and the second question, on the amendment moving to five, this program, ‘cause it was raised that we already have a program that insensifies this home buyer through the first time home buyer’s down payment assistance program and the reference to the 20 years, which is where this ties back to the five. The difference being home buyer’s assistance down payment program is a forgivable loan after 20 years where if the resident exits early, they pay 5% of the capital gains on the sale of the property. This program charges 8% I believe it is interest rate on the amount loaned out until the homeowner has stayed in the home for the amount of time prescribed by the program, which right now is 10, but is being suggested as five. Is that accurate?

Mr. Mayors. Through the chair, so that is accurate. They also can repay the entire amount and not pay any interest on it.

So it’s either that 5% amount or the entire amount with no interest. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. So as the mayor said earlier, when you look at the charts and I did get some numbers, it’s that interest piece and the 10 years that makes the difference that doesn’t make the difference the same difference at five years.

When you’re looking at the five year amount, you’re essentially at 45,000. But when you’re looking at the nine year amount, you’re at 62,000 because of the compounding interest that’s involved. So it is actually a problem to get people into their first home when we’re basing a program where there’s an interest rate before the period expires versus capital gains penalty when the period expires. So one provides some very low entry point ownership with a capital gains increase over 20 years or that early exit with the capital gains.

And that can be used for resale homes. This can only be used for new builds because that’s what the Housing Accelerator Fund restriction is on an incentive program. And it is not based on a capital gains from leaving early but an interest rate for leaving early. So factoring those things in, I actually reject that it’s selling inventory.

I do think that it is getting people into housing. And when I’ve talked to residents about this, they understand that it’s about getting people into housing. It’s not the soundbite from the six o’clock news. Oh, the six o’clock news isn’t here anymore.

So no disrespect to the six o’clock news. But it is about sitting down and having more than a 30 second soundbite conversation with them. Once you talk to them about the program, they understand that this is actually going to get people into first time homes. So for that reason, I can support the mayor’s amendment to five, although I supported the 10 at committee because I do now having run the numbers, see where the difference is capital gains versus interest rates.

Thank you. I have Councilor Ferreira next followed by Councilor Lehman. Thank you, presiding officer. I guess I would say if there’s an interest, if there’s an issue between interest rate and capital gains and that might be the deciding factor whether we go from five to 10, maybe we should flip it and put a capital gains portion on just like we see with the affordable home ownership program.

The people that I talked to, there’s a lot of issues that are seen, especially with the fact that they’re new bills and they’re not necessarily affordable in the first place. And I would say if we’re truly trying to have an affordability measure and we’re considering people who are looking to get into their first home or into a home or have a home that they would own, I don’t think a 10 year period or a 10 year period compared to a five year period is really the deciding factor. They’d just be happy to get into the home. We did speak about potentially having that leapfrog.

If someone were to have that five year increment, they could leapfrog to the next home. And that’s not really what this is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be about an affordability measure to get people into home ownership. So if the issue is with interest rates or capital gains, maybe we should just flip it.

That’s a potential amendment that we could bring to the floor here. I’m worried that first these homes are not gonna be reachable because they are new bills. I’m worried on really what is the actual aim here. Is it affordability, is it to relieve a backlog of new bills?

And I also worry about moving that housing accelerator fund infrastructure money around. I think the money would be better spent there in the first place. In the end, we did shell some money around and there is two infrastructure projects that have been booted out out of the other program. I forget what the name is, I’m sorry.

And they now, are they gonna be relying on DC funding or on potential new provincial money? So I’m not gonna support this. I think bringing it to the tenure as we had it at committee is the right way to go. If there’s an issue, why don’t we just flip between the interest rate and the capital gains?

I think that’s probably a good way to go. But in the end, there’s just a lot of issues that I see here. So I’m not gonna be supporting the amendment going back from 10 to five. Thank you, Councillor.

I’ll go to Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you, Presiding Chair. I didn’t support this change to 10 years at committee because I agree that at 10, I don’t think there would be the uptake that we would hope to achieve. We were given approximately, I think it’s 82 million, plus 80 million dollars from the federal government as a housing accelerator fund to use, to help folks get into housing.

There’s been concerns and comments made that this somehow is being used to help home builders get rid of unsold inventory. I wanna push back on that a bit. We’ve used a half-funding of many different areas. I’ll give a specific example.

We used it to promote and assist financially conversions of commercial properties to residential properties. It could be argued that that helps commercial property owners with their sitting on units that are not branded in earning income. So, yeah, when funding is used, whatever we do, whether, for example, if we use it for infrastructure, construction companies make money because they get that project. So, for sure, there is that spinoff.

That’s not the point of this. The point of this is to get people into the homeownership work. There was a comment made while they’re just gonna flip it for a bigger house. Really?

I disagree with that. I’m sure there’d be some that perhaps do it. The thing is, I don’t expect these people to live there for 10 years. What I expect them to do is be able to just get into the homeownership market ‘cause I find, especially our young people that are now 30 plus years old without a home, they’re always chasing it.

While I save money for a mortgage and then next year it’s more expensive. It’s more expensive, it’s more expensive. If you don’t get in, people that are lucky and that have parents that have provided them to down payment, they got in five years ago and now they’re into it. So, they can move into a bigger house ‘cause they had that equity appreciation.

At some point, we gotta help folks get in. So, I think that that’s my reasoning for thinking that this is a good use of those funds. I just wanna remind folks that the home builders aside, they’re kicking in three million as well. So, it’s not just the federal funding, it’s also being done by the development community in a shared realization that we wanna get folks into the market.

So, we’re talking about this amendment. My family members in the real estate business and they’ve always told me seven years is the average length of holding home. I do believe if we put it at 10, there wouldn’t be an uptake I’m tempted to say, well, let’s just do it anyway. ‘Cause then I can say to folks, what are you doing about getting people in the house as well?

We put this money into the providing help with the DC charges I knew home build, despite the fact that they’re not using it, but I could say it was, I don’t feel comfortable doing that. If I’m a supported project, I wanna see it in action and seeing people take advantage of it and get in to be home owners and get in for that stream. So, I hope you support this amendment because I think it’s a key piece of this initiative. Thank you, Councillor Trussa next.

Thank you very much to the presenting officer. I feel as if we’re rehashing a lot of the arguments we made last time, which is fine, I’ll do it too. I’m not gonna be supporting this amendment. Everybody’s surprised.

I’m not gonna be supporting this amendment. I think the program is fundamentally flawed. And at the committee meeting, we made some marginal improvements to it. I really think if the goal here is to get people that are not able to make the leap into home ownership, we need to take a different approach.

And I think the approach that’s being put forward in this program is fundamentally flawed. Now, having said that, being the kind and flexible man that I am, I’m wondering if you would consider an amendment that would say, instead of it being all or nothing, that after five years, 10% comes off every year. So, it’s sort of what after five years, it’s a sliding scale. Now, that is a mix between what Councillor Stevenson is talking about, who I fundamentally agree with on this and what the mayor is talking about.

And I should say, even if this passes, I’d be inclined to vote against the whole program. But I think that this at least provides a little bit of flexibility. There’s no reason why it has to be all or nothing. We could say, do five years, and then 10% of it will come off every year for the next 10 years.

And I would not even think of how to put that into a proper motion. So, I think that would need either some quip words, mythic here, or a referral. But I just don’t like the general approach that we’re using. I think this is fundamentally about helping developers move their inventory, which is happening at the same time that they’re coming in here, every meeting asking to create more inventory.

I just don’t see it. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, and just conferring with the clerk, any change like that would need a referral, as we do not have a by-law prepared, as you read that, Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, ma’am chair. Maybe I just missed standing after standing for caps. I appreciate what some are trying to get to. I don’t support the 10.

I don’t support the five. I know the industry actually wanted three, and I don’t support that either. Thank you. Any other speakers on this item?

Thank you. I will look to pass the chair to Councillor Palosa. So I can speak on this. Thank you.

I’m not the presiding officer, recognizing Councillor Robin, and I will be timing. Thank you, and through you, and on the amendment. So I’m not supportive of five. I got to, the place I got to during debate, because we moved to 10.

I would support seven. Can I amend the amendment to seven? I believe you have a seconder in Councillor Stevenson. I believe it is the clerk saying no, you can’t do seven, or no, you do not in the amendment in the amendment.

So what’s the no? There’s no by-law. There’s no by-law. I don’t know if we get things for a certain point.

We refer it back at some point, trying to do the seven. So just maybe not right now, floor is still yours. Thank you. And since I can’t move an amendment to go to seven, or to change the interest rate, or to create a sliding scale, the amendment as it is right now at five years, I cannot support.

I do think that the program, as it is now instructed with the changes that were made at SPPC to 10 years, I was able to get behind, but at five, I think, again, the point is affordability. I understand that there’s a flaw right now in the 10-year math based on the interest rate, and that the five-year interest rate makes more sense, but to figure that piece out, we could easily refer it. We have time, this can move, you know, but one cycle, and I don’t see that being an issue. So I won’t be supportive five years.

Thank you, Council Member, would you like, or, and/or take the chair back? I’ll return it to you. No, no, you’ve used round a minute at 17. Thank you, and I’ll look for other speakers on this item.

Okay, seeing none, and I don’t believe there’s any online, I will look to call the vote on the amendment. Yeah, this is, this is the Mayors and Councillor Lehman’s amendment, is that right? Thank you, yes. This is the amendment to move it from 10 years back to five years.

The vote, yes. I’ll let you know when the vote is open. The vote is open. Thank you, noting Councillor Cudi’s vote of yes, closing the vote, motion fails, seven to eight.

Thank you, I will return the chair to the mayor. Thank you. Okay, any debate on this? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor McAllister.

Thank you, I’d like to move a referral if I have a second, to work out the details of the financial work in the workings of this plan. Okay, I’ll look to see if there’s a secondary for the referral, Councillor ramen. Okay, so on the referral, I don’t know if you wanna speak to the referral first, and then we can get a speaker. Yeah, sure, I’ll speak to it.

I really would like to support something like this. And I do, you know, it was acknowledged in the staff report that it was rushed, and again, I appreciate the urgency of it. But staff had said they didn’t have a lot of time. I also spoke with the London Home Builders Association, and I ran a few things past them that I could possibly get behind.

And so certain things have come up, you know, maybe the interest rate is too high, maybe it should be a capital gains thing. Is there a way to take this incentive and have it increase a person’s down payment so that it actually does increase affordability, rather than it be they have to qualify for a property, get a loan, and then they apply for this incentive, and they get 19 to $50,000 that they could go to Cuba on, or do something else. I would rather have it, Cuba might not have been a good example. I would rather it help affordability, and I do think that with just one more cycle and a little bit of input and some changes, we could come up with something that would get more support here, that would be more appealing to taxpayers, and actually really help people.

I also think if we were able to apply it to the down payment, maybe there’s a way to not even track the loan and just allow us to incentivize. So to me, there’s lots of different options that we could have if we had one more cycle to explore, get input, and really that will meet the objectives here. Councilor McAllister, next. I forgot that I was chairing, actually.

I looked at Councilor Robin to do it, and I was like, oh yeah, I got the chair back. Councilor McAllister, that definitely may have been this. Thank you to the mayor, I think we’re all getting a bit tired. Yeah, I mean, just to echo what a lot of what I’ve heard tonight, I just think that there’s more work to be done on this.

I think we can make some more enhancements to get more broad consensus on this. I don’t think we’re that far away. I think a lot of good things are already being said tonight. I do think one more cycle gives the opportunity for members around the horseshoe to maybe add some ideas.

They have specific to this program, and yeah, really try to address some of the affordability issues for the program that we’ve already identified. I appreciate the mayor bringing this forward. I think we’ve got to get creative with ideas. So this is the last committee cycle.

We’ve got a lot of tools in a big chest that we’re all trying to use. Cities are coming up with different ideas, but I do think we have to afford ourselves some time to work through some of the issues we’ve identified, ‘cause it’s not that the first crack is gonna be perfect, but I think there’s an opportunity here, and I still see value in it, but I do think we can definitely enhance this program to make it more appealable to both other members of council and to the public more broadly, to address those issues we’ve all heard next. Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then myself. Thank you, Your Worship.

So through you, my challenge with the referral is a bit of the vagueness around the financial parameters piece. I don’t love the language. I think we heard some ideas tonight that I actually am open to considering. Maybe we do switch from an interest rate to a capital gains percentage.

I’m very open to looking at that as an option. I would also be open to hearing what the difference is between five and seven versus five and 10. Certainly open to that discussion. My concern with financial parameters of the program is that it’s very vague, and what I do wanna see staff come back to with the referral is some very specific options.

I don’t want us to spend a committee cycle throwing everything by the kitchen sink in and then referring it yet again to come back with another thing ‘cause as we heard tonight, we couldn’t even change from five, seven because of a bylaw. So I don’t want us to get into that situation. So through you, Mr. Presiding Officer, I wonder if staff can provide their interpretation based on what we’ve seen tonight or what we’ve heard tonight on what they would bring back as options rather than just the term.

And I know the counselors are kind of putting this together as we go, so rather than just financial parameters, what would staff be actually looking to bring back? Because to me, financial parameters is just throwing the barn door open to everything but the kitchen sink. So I can ask that question. I would also say referral is amenable.

So changes can be made to the structure of the referral, but let’s get an answer from staff too. Through your worship. So what we can do is bring back, like we’ve heard the discussion. I’ve got the IT members online as well, like listening right now to give a very good sense of what you’re looking for here.

So what we can do is provide a report, list out some of those significant items that you’ve listed. We can make a recommendation based on what we’ve heard and what we think would be a program that would be viable and still have all of those requirements that you’re looking for as well and be something that we can actually administer and then bring that back for your consideration. And then you’ll have your pick list that if there’s items that you wanna add or move at committee that you’ll have that opportunity. Okay, I think that’s helpful because I think the other thing that we have to keep in mind here is that this program doesn’t work.

If we put in conditions that the private sector decides they’re not gonna contribute, they’re 40% of and then they walk away from the table, which is a very real possibility if we get too far down into the weeds here without having a chance to hear what the people who are putting in the 40% think about the eligibility parameters. So I’m a little more comfortable with what I’ve heard from Mr. Mathers. I guess I just need to know through you, Chair, from staff, do they feel like we need to be more specific in our language or is what’s there sufficient for them to work from?

And I only ask that ‘cause I know that Mayor said earlier, God’s know how long we’re gonna keep staff here tonight and that goes for your team online as well. But I’d like them to be able to start thinking about that. So if you need some specifics, can you kind of indicate that to us now or whether that’s sufficient? So give me one sec.

Let me, before you answer that, just provide a clarification on what the referral says. Right now the referral is referred back to us as SPPC. I think it sounds to me like what some colleagues are looking for is some staff information as part of that referral. So the referral really does need to change here to add some direction to our staff to bring back options in consultation with others.

Or right now what we’re getting is we just referred it to ourselves. We’re gonna have a discussion first before staff even brings back options. So I can go to staff, but what matters is what we’re voting on and how the referral’s structured. And it sounds to me like you wanna make an amendment to the referral rather than a staff.

Okay, then I actually go to staff. I will just, I’m gonna move an amendment to the referral that civic administration be directed to bring back a report to the future SPPC meeting. I’m not gonna put a date ‘cause I recognize they might need two cycles instead of one, but to a future SPPC with respect to options around financial parameters of the program in consultation with our private sector partners, including but not limited to capital gains versus interest, sliding scale forgiveness, and down payment versus cashback incentives. We’re just getting that down.

Thanks for speaking slowly, that’s very helpful. I was speaking slowly so the clerk could capture that so I wouldn’t have to repeat it in case I couldn’t repeat it accurately. I think that happens. Sometimes we say something and you say say that again, it’s hard to do.

So I’m pretty sure we’ve got this pretty close. Just give us just a moment. And then I see a seconder and Councillor Stephen’s and on the amendment to it. So let me do that and then I’ll let you speak to the amendment.

I put myself on the list. Cutty votes yes to the amendment for the referral. Cutty, I love that you’re moving things along. I’m so sorry.

We’re not as quick as you on this, right? Okay, I’m so sorry. No, no, no apologies, you’re keeping us going. We’re still getting the wording down.

But I feel, I think we’re all feeling like you’re feeling nuts, we love to vote, but we’ve got to wait just a moment. Clerk asked me to seek forgiveness. We threw some language together. Can you just check it and see if it’s close enough?

So just looking at the language, the clerks have captured their worship. I think the only thing that got missed was length of program, like the five versus seven versus 10. But yeah, it does say such as, so if they come back with a variety of things, let’s guess what I’m just gonna add that in ‘cause that was part of the debate that people actually care about a lot, so. Such as giving you some flexibility, Mr.

May, there’s two, good, okay. All right, so this is amending the referral on the amendment to the referral, we’ll have discussion now. I don’t know if you wanna speak again or if you’re good. I wanna speak, so I’m gonna turn the chair over to Councillor Ramen.

Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Okay, so I’m gonna support the amendment to the referral and the referral. I’ll get it all out of the way at the same time here. I like the parameters on the amendment of the referral.

I like the consultation with the community. I think it’s really important for us not to leave $3 million on the table, because I think there’s something here that we can come to an agreement on and what we’ve gotta do is find that pathway to where those dollars can be deployed and leveraged in something that council can widely support. And I will say, you know me, I always like to go for as wide a support as possible on some things. So I appreciate my colleagues who are willing to take a look at what might work.

I would say in the referral back, I like the flexibility of it. And I also think that we may get some other feedback back from the development community. We’ve only just made up our definition of what a new homeowner is. I actually think that there’s some pieces missing from that based on the federal program of times that you’ve owned a house and that sort of thing.

So I think if there’s flexibility here, some improvements can be made. All those things together are what’s going to get the money on the table. And so as long as colleagues are open to that, in addition to the things of the referral, I’m very open to having a discussion on what might work, what might have the wide consensus of counsel and ultimately what more we could do on the homeownership side of things, which is really where we’re lagging in the city and where people have not found a great solution to modify. And I also want colleagues to know, the reason why I’m at support keeping the referral and changing it and keeping it alive is even when I went to Ottawa, people are interested in what we’re doing.

It’s already gotten some attention and it’s because other people are trying to think about how to tackle this problem. So we can try something here. We can find the right path with the right risk level and I think we can work with other communities at the end of the day too. So I’m supportive of the language change in the referral and the referral.

Thank you for turning the chair to you, Councillor Lehman. Councillor Lehman. Yeah, I want to say thank you to my colleagues. I think maybe because we’ve had time to kind of digest this from SPPC.

As I said earlier, I truly believe in that first home, getting into that market, which keeps moving away from people. The easy thing would have just been said, “No, we’ll vote this down and move on.” So I saw everyone here for maybe finding a way that works for them and addresses their concerns that we can find a way to help first time home buyers. It’s tricky with the property tax ‘cause if this is funded by property tax and I wouldn’t be supporting this ‘cause I don’t think this is a proper property tax. This is a federal government program which I can get behind it.

And the other levels of government are able to bring in things like, for example, changes to HST on new homes, which we can’t do. We don’t have the tools that some other levels of government do, but we do have this opportunity. So I will support the referral with those changes in language. Thank you again for not giving up on this and that’s fine a way we can get folks into that first home.

Any other speakers? Councillor Ferriero, go ahead. Thank you. So this is a referral of the referral or is this just— Actually, it’s an amendment to the referrals language and the reasons for the referral.

Okay, so if we vote on this amendment, then we’re voting on the referral after. We will vote on the referral after. So this is just, do you wanna change the language? Anybody else on the language?

Okay, we’re gonna open that for voting. Any votes, yes? Motion carries, 15-0. Okay, the referral as amended needs to be over and seconder, Councillor Stevenson is willing to move.

Councillor Pietrangelo is willing to second. Any discussion now on the actual referral? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to say I’m looking forward to supporting this referral. I hated voting no to the other one. I liked the intention of it. I just didn’t feel it was right.

And so now I’m actually excited to see what comes back to us. So thank you. Councillor Plaza. Thank you in full disclosure.

As I know, we’re talking about referrals and reports and if it gets more people on board versus not. Just from the outset, I’m still not interested in 10 versus five versus three versus seven. I also took the opportunity to speak to the home builders. My concerns still lie and I know you might come back with a report and change it.

Of the 630,000 buy-in for first time and it has to be a new home realizing to me, I’m still hearing from residents who’ve had their homes up for a while and they’re trying to sell their home that’s used house now and feeling that they’re being pitted against the new home and the builds. I still, I’m not comfortable with it. I appreciate that you’re looking at putting in some of their own money, but there was already money earmarked for these programs that we also needed for development that city staff have done. So that’s still my concern there.

And I know that it’s not coming from useful property tax money and I would just reiterate that it’s still tax dollars and I’m hearing from residents that they’re not interested in incentivizing these home purchases with their tax dollars. Councillor Ferri, go ahead. Thank you, similar to Councillor Palosa. I’m not interested in the program as it is, as Councillor Palosa alluded to there as an existing home stock, it would be much more affordable if we were starting to reach towards that.

I did hear a committee that this is not even some area that the city should be operating in and I see that that sentiment has changed. And also, I would say, I understand that the home builder side is kicking in millions of dollars, but if we were to leave it to market forces and let the market decide, they would kick in millions of dollars regardless of how it is. This is us helping that potential loss and helping them out on that. So that’s how I see it.

Are they property tax dollars? Not directly, but not from us anyways, but they are tax dollars, as Councillor Palosa said. And if you just look at it on the indirect side, because we have moved some infrastructure projects around, property tax dollars will most likely be paying for that. So regardless of how you see it, property tax dollars are paying for this.

And I just don’t believe it’s something that we should be doing as the city. I think we should let the market decide, we should let the market decide on what happens to these new builds. And yeah, I guess I’ll leave it there. So I won’t be supporting the referral.

Any other speakers? Go ahead, Councillor Rossell. I’m curious to know through the chair, whether there’s been any consultation with the Real Estate Association. That is our Real Estate Professionals who are in the business of selling used homes, how they feel about this.

And would they be included in the clause in consultation with the private sector partners? Mr. Maders. Through you, worship, so that if the mayor has anything to add about this consultation process about developing this, that might be one component, but I can tell you as far as the resolution for us to come back, the group that we’ll be highlighting and working with would be our customer service and resource and customer service and process improvement group, which does include the Real Estate Association as well, and as long as a number of other agencies as well.

So I think they would be a good group to be able to have some feedback to us as well. Okay, in full disclosure, then I think I’ve made my position pretty clear that I don’t like this and I’m probably, well, I’m not gonna be supporting this in the end. So I don’t wanna leave people on by voting yes on this referral. At the same time, we’ll be getting more information back, which I always think getting more information back.

I love the idea of getting a referral on this. People see the meaning of that from the SPPC, but I think I’m gonna vote yes on the referral with the understanding that there’s still so many questions that need to be answered about this. And I’d rather refer this than, well, I’m just gonna stop there. So very reluctantly, I’m gonna support the referral ‘cause it’s getting us more information, but it doesn’t change my general outlook that this program is fundamentally flawed and that it’s primarily, I think, a subsidy for those who are holding inventory.

And that, my mind hasn’t changed on that. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. So through you, I’ve heard a couple of comments that I need to get stuff to respond to a couple of questions on.

When we talk about when developers pay DCs, that’s on occupancy, is that correct? Mr. Mathers. Through your worship, it depends on the type of the form of development, so that some of the rules have recently changed related to your department style unit.

So in the context of this program, there would be a difference depending on the type of unit, but it can be at occupancy or at building permit issuers. Go ahead. Yeah, so for example, a condo unit would be on occupancy where a townhouse might be upon the closing of the building permit. Through your worship, that’s correct.

If you’re, when you say condo, you mean like an apartment building, that’s correct. Okay, so I think that that’s relevant because when we talk about the sector is going to pay either way, you know, I said this in committee as well, the sector isn’t going to pay, the home purchaser is going to pay. And those dollars, given the parameters and the units that would be eligible in this, they can sit on vacant inventory and not pay those DCs for a while. They can actually wait until the market improves or they can get people into those units now.

So that’s one of the reasons I want to referral because I want to see what we can do to get people into those units sooner than later. I know that it was said that, and Councilor Truss I would ask about the real tours. And yes, I would agree with Mr. Mathers.

And I think it’s important that they’re involved too, but representatives through L-Star, of course, don’t just sell resale homes, they sell new homes too. Not every builder is directly into sales. They often use L-Star members to sell those homes once they’re built and they are at the table. So that’s an important component to capture.

You know, when we talk about this, this doesn’t help because it’s not helping the resale homes. Well, the down payment assistance program with a maximum purchase price of 500,000 isn’t helping new homes. So you’ve got one program that’s helping one type and another program that potentially would help another type. It’s not an either or, it’s both.

The difference being the resale homes, there’s already a program in operation for us, the first time home buyers down payment assistance program. So I don’t actually accept that as a reason not to refer this and not to consider it. Because I think we already have a program that does that. Now, we talk about whether we wanna take more of that allocation of the funding that was available for that program and free up more so that more people can qualify.

And I’m happy to have that discussion with you. If we wanna go all in now with the funds we have for those resale homes in the first time down payment assistance program through the other fund, not through the half, but to me, if we can move resale homes too, I’m happy to have that discussion, but that’s aside from this. The other thing that I’m supporting this referral for, and it’s come up, it’s been mentioned a couple times tonight, but through you, Chair, I believe Ms. Chair answered this at committee.

We’re not in fact delaying any projects by allocating half money here. My understanding is if I’m recollecting committee correctly, that those infrastructure projects are moving forward, but they’re just gonna move forward through, I believe it was the building faster fund through the province, which actually can’t be used for an incentive program, or maybe it was another source of funding, but my understanding is they’re not being delayed. Through you, your worship, that is correct. We will be looking for an alternate source of funding, likely DC reserves.

Okay, thank you. So that part to me is important ‘cause we’re not delaying the work that needs to happen in other places to enable further housing infrastructure. We’re just gonna use alternate sources of funding, including the DC reserves, which, if this program moves forward, half money will go into the DC reserves as well as the development community’s money will go into the DC reserves, putting funds right back where we’re taking them from for those other projects. So while it is one of those sort of complicated financing, moving things from one account to another, we’re actually still going to use the money to pay for projects through the DC reserves.

We’re just gonna get out of the door to get people into housing and then take the money that we put back into the DC reserves to pay for those projects. So for those reasons, I’m absolutely gonna support the referral because I think I’ve heard some very valid comments from colleagues tonight about some options they would like to see that could make the program more viable from their perspective. And so I’m willing to have those conversations. So I look forward to this coming back to SPPC.

I have a feeling that night, I might be asking Councillor Rama to take the chair multiple times to speak to it, but I’m looking forward to that discussion. And I agree with Councillor Layman. I’d rather do this and get a program that I can actually get people housed than do a program that nobody takes us up on. And then we say, oh, well, we tried and nobody took us up on it.

I think that’s a false narrative. I think it would be disingenuous to do that. We were trying to look into new home ownership opportunities. So I’ll support the referral.

Okay, sorry, Councillor Hopkins. I don’t know if I saw your hand if you’re, yes. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, your worship on the referral.

So I am going to support the referral. The reason I’m gonna support the referral is because we do not have enough information on this program. So any way we can get more information to understand this program, I’ll support that I am not supportive of the program as it is right now. I did support the change in five years from 10 years ago into five.

The reason I supported that was it’s an incentive program. It’s gotta be an incentive program, but that doesn’t mean I support the program. So I want to just make it very clear by supporting this referral and getting information. We need more information.

We didn’t get the information. I think that we needed to understand the program. So for that reason, I will be supporting it. It does not mean I support the program though.

Okay, I’ll give the chair to Councillor Omen. I have myself on the as-embedded referral. Thank you, I have the chair. Okay, so I want to thank my colleagues for the discussion.

And I want to thank you for your commitment to trying to find a program that can have the support of council that we can move forward with together. And I’ll tell you why. And it pegs on what Deputy Mayor Lewis touched on. So there’s a piece of this that says, we want people to be in home ownership.

Absolutely, like we can work. We’ve got other programs. This is one of the programs that can work in conjunction. So there’s in fact, this would be a very powerful program if there was a GSD rebate that was passed by the federal government to really lower the house of probably the cost of new housing.

Why do we care about new houses? We care about existing resales, but why do we care about new houses? Because new houses is what got us, the building faster fund money in the first place. And it’s what will get us building faster fund money hopefully this year, although the government has yet to make announcements on those numbers.

So being able to use some half money and some building faster fund money to do the infrastructure means we might be moving some money around. But yes, we have the DC fund that we can actually draw from. Or if we get building faster fund money again this year, we have that money that we can draw from as well. But what we’re actually accomplishing here is two things.

One is we may be moving money around, but during the case of that, we’re still populating the DC fund, as Deputy Mayor Lewis said, like we’re taking money and still putting it back in a fund that we spend infrastructure on at the same time, we’re leveraging $3 million potentially of developer money into this at the same time lowering homeowners costs. The other reason why we care about inventory is, and this is not just about inventory, but when a house sits vacant that doesn’t have someone live into, it’s a stranded asset. Why does that matter for smaller builders? They don’t build the next house because the capital is tied up there, right?

They don’t have the financing to just borrow money and build. So if we actually wanna make movement on our housing targets, if we actually wanna see the things we’ve approved come to fruition, we gotta find some way to get the capital moving along the line. And the way to do that is to make houses more affordable for the people moving into them as well. So I think that there’s lots of pieces that we’ve debated on this, but there’s a lot of things that we find the right consensus on this that can actually all move in the right direction that can create some real advantages for our community in getting housing moving and meeting housing targets, it’s supporting both the resale and the new build market and providing an opportunity for people to have new homes at lower prices than are out there in the market.

So appreciate our commitment to trying to find a path forward. I think it’s really, I’m looking forward to the discussion as well. I’m turning the chair to you. Any other speakers?

Okay, seeing none. So we’re on the as amended referral. This is the last vote on this, if it passes. So I’ll open that for voting.

Ready votes, yes. Motion carries 12 to three. Okay, back to Deputy Mayor Lewis. And that will complete the third report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee.

I know we have added and deferred matters first, but in the interest of time, I will say I’m happy to put my name as a mover for all the bylaws. If you want to find a seconder and do it that way, I’m happy to help tonight. Sounds great. We got a couple of things to do first.

And that’s added reports of which Council Raman has an added report to read out. Thank you. Your third report of the council enclosed session, your council enclosed session report, item one, lease amendment and extension agreement 177179 Dundas Street, Dundas Place Field House, that on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager Finance supports with review and concurrence of director, community developments and grants, neighborhoods and community-wide services on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the lease of commercial space, known as Dundas Place Field House, located at 177 to 179 Dundas Street. The following actions be taken aid, lease extension and amendment, amending agreement the lease as Appendix A between the Corporation, the City of London and Westang Home Services under Number Company 2162538 Ontario, Inc.

for a further period of five years commencing on March 1st, 2026, expiring on February 28th, 2031. The first extended term be approved, there shall be two further rights of extension beyond the expiration of the first extension of the terms granted here in B. The mayor and city council clerk be authorized to execute the lease extension and amending agreement and seats, the administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps, necessary in connection with this lease extension. Two, Hydro One Network, Inc.

option agreement, Eastman St. Thomas Line Project that on the recommendation the Deputy City Manager Finance Sports on the advice of the Director Realty Services with respect to the city owned land, containing approximately 0.12 acres, more or less, over a portion of lands, legally described as original road allowance between town of Westminster, County Middlesex and township of Yarmouth, County of Elgin to the center line, now known as Willsley Born by Bylaw 870207, a budding lot six to seven, concession eight, town of Westminster designated part one in 33R, a set dash 754, or a closed by Bylaw 795345, as amended by 79867, in the city of London, County Middlesex, the subject property, and further are shown outlined in Appendix A, the following actually taken A, the option agreement, Eastman, the agreement, as Appendix B, submitted by Hydro One Networks, Inc., the transfer E to acquire an easement over 0.12 acres of the subject property from the city at the purchase price of $3,150, and further subject to the conditions in terms of set out, the agreement be accepted, B, the mayor and the city clerk, be authorized to execute the options agreement easement, and C, the civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps, necessary in connection with the option agreement easement that progress was made with respect to items 4.3, 6.3, ICSC 4.4, 6.4, 3 ICSC 4.5, 6.13 as PPC, as known on the public agenda. Okay, that’s moved by the presenter. Any discussion on any of those items?

Okay, seeing them well for that, promoting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 15-0. Okay, we’re on to deferred matters.

I have none, inquiries, are there any inquiries? See, none, emergent motions, there are none. Bylaws, okay, good news, we’re at bylaws. Bad news, we have 30 bylaws votes to do.

So, Deputy Mayor and I will move in second all of them, and we’ll go through them in a row, and I’m gonna tell you what they all are. I’m not even gonna tell you the plan, because, frankly, it’s a lot to read through. So, I’m just gonna tell you what we’re voting on, and then we’ll move through them. First vote is gonna be on the pipeline decommissioning.

So, it’ll be the bylaws associated with the pipeline decommissioning and the new pipeline agreement, okay? So, we’re gonna open that for first reading. So, this is bill number 63 if you’re reading in the bylaws. Very votes, yes.

Motion carries, 10 to five. Okay, second reading, any debate? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Very votes, yes.

Mr. Lewis, and carries 10 to five. Third reading of the same bylaw, we’ll open that for voting. Very votes, yes.

Motion carries, 10 to five. Okay, the next one we’re gonna do is bill 64. This is the TV DSB LTC and City of London agreement related to the transit program. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Very votes, yes. So, sorry, this is the secondary school transit. That’s right, yeah. So, it’s technically the bylaws but the agreements that we’ve authorized to be.

Motion carries, nine to five with one recusal. Okay, second reading, any debate? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Very votes, yes.

Motion carries, nine to five with one recusal. And third and final reading, we’ll open that for voting. Very votes, yes. Motion carries, 10 to four with one recusal.

Okay, the next one is 233 Cambridge Street which is bill number 80, 233 Cambridge Street. We’ll open first reading for voting. Go ahead. Ready, yes.

Go ahead, Councillor Cuddy. Ready, votes. Motion carries, 13 to two. Second reading, any debate?

Seeing none, we’ll open second reading. Ready, votes, yes. Drasso, motion carries, 13 to. Third and final reading of this, we’ll open that for voting.

Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to. The next one is bill 81 which is 644 to 664 Southdale Road East and 221 Nadine Ave. We’ll open first reading for voting.

Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12 to three. Second reading for the Southdale Road and Nadine Ave addresses, we’ll open any debate. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting.

Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12 to three. Third and final reading of the same by-law. We’ll open that for voting.

Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to two. All right, next, we’ll be bill number 82 which is 767 Fanshawe Park Road East and 679 Dunmoine Crescent. And it’s the revised by-law after we made the changes.

So just a heads up that it’s slightly different than the one in your package, but it’s the one recognizing the changes that we authorized earlier in the meeting. So we’ll open first reading for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to.

And second reading, any debate or discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to.

Third and final reading, we’ll open that for voting. Vote, yes. That’s a privilege. Motion carries, 13 to.

And next is bill 88 which is 732 Wellington Street and Piccadilly Street. Okay, we’re gonna open first reading on that bill for voting. Ready, votes, yes. And carries, 13 to.

Second reading, same over and second reading debate. Seeing none, we’ll open second reading for voting. Ready, votes, yes. And carries, 13 to.

Third and final reading, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. And carries, 13 to. The next one is bills number 66 and 83 which is the 3334 and 3354 Wonderland Road development.

Ready, good? Okay, all right, we’re gonna open first reading. Ready, votes, yes. Opposed and vote, motion carries 12 to three.

Second reading of these two bills, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12, three.

Third reading of the same two bills, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12, three. Okay, so the next one is bill number 89 which is 5150 Wellington Road South.

150 Wellington Road South. We’ll open first reading for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12, three.

Second reading, is there any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12, three.

Third and final reading of bill 89, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 12, three. All right, next is bill number 90 which is 3680 Wonderland Road South.

We’ll open first reading for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to. Second reading, any discussion?

Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to. And third and final reading of bill 90, we’ll open that for voting.

Can you, votes, yes. Motion carries, 13 to. Okay, now we have everything that wasn’t those things, every other bill which I think there was consensus on so we’re gonna open that for voting, first reading. Ready, votes, yes.

Motion carries, 15, zero. Second reading on all the remaining bills, any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Ready, votes, yes.

Motion carries, 15, zero. Third and final reading of the final set of bills, we’ll open that for voting. Ready, votes, yes. Motion carries, 15, zero.

Okay, that wraps up the old bylaws, so we’re good there. It was nice to hear Councillor Cudi say that 30 times in a row. I’ll dream about that tonight. With that though, we can have a motion to adjourn.

I look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor van Mirbergen. We did this one by hand. All is in favor of adjournment.

Yes, motion carries. We are adjourned. All right, thank you very much.