February 23, 2026, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance.

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.14 BE APPROVED with the exception of items 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.13.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   LT-2026-037 Limited Tender Co-operative Purchase for Refrigeration Services Provider

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Limited Tender Report Refrigeration Services

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a Refrigeration Service provider:

a)    in accordance with Section 20 (Cooperative Purchasing) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to acquire refrigeration services through the Canoe Procurement Group of Canada (“Canoe”), which has conducted an open and competitive procurement process compliant with applicable Trade Agreements;

b)    in accordance with Section 13.3(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into a Limited Tendering Contract with CIMCO Refrigeration, at pricing and terms established under the Canoe Framework, for a one (1) year, with three (3) additional one (1) year options for renewal, as the supplier awarded under the Canoe framework, without conducting a secondary invitational procurement process; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in parts a) and b) above.

Motion Passed

2.4   Traffic Signal Network-as-a-Service Contract Extension

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Traffic Signal Network

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Limited Tendering (single-source) procurement of traffic signal Network-as-a-Service cellular communication services:

a)    the contract with Desklinx Inc. BE ACCEPTED for a one (1) year term ending April 30, 2027, at an estimated annual cost of $247,817.20 (excluding HST) in accordance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 13.3 iii) (e);

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

c)    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.

Motion Passed

2.5   2025 Administrative Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

2026-02-23 Staff Report - 2025 Admin Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (PS-114) with respect to the 2025 administrative amendments.

Motion Passed

2.6   Limited Tender Procurement – Consulting Engineering Assignment – Gordon Avenue Local Sewer Project

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Limited Tender Procurement-Gordon Ave

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment of a consulting engineer for consulting services for the detailed design and contract administration for the Gordon Avenue Local Sewer project:

a)    Archibald, Gray & McKay (AGM) Engineering Ltd. BE APPOINTED consulting engineers in the amount of $339,345.00, including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix ‘A’;

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

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

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

Motion Passed

2.7   By-law to Delegate Authority for Producer Responsibility Organization Agreements in Waste Management

2026-02-23 Staff Report - By-law to Delegate Authority

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, being “A by-law to delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure or their designate to negotiate, execute and enter into any new service agreements or amending existing service agreements with any Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) administering Extended Producer Responsibility programs”; pursuant to the Resource Recovery and Circular Economy Act, 2016 or any regulations under this Act BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026.

Motion Passed

2.11   Fiber Connect 3 (FC3) - Municipal Access Agreement

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Fiber Connect 3 (FC3)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the Municipal Access Agreement with Fiber Connect 3 (FC3);

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026 for the purpose of approving the Municipal Access Agreement between the Corporation of the City of London and Fiber Connect 3 (FC3), substantially in the form, as appended to the staff report and satisfactory to the City Solicitor; 

b)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the Municipal Access Agreement on behalf of the municipality; and

c)    the agreement BE ADOPTED as the City’s model Municipal Access Agreement for telecommunications carriers licensed under the Federal Telecommunications Act that operate within the City.

Motion Passed

2.12   2025 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System

2026-02-23 Staff Report - 2025 Drinking Water Annual Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water & Wastewater, the 2025 Drinking Water Annual Report and Summary Report for the City of London Drinking Water System BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.14   Municipal Capital Facility Designation

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Municipal Capital Facilities Designation

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward the necessary by-law(s) and associated agreement(s) to designate Unit L135 at 1680 Richmond Street as a Municipal Capital Facility for the term of the lease between the London Police Services Board, KS Masonville Inc. and CF/Realty Holdings Inc., by their authorized agent The Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited, it being noted that a municipal facility related to policing is a prescribed class of municipal capital facilities under Ontario Regulation 603/06: Municipal and School Capital Facilities – Agreements and Tax Exemptions.

Motion Passed

2.2   Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Accelerating Community Energy Systems

2026-02-23 Staff Report - FCM Community Energy

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to:

a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement, CORE-25-0485, (“Agreement”) between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for studying the potential of net-zero community energy in London, Ontario, as appended to the staff report as Schedule “1”; 

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

c)    AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, as the Duly Authorized Officer to approve and execute any forms or documents on the City’s behalf necessary to fulfill the City’s reporting obligations under the Agreement.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.3   Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Feasibility Study

2026-02-23 Staff Report - FCM Decarbonization Study

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held  on March 3, 2026, to:

a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund Grant Agreement, CORE-24-0309, (“Agreement”) between the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (“FCM”) and The Corporation of the City of London for the provision of funding for studying the feasibility of municipal fleet electrification in London, Ontario, as appended to the staff report as Schedule “1”;

b)    AUTHORIZE the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreements; and

c)    AUTHORIZE the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, as the Duly Authorized Officer to approve and execute any forms or documents on the City’s behalf necessary to fulfill the City’s reporting obligations under the Agreements.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

2.8   Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated February 23, 2026 to delegate certain authority, should Municipal Council’s actions be restricted after Nomination Day and/or Voting Day in 2026 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with definitions in section 2.3 of Schedule 2 for “short-term service” and “as needed”; and details of reporting as outlined in section 3.1, including rationale, contract details, and any other relevant information.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

2.9   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2025-223 Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Contract Award-Wellington Gateway

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road; it being noted that in accordance with Section 12.4.1 of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Request for Tender (RFT) contract awards greater than $6,000,000 require approval of City Council:

a)    the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited at its tendered price of $24,990,163.55 excluding HST, for the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road project, BE ACCEPTED; it also being noted that the bid submitted by J-AAR Civil Infrastructures Limited was the lowest of three (3) bids received and meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    Dillon Consulting Limited BE AUTHORIZED to carry out the construction inspection and contract administration for the said project in accordance with the estimate, on file, at an upset amount of $2,757,605.20 excluding HST, in accordance with Section 13.3 iii) (a) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

c)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the “Sources of Financing Report”, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix “A”;

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

e)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to approve Memorandums of Understanding between the Corporation of the City of London and public utilities and private service owners in relation to the cost-sharing of servicing works contained within the Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road contract;

f)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, or issuing a purchase order for the material to be supplied and the work to be done, relating to this project (Tender RFT-2025-223); and

g)    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 (3 to 2)

2.10   Limited Tendering and Cooperative Procurement - LTC Purchase of Nine New Buses

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Limited Tendering for LTC Buses

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to funding for the purchase of new London Transit Commission buses:

a)    approval BE GIVEN to finance the London Transit Commission purchase of nine 60-foot buses required for the East London Link corridor of the new Rapid Transit network, exercising the Limited Tendering provisions in accordance with section 13.3 iii (a) and (e), and 20.0 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, for a total estimated price of $14,349,600 (excluding HST);

b)    the financing for this purchase BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026, as Appendix “A”;

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

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

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

2.13   Update to Council Policy - Travel and Business Expenses

2026-02-23 Staff Report - Update to Council Policy-Travel and Business Expenses

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 23, 2026:

a) the proposed by-law, appended as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses,” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law; and

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare two separate policies: one governing Travel and Business Expenses for Civic Administration, and a second governing Travel and Business Expenses for Members of Council, and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with the proposed policies.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the staff report dated February 23, 2026 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses,” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-law BE REFERRED to Civic Administration with direction to prepare two separate policies: one governing Travel and Business Expenses for Civic Administration, and a second governing Travel and Business Expenses for Members of Council, and to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with the proposed policies.

Motion Failed (0 to 5)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare two separate policies: one governing Travel and Business Expenses for Civic Administration, and a second governing Travel and Business Expenses for Members of Council, and to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with the proposed policies.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

None.

4.1   Traffic Calming - Councillor C. Rahman

2026-02-23 Submission - Traffic Calming-C. Rahman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighbourhood connectors and neighbourhood streets:

a)    review and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on:

i)  a jurisdictional scan of peer municipalities’ processes for receiving traffic calming petitions and requests, including how those processes are communicated to residents;

ii) an assessment of how the City of London communicates with residents who submit traffic calming petitions or requests, with a view to improving clarity around the process and providing timely information updates;

iii) options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to Council Members regarding traffic calming requests received, studies undertaken, and upcoming projects within their ward;

b)    provide updates to the Councillors and committee on approved traffic calming projects, the completion of a project, and any other pertinent information; and

c)    report back on any recommendations for additional resources;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a verbal delegation from Brendon Samuels; Dan Cameron, Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION); and Carrie L. Mitchell, Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighbourhood connectors and neighbourhood streets:

a)    review and report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee on:

i)  a jurisdictional scan of peer municipalities’ processes for receiving traffic calming petitions and requests, including how those processes are communicated to residents;

ii) an assessment of how the City of London communicates with residents who submit traffic calming petitions or requests, with a view to improving clarity around the process and providing timely information updates;

iii) options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to Council Members regarding traffic calming requests received, studies undertaken, and upcoming projects within their ward; and

b)    provide updates to the Councillors and committee on approved traffic calming projects, the completion of a project, and any other pertinent information;

it being noted that the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee heard a verbal delegation from Brendon Samuels; Dan Cameron, Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION); and Carrie L. Mitchell, Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs with respect to this matter.

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That the delegation requests from B. Samuels; D. Cameron, Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION); and C. L. Mitchell, Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part c) that reads as follows:

that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on any recommendations for additional resources.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

None.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed session to consider the following:

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege including communications necessary for that purpose from the solicitor and officers or employees of the Corporation; the subject matter pertains to litigation with respect to a claim for compensation following the expropriation of property located at 835 Wellington Road at the Ontario Land Tribunal (“OLT”); and for the purpose of providing instruction and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation.

6.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 3:22 PM to 3:37 PM.

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:40 PM.

Votes

11 substantive votes at this meeting (6 contested, 5 unanimous). Procedural motions excluded.

2.2. Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Accelerating Community Energy Systems

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 3, 2026, to: a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fund …

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

2.3. Federation of Canadian Municipalities: Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Feasibility Study

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 23, 2026 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held  on March 3, 2026, to: a)    APPROVE the Green Municipal Fun…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 1) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (4): Hadleigh McAlister, Corrine Rahman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke

Nay (1): Susan Stevenson

2.8. Restricted Acts of Council after Nomination Day and Voting Day

That the staff report dated February 23, 2026 to delegate certain authority, should Municipal Council’s actions be restricted after Nomination Day and/or Voting Day in 2026 BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Comm…

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 2) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Skylar Franke

Nay (2): Hadleigh McAlister, Paul Van Meerbergen

2.9. Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2025-223 Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contracts for Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvements Phase 2A – Wilkins Street to Baseline Road; it being noted that in accordance…

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 2) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Hadleigh McAlister, Corrine Rahman, Skylar Franke

Nay (2): Susan Stevenson, Paul Van Meerbergen

2.10. Limited Tendering and Cooperative Procurement - LTC Purchase of Nine New Buses

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to funding for the purchase of new London Transit Commission buses: a)    approval BE GIVEN to finance the London Transit Commission purchase of nine 60-foot buses requ…

✅ Motion Passed (4 to 1) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (4): Hadleigh McAlister, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Skylar Franke

Nay (1): Paul Van Meerbergen

2.13. Update to Council Policy - Travel and Business Expenses

That the staff report dated February 23, 2026 to amend By-law No. CPOL.-227-479, being “A by-law to revoke and repeal Council policy related to Travel & Business Expenses and replace it with a new Council policy entitled Travel & Business Expenses,” to repeal and replace Schedule “A” to the by-la…

❌ Motion Failed (0 to 5)

View roll call

Nay (5): Hadleigh McAlister, Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Paul Van Meerbergen, Skylar Franke

2.13. Update to Council Policy - Travel and Business Expenses

That the motion BE AMENDED to include a new part that reads as follows: the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare two separate policies: one governing Travel and Business Expenses for Civic Administration, and a second governing Travel and Business Expenses for Members of Council, and to re…

✅ Motion Passed (3 to 2) 🔥

View roll call

Yea (3): Susan Stevenson, Corrine Rahman, Paul Van Meerbergen

Nay (2): Hadleigh McAlister, Skylar Franke

2.13. Update to Council Policy - Travel and Business Expenses

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

4.1. Traffic Calming - Councillor C. Rahman

That the delegation requests from B. Samuels; D. Cameron, Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North (ACTION); and C. L. Mitchell, Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Fellow, Balsillie School of International Affairs, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

4.1. Traffic Calming - Councillor C. Rahman

That the motion BE AMENDED to add a new part c) that reads as follows: that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on any recommendations for additional resources.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

4.1. Traffic Calming - Councillor C. Rahman

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

✅ Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Unanimous (5-0)

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 39 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. We’re gonna get started with the fourth meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee. We’ll start with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawik, and Adawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Mayte, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication support for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, sorry, please contact icsc@london.ca or 509661-2489 extension 2425. For those that are here or watching online, we’re joined today by members of the committee, myself, Councillor McAllister, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, and Chambers, and Councillor Van Muirberg and online, as well as visiting Councillors. I see Councillor Lehman, Councillor Pribble, Councillor Troso, and online Councillor Cudi. So thanks everyone for being here.

We’ll get started with item number one, which is the disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, we’ll move on to the consent items. I’ve been asked to pull a number, so I’m just gonna read my poll list just a moment. So I’ve been asked to pull 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.13.

Do I have any other poll requests? Okay, seeing none, then we’ll look to craft a motion with all the remaining items and have members put that on the floor for discussion. Councillor McAllister, thank you. Councillor Frank, thank you.

So that’s item 2.1, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, and 2.12, 2.14 that are on the floor. Would anyone like to get us started on discussion? Okay, I have visiting Councillors asking for time. I will go to Council approval first.

Go ahead. Thank you very much. And so the chair to the staff talking about 2.14, which I’m very much supportive of it, but I do have a question when it says to bring forward to bring forward the necessary by-law, will be the timeline for that. Thank you.

Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Burbaum. For Mr. Collins, go ahead.

Through the, I will refer to Mr. Collins. Thank you, Mr. Collins, go ahead.

Through the chair to the committee, given this is the first opportunity the civic administration has had to bring forward this type of opportunity for leases, we would like to ensure that we had council support to work on the necessary by-law, but more importantly, the necessary agreements between the parties that would be involved in between ensuring this happens. So we would expect it to be in the next couple of months based on the back and forth between London Police Service, Cadillac Fairview in the city. There has been some work groundwork done to date, and we’re all ready to go. We’re just waiting to hear a direction from council that we should proceed.

Thank you. And I just wanted to mention that we have Mr. Ram Khosun online as well from the London Police. So thank you for being here as well, in case we did have any questions for the police.

Councillor Perbault, back to you. Thank you very much. So for the follow-up, if it passes, the council next week, so are we looking potentially for this committee to come back in April, coming back to this? Mr.

Collins. Civic Administration, London Police Service, and Cadillac Fairview would endeavor to bring this agreement to council as soon as possible, and if it could be made in April, we will certainly do so and endeavor to do so, subject to any refinements that need to be made to the agreement as it stands. Thanks. Perfect, thank you very much.

And I do hope as I said, I’m very much supportive of it, and I hope it’s going to come sooner than later. Thank you very much. No more questions at this time. Thank you.

I’ll look for other members of committee or visiting Councillors. Okay, seeing none, Councillor McAllister, do you mind taking the chair for me? Thank you. Amazing, I have the chair who had Councillor on.

Thank you, and through the presiding officer, I just wanted to first say thank you to staff for the reports that are in front of us today, and thank you to London Police for the contribution of being here to join us to talk about this municipal capital facility designation for those that are in attendance and maybe listening. This is a great opportunity for the city and London Police. And I think that expanding London Police’s presence in the community and at Masonville Place is a warranted and welcome addition to this part of the city. So it’s great to have this paperwork in front of us.

Just looking to get a little bit more insight into the numbers. So I just wanted to confirm, ‘cause I thought that that amount seemed a little bit high, and I just wanted to confirm that that’s the property tax portion for the 2500 plus square feet that the police are looking to utilize. Go ahead, staff. Yes, through the committee, based on the information that has been provided to us through Cadillac Fairview and London Police Services, that would be the property tax in question, which comprises both the municipal portion and the education portion.

Follow-up, Councillor? Thank you. And maybe through you to Mr. Ram-Kassoon, I’m just wondering if this agreement would also allow for London Police to have a presence, for instance, with vehicles at Masonville Place, or would this just be around the square footage of the internal space?

Okay, thank you. On line, go ahead. Sorry, did it chair? Yes, we do intend to have, I think it is six vehicles parked right outside of the external space that will be utilizing our Facebook.

Follow-up, Councillor? Thank you. I think that’s wonderful to hear. I think just that presence of having police in the area close by, I know, can be reassuring for residents in the Northeastern Northwest part of the city that have cited that that’s a concern for them, not seeing police as visible in the area.

So very pleased to see that at Masonville Place. So thank you for those answers, and that’s all my questions for today, thanks. Okay, thank you. We’re turning the chair to you, and you used a minute, 20 of your time.

Thank you. Looking to any other members for any questions on the items that are in front of us, Councillor Lehman, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and I’m glad to see the committee is in favor of this, I think. I’m just speaking kind of as a member of the police board.

I know the long term strategy as we, you know, get to a city of this size. You look at other cities, you see satellite police officers throughout the community. So you don’t have it all concentrated in downtown as it is now. So I think this is the first step of a longer term solution.

And I’m glad to hear, I think there’s an appropriate spot up in a very heavy populated area in the North. I’m glad to hear support from this end. We’ll surprise, as you mentioned, Chair, at the cost of the tax rate up there, but I guess Masonville is a, you know, high tax area retail-wise. So I would commend that commercial tax rate.

Can I imagine what the rent is there, but I’ll find out probably at the board for sure. So thank you very much, appreciate the committee’s work. Thank you, looking for any other speakers on the items. Councillor Perb, we’ll go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and one more to the staff. Through you, please, 2.12, the drinking water. I just want to ask you if I can get some feedback on the Ontario MAX acceptance concentration. And there were three that actually exceeded it.

Exceeded it, if you can just give me a brief feedback in terms of regarding the concerns or how it’s addressed. Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Ramlu.

Thank you, through the chair. So there were two types of exceedances. So the one was sodium and the other were microbiological. So I’ll just the microbiological first.

So that’s E. coli, solve nitrogen and coliform. Those were actually determined to be false positives, if you will. So although the sampling and testing procedure is very controlled, it is also very sensitive.

So it, generally when these happen, it is a matter of the sample was contaminated along the way somewhere. But that being said, there is a very strict procedure in place for when there is an adverse sample. So the Ministry of the Environment is notified as is the health unit and there is immediately, immediate resampling of all locations. So in each of those instances of microbiological exceedance, it was retested and those samples were within the requirements.

So between that and the fact that on the original samples that had higher microbiological levels, the chlorine level in it was also still quite high, too high for actual bacteria to have survived in it for any length of time. That’s why we are confident that those samples were actually contaminated during the sampling or the testing process, rather than it being an actual water quality issue. And that is not an uncommon thing. We usually have a few of those occurrences each year that are easily explained that way and don’t pose any actual risk or concern in the system.

The other one that we did have in 2025, we did have an instance of high sodium levels. Now, sodium is not actually a regulated substance underneath the health, the quality standards for health. It is rather an aesthetic guideline because you can get a negative flavor from it. But that said, for the majority of the population, it is not a health concern and therefore it’s not regulated as such.

However, this is where legislation gets a little awkward because although they do recommend that it be, the health unit be notified without it being treated as an exceedance the same way the quality standard ones are, they don’t have a mechanism to force municipalities to do it. So when there’s an exceedance in sodium, we use the same mandatory reporting and resampling procedure that we use as if it was microbiological. So the ministry is notified and the health unit is notified and we do resample. That said, there’s no further action from the municipality.

It lays with the health unit. So if the health unit believes that, certain members of the public do need to know about it. So if they are on a low sodium diet, for example, because of certain health conditions, the health unit can make that call as to whether they should notify the medical community or the public at large. And then if they were to do so, we may amplify their notifications, but otherwise there’s no action for the city to take beyond that.

And I will note, so we had one in 2025. The last time we had a high sodium level was in 2013. Councilor Provost. Thank you very much for your detailed answer.

No more questions. Thank you, looking for any final speakers on these items. Okay, seeing none, we will open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Okay, thank you. We’ll move on to item 4.1, which is the traffic calming request, excuse me, communication and request for delegation status. That’s there as well. We will return to our other consent items after this item under different matters and additional business as usual.

So with that, I will look for a mover and seconder to receive the delegations as well as the communication. Thank you. Councilor McAllister and Councilor Stevenson, thank you so much. Okay, I will look to get started with those in the gallery.

Thank you for being here. I will start with Mr. Samuel. Sorry, I need to vote first.

And then we’ll start with Mr. Samuel closing the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

Okay, so we’ll start with Mr. Samuels. Thank you for being here. You have five minutes, you’re a regular, so you know the drill and go ahead.

Good afternoon, members of the committee and visiting councilors. My name is Brendan Samuels, I’m a resident of Ward 4. I’m here today also speaking as the Vice Chair of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association and as somebody who’s made repeated attempts to access traffic calming from the city in my neighborhood. I’m really pleased to be joined up here in the gallery by folks from Old North and Old South, who I expect we’ll share from their experiences with traffic calming in the city.

You’ve got three old neighborhoods up here. I fully support the direction outlined in the letter on your agenda and I wanna thank the Chair of your committee, Councillor Raman, for taking the time to hear my concerns over the past couple of months and to consult with the city staff. I encourage you to pass this motion and I believe that the changes being discussed will lead to the traffic calming process becoming easier for both residents and your offices to navigate. There’s an opportunity to improve transparency and to restore trust in the community.

I’ve tried to organize traffic calming requests and petitions at three intersections in my area. The city actually has multiple parallel channels through which traffic calming requests can be filed. One is the petition process where a resident downloads and prints a form from the website, they must then collect signatures from 10 households on the street of interest. Another channel is to request traffic calming through the service London portal where no signatures are required.

Then there are requests initiated through a separate process through school zones and another for reaching out to your Councillor or perhaps to city staff to ask directly about traffic calming. And finally, where intersections have previously seen vehicle collisions that were reported, there’s the angle of reaching out to the London Police Service to access data and get a safety opinion. When it comes to petitions specifically, there’s some conflicting information out there on the website and on the form itself. For a petition to be received, the author needs to collect signatures from at least 10 residents across households with addresses on the street that is the subject of the petition.

But these criteria for signing present challenges and in my opinion, they can lead to a bit of a discriminatory process in terms of who can and cannot sign. And I found these instructions rather confusing. So what is a unique address? I’ve tried to petition for traffic calming at an intersection in front of an apartment building where residents share the same street address and I could not gain access to the building to knock on doors.

I tried to initiate a petition at a cemetery where there’s a one way stop with a history of collisions and major sight line obstructions, but there’s not enough houses in the cemetery to constitute addresses. That site happens to be between two elementary schools but outside the school zone. So it doesn’t qualify through that process. And at many of the busiest intersections and commercial zones, I expect a lot of users of the intersections don’t actually live on that street, but nonetheless need to commute that way to get to businesses.

So are they ineligible to sign a petition? I tried this for a commercial zone at Adelaide and Victoria Street. I initiated a petition in 2023 after experiencing some near misses. And I filed it via email.

The city staff said, yep, they’re gonna initiate a study. And yes, they will keep me apprised, but I’ve never heard anything back from the city about that petition. Council actually approved an illuminated pedestrian signal in 2024 that it was marked on the 2025 map for infrastructure projects, still hasn’t been built. And there were more collisions that took place at that intersection at the end of last year.

Apparently now they’re doing another study in light of the new data to figure out if traffic calming is needed or what type of traffic calming is needed. The whole thing is just a bit confusing. I mean, if the intersection has been studied and mitigation has been approved, then why are we doing another study? I consider myself to be reasonably informed about how the city delivers services.

I do a lot of outreach and communication work in the community. I know how to find and contact staff. If the process is difficult for somebody like me, I can imagine it’s really hard for residents who might feel alienated. They don’t have the same privilege or access and they might be frustrated to not be able to advocate effectively for keeping themselves and their loved ones safe as they’re crossing the street.

So here’s what I think would make this all better. I think residents and counselors would benefit from clearer, more frequent communications about traffic calming requests throughout the process. At minimum, if a resident has filed a petition, they should be kept apprised of the outcome and any changes in the status leading up to the implementation of traffic calming. It used to be possible to identify and track service requests through the service London portal, but that functionality was removed.

Imagine if you could just see on the map where traffic requests had been received and steps were in process. Overall, I think the mechanisms for traffic calming are in need of a wider review. It seems like we’re kind of stuck. Yep, almost done.

I think we’re kind of stuck in a cycle of putting out fires and building up new neighborhoods in ways that replicate a lot of the structural causes of traffic and existing neighborhoods. Maybe that wider review will come at a future date. In the meantime, I believe the motion before you will help to make data on traffic calming requests and project implementation more accessible and I encourage you to pass it. Thank you for considering.

Thank you, perfect timing. Okay, with that, we will move on to our next delegation. I have Dan Cameron. Hi, Dan, thank you for joining us.

Dan, you’re advocating for calmer traffic in Old North and that’s the action group. So thank you for joining us. You have five minutes, go ahead. Great, thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Dan Cameron. I’m a resident of Ward 6 and I’m representing a neighborhood group reform called Action Advocates for calmer traffic in Old North. So I want to support this movement to get more transparency and communication about the traffic-calling petition process.

First, I want to talk a little bit more about our group to give context. So we were born out of frustration with traffic in our neighborhood and frustration specifically with the petition system itself but I’ll come back to that. And out of a desire for a positive, constructive, community-based vision for what we want our neighborhood to be. So to this end, we work with our neighbors and with the city, hopefully to find effective solutions that are welcomed by the community and are affordable and sustainable.

This motion will help us toward this goal by increasing the transparency and data around traffic issues and possible solutions. So that when we engage with our neighbors, we have better information to find solutions and to work towards something that’s concrete and effective. And more generally, accessible data, I think will help community groups like ours work with city staff and their neighborhoods to achieve these shared goals. So the Old North community’s sense is that traffic in our neighborhood has been worsening and will continue to worsen without dramatic change and that when a crossing guard is hit by a car, when three serious collisions occur within a week, steps from a daycare and when an SUV flies onto the sidewalk outside one of our few community hubs where children and families gather, that the situation has become intolerable.

We’re pleased that the city has begun a traffic study for a limited part of our neighborhood and our group will continue to engage with that process and with the staff who I appreciate are genuinely engaged with us about it. So action has engaged the community ourselves. We conducted a survey. We had 240 respondents and the results showed overwhelming consensus.

And by that, I mean about 90% agreement that there are too many cars, that they drive too fast, that drivers are too aggressive, that part of the problem is cut through traffic, avoiding the major roads where they’re intended to be, and that these issues are worsening children’s safety and freedom. But with a forward-looking perspective, there was also strong consensus about an openness to using infrastructure and engineering-based solutions to help this problem. So community members have been very eager to share their personal experiences. They don’t feel it’s safe to walk their children to school or for their children to bike to school or for them to walk their children to daycare.

This is all on residential streets, even though they know they’re contributing to the problem by driving instead. Innumerable, everyday experiences of unsafe driving and near misses end of abuse from drivers who fail to stop while children are crossing, or drivers screaming obscenities at families riding their bikes. So this is what I mean by livability in our home neighborhoods. And we understand, actually understands, that these behaviors are not just a result of bad individuals, but of an infrastructure system that promotes the entitlement the drivers feel to use our home streets as highways.

So in our survey, all areas of Old North were represented, and the problems were reported to be everywhere. So this is underscoring that it’s a systemic problem. And there was an exception, which is William Street, which has had more dramatic change. We did not hear complaints about that.

And I hope that as staff and council continue considering how to fix the traffic and transportation issues, they consider how sustained and genuine engagement with the community is essential to get systemic solutions rather than piecemeal, ineffective band-aids. So many people in our community have submitted petitions for traffic calming on their blocks and intersections. And rather than leading to any apparent improvement, the petitions have been angering community members and are perceived by many to be pointless. The petitions angered people for a few reasons, not knowing whether their petitions were received, receiving insufficient explanations for why they failed, and unclear processes, guidelines, and requirements for implementing traffic calming.

Overall, there’s a lack of clarity about how this process works or should work. So action supports these suggestions to obtain more information about the state of the petition system and how it compares to that in other municipalities. And we strongly support improved communication and engagement with the community about traffic problems and about realistic and effective solutions. So we hope these can be first steps in improving the petition process, but perhaps more broadly, they could be a step toward necessary and dramatic improvement to the culture and policy approach that will support effective and durable solutions to the traffic problems now and in the coming years.

So I appreciate the time, thank you. Thank you. Hey, we’ll move on to our final delegation for today. This is Carrie L.

Mitchell, Associate Professor of School of Planning, University of Waterloo Fellow, and Silly School of International Affairs. Thank you for being here, you have five minutes. Thank you, Councillor. Good afternoon, thank you for the time.

My name is Carrie Mitchell. I’m a resident of London, a board member of the Old South Community Organization and an Associate Professor of Urban Planning at the University of Waterloo. So I just wanted to begin by thanking Councillor Raman for this motion. It will improve communication, transparency, and reporting within the traffic calming program.

I think it’s thoughtful and constructive, and I hope you all support it. So over the past couple of months, I’ve actually had the opportunity to work with city traffic calming process on a local issue in my neighbourhood that has been successfully resolved. And during this time, I met with multiple transportation staff and saw really firsthand the care and professionalism that they bring to these very complex problems that we’re facing. So what’s been really clear to me in speaking with staff, as well as many of you down in the floor, and also my fellow residents here, is that this is obviously not a pressure that’s just affecting my neighbourhood in Old South.

This is not isolated and it’s not exceptional. London’s traffic challenges are significant and they are structural. So for decades, our land use decisions, our zoning rules, and our street design standards have produced a city where most daily trips require a private vehicle. And of course, this has predictable consequences.

High traffic volumes on arterial corridors, as we are all aware, congestion during peak periods, and spillover traffic into neighbourhood streets, as my colleague Dan describes. So traffic calming is a retrofit response to patterns of urban development that generate high traffic volumes. And this demand is measurable. We know that there are over 300 traffic calming requests that are submitted to the city of London each year.

And I’m sure many of you have heard from your constituents directly about speeding and cut through traffic and safety concerns in your wards. This is not noise. This is a system signal. It suggests that we are looking at a pattern here and it’s not isolated complaints.

If that many communities across London are signaling concern, the next question that we have to ask ourselves is do we have the capacity? And are our policies aligned with the scale of this issue? So at present, there are two staff members who handle traffic calming for the city of London. Just as a context, in the city of Waterloo, they also have two staff members.

But London is 2.5 times larger in terms of population and six times larger in terms of area. So inevitably, when demand consistently exceeds capacity, our systems become reactive. So staff are responding case by case, email by email. Residents experience delays and frustration grows.

So Councillor Ramen, your motion addresses an important part of this equation, improving communication and reporting so residents better understand the process, how it works, and also where they stand in the queue, the very long queue. And this matters, of course, transparency strengthens trust. But at the same time, the volume of requests invites us all to think upstream. So if neighbourhood safety concerns are reoccurring across the city, this reflects how we are designing for urban growth, how transportation options are balanced or not, and how traffic volumes are distributed.

So please, strengthening the retrofit system improves fairness and responsiveness. This is excellent, I hope you can all support this motion. Addressing structural conditions can reduce overall demand on our road network over time. And both conversations, in my opinion, need to move forward.

So just in closing, we are seeing the transportation consequences of long-term policy decisions made in the city of London and also in the province of Ontario. The city we experience today reflects decades of these small and large choices. But the choices that we make right now, that this Council and the next Council will make, will shape the future of this city for our kids and yours as well. So please, supporting this motion will strengthen that response.

But continuing to align land use, transportation planning, and safety goals will strengthen the overall system. And we can, and we should be doing both. Thank you. Thank you.

And that concludes our listed delegations for today on the traffic calming issues. So our first vote, we dealt with the approval to hear those delegations. I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for the motion related to the letter, so that I’ll stay in the chair. I’m hoping somebody else might move it.

Thank you, Councillor McAllister and Councillor Stevenson. And just for those that are in the gallery and maybe listening, I’ll just read out what’s here. That’s the civic administration be directed to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighborhood connectors and neighborhood streets, a review and report back to a future meeting of ICSC on a jurisdictional scan of peer municipalities processes for receiving traffic calming petitions and requests, including how those processes are communicated to residents, II and assessment of how the City of London communicates with residents who submit traffic calming petitions or requests with a view to improve clarity around the process and providing timely information updates, II options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to council members regarding traffic calming requests, received studies undertaken and upcoming projects within their ward and part B provide updates to the Councillors and Committee on Approved Traffic Calming Projects, the completion of a project and any other pertinent information. So thank you, Councillor McAllister and Councillor Stevenson have moved a second in that.

I will look for discussion on this item. Councillor McAllister, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Really appreciate Councillor Robin bringing this forward.

I’m sure all of us can speak to petitions, traffic calming issues that we all have in our wards. It’s definitely one I hear a lot about. And I know we heard from two neighborhoods, I’d say in the east, similar problems, older neighborhoods, traffic calming, especially on those smaller streets, quite narrow, a lot don’t have sidewalks, and we have people cutting through, causing a lot of issues. And I do have a question to staff about this.

I love everything that’s been put before us and not gonna take time on any of that. But I do just want, as a point of clarity for my own sake and those in my ward that often ask when it comes to traffic calming, with these older neighborhoods, especially ones that don’t have the sidewalks, when petitions are received, is there any prioritization that goes on? Because I do have a number of streets where some of them don’t have streetlights, sidewalks, any traffic calming. I do find it a bit frustrating that those are the neighborhoods where I really do hear the voices being the loudest, that those are areas that we really need to focus on.

And so I’m just wondering if there’s any thought in terms of refining this process, the areas where they don’t have really anything, that those might be looked at differently because they’re facing the problems, but they don’t really have any alternatives to really help with the situation. So I’m just wondering if staff could comment on how those would be dealt with. Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. McCray.

Through the chair, thanks for the question. Yes, the current process does consider the context of the street, I like if there are sidewalks present or street lighting and factors that end to the prioritization. So that’s all part of the evaluation of the program that we would consider, whether that’s appropriate or not and bring forward recommendations to council. Councilor McAlister.

Thank you and I appreciate that. And as we’ve discussed a little bit today, I would like as this process moves forward when we make refinements, that clarity is given kind of at the outset. I think what I’ve heard from a lot of my residents when something is just submitted, and I think Mr. Samuel has touched on this as well, is that follow up in terms of what’s happening, where we’re at, but also providing them in terms of maybe where they are in the queue or some sort of notification in terms of when they could expect, you know, response or the study to actually take place, ‘cause we just don’t really have a good understanding right now where we’re at.

Also, the timeline in terms of when the last study was conducted, I think sometimes there’s confusion as to, you know, are they allowed to make another request, ‘cause we do have those restrictions in terms of how many you can receive in a certain amount of time. So I think having that clarity with residents, keeping them informed, I would love to see service London have some sort of portal that allows people to look at a map and see, you know, you just hover over your street and it says, you know, petition received. And just so people aren’t, you know, duplicating efforts, I know a lot of residents, you know, they’re interested in these things, but sometimes we have the same people asking for the same thing and we don’t necessarily need to duplicate those efforts, but to allow residents to be able to easily look up what’s going on, where we’re at in the process, I think we’d really help this. So I’ll leave my comments there for now.

Curious what everyone else has to think about this, but thank you, Councilor Raman, ‘cause I definitely think this is an issue we’ve all heard of and we’re interested to see improvements, so thank you. Thank you and I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson next. Yeah, thank you. This is likely to have widespread support.

I mean, this is something many of us have been talking about what we can do to address the concerns of residents who are increasingly frustrated with the process, the lack of communication, the lack of clarity and the dead ends that are hit, you know, for some it’s that it hasn’t been long enough since the last study was done or that the study said that it doesn’t meet the requirements. Meanwhile, there’s been a significant change, but that’s not taken into account that they got the petition done, but the, and even if the study says that it’s warranted, then they have to go back and get 50% of the residents to agree again and sometimes that is a problem or as we’ve heard, it gets approved, but then years can go by and it’s not implemented and there’s a sense of frustration. This is one of the number one issues for Londoners, I think, and so whatever we need to do to address that, if there’s funding required, it’s got to be more transparent. It’s got to address the needs of the neighborhoods that are impacted.

I just wanna thank the people who spoke today ‘cause you very clearly and eloquently outlined the system as it is, the problems with it, and thanks for your advocacy. It’s in every single area of my ward and I know others are the same. So really happy to support this. I did just want to take the opportunity through you to staff to just clarify ‘cause there’s this process which was clearly outlined, but there’s also another process when there’s road construction and mitigating measures are put in to try to address that.

I just wondered if the public’s listening, if we could have staff just outline that there is a bit of a different process involved when we’re addressing the implications of road construction. I’ll go to Mr. McCray, thank you. Through the councilor, that is correct.

When we have road construction on major streets that is going to be quite impactful to traffic, I saw such as a significant closure, we will assess potential traffic diversion routes, routes through neighborhoods that are gonna be prone to increases in traffic volumes. We’ll also compliment that with feedback we hear at public meetings for the project. And in the case where we see the potential for increased traffic through neighborhoods, we will implement temporary measures. And these are specifically temporary because many of them are not suitable for winter road maintenance.

They’d be getting the way of snow plows, for example, but these often include flexible markers on the center line of the road. So targeted measures along potential cut-through routes just to mitigate the impacts of the construction project on adjacent neighborhoods. Thanks. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that. And I just wondered one last question through you to staff, is any idea on what the timeline would be in terms of when we could expect to see some of this come back? Mr. McCray.

Through the chair, we know this is important to a council, so we will make it a priority. It already was on our radar, it’s an action item in the identified in the mobility master plan. That said, we’re currently, it is a small team and we’re currently quite busy identifying plans for the provincially funded road safety initiatives fund, trying to figure out ways to implement that money. So that said, it’s a priority for us, but our report back will likely be later this year, likely in the fall.

Councillor Stevenson. Thanks again, very happy to see this and support this today. Thank you, I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis, then back to Councillor Frank.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m gonna share a few thoughts. First of all, who’s indicated by a speaker in the gallery that there’s a separate process where Councillors can bring forward items through you, Madam Chair, to our staff. Councillor Flaggs, traffic calming, should they not be referring the residents to the petition process, rather than bringing it forward in some other way?

I mean, that’s always been my understanding, and it’s the approach I’ve taken with my residents is here’s the petition process. So I just want staff to clarify that there’s not a separate process for Councillors to ask for traffic calming. Thank you, and I’ll go to staff. Mr.

McCrate, go ahead. Through the chair. Yeah, the intake process comes through various forms. We try to promote service London as a one-stop portal, but certainly we receive them through various ways, but the process that traffic calming is rooted through is for neighborhood streets.

It is the petition process. And the one exception to that is if it is a school zone, we bypass, well, first of all, we start by assessing the request to see if there’s a distinct safety concern, then we take it upon ourselves to address that as soon as possible. But if it’s a typical traffic calming request in the school zone, we will bypass the petition process for those locations and we’ll implement those without that full process applying. Thanks.

Do you hear this? Thank you, and just for clarity, you kind of referenced it already, Mr. McCrate, but there is a process wherein an assessment for warrant, staff does have through you chair the authority to circumvent the petition process because a significant public safety hazard has been identified through the warrant study. But that’s at the discretion of the appropriate individuals of the staff team based on public safety matters is through you chair, is that correct?

Mr. McCrate? Through the chair, that’s correct. Road safety is a priority.

And if we become aware, the first thing to check is if there’s a distinct safety concern and that’ll be addressed as quickly as possible in that case. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. Appreciate the clarification there because I think, and I think that’s part of where this is stemming from is clarity in communication for our residents so that the expectations are really clearly laid out.

And I do agree that we should have somewhere the opportunity to see the frequency ideally without having to bother staff. I know it is a small team and rather than having to send a couple of emails, it would be great if we could check, have a repository where we could check our streets and see where the last frequency is ‘cause I certainly wouldn’t support and encourage people to submit a petition again for the same street that was submitted last year. I believe our current timeline is we only review at a maximum of a three year window seeing nods from staff there. Unless there’s been a significant change in circumstances that would warrant that.

And so I think that that’s quite reasonable. We can’t just keep circling back to the same streets all the time because that is what would lead to long queues to be constantly reviewing those. I will say my experience with the staff team has been very positive in terms of their communicating back to the petitions in my ward that I have been aware of. Now that said, there may be petitions that have been submitted by residents that I’m not aware of, but certainly where I’ve been made aware of them and often I bring them in myself ‘cause I offered to pick them up and send them through inter office mail.

But I have found the staff team to be very good at updating me where they are in the process. And at least providing sort of a quarter as to when the expectation of a study might happen. I might hear that it’s gonna be Q2 or Q3 before you get to it. So I did wanna offer my personal experience and thanks to the staff that they have been communicating, but I can certainly understand with the volume and with board counselors not necessarily being aware of every request that comes in that perhaps what’s getting back to us is not a full picture of what’s happening out there.

And so I generally think that a nice clear, well outlined process online that we can point residents to would be really helpful. I will say that since our last city of London website update, I have found the current webpage not very helpful, including the fact that the petition itself is now no longer available for download. Now you have to email and request it. So I think that there’s some challenges with how our website functions and communicates some information out.

And I see Councilor Trust, I was looking. So maybe I was sent the wrong web link entirely possible, but if there’s two of them floating out there, that’s even more of a challenge. So I think that we do need some clarification on the communication side, but I wanted to share that staff have been very positive in terms of communicating back to me when I’ve asked about the status of things. I also think we have to be a little bit cautious on this and remember that traffic calming, as much as many people want it, many other people are opposed.

And I’ve seen this in petitions in my ward where the vote has failed. It’s been within the realm of warranting and the residents don’t support it. You know, you get back 21% of the vote and it’s mostly the people who signed the petition and nobody else on the street was interested. So I think that there has to be a caution flag here that while there are many people who are very supportive, there are also many people who are opposed.

I also think that speed cushions aren’t always the ideal solution, but we only have limited engineering tools at our disposal. A raised crosswalk was deployed in my ward and Councillor Stephen’s since ward on the boundary last year. That’s been very effective at slowing traffic on one street. So I think, and particularly for pedestrians, which I think is where some of the concern comes from as we heard those walk-to-school sort of experiences.

Well, if you’ve got a raised crosswalk that is known to slow traffic, that’s helpful. So just wanted to share those thoughts. I might have more to say at council, but I did want to ask one final question through you, Madam Chair, I guess to you. Okay, yeah, and then your time’s up, go ahead.

Your part B, providing updates to Councillors and committee on approved traffic calming projects, the completion of a project and other pertinent information. Is the intent of that clause to be an annual report back of projects completed in the previous year? ‘Cause I’ll be honest, like I don’t need a report about a traffic calming happening in your ward and you probably don’t need one that’s happening in my ward, but it would be nice to get an annual list. So I’m just kind of looking for you to clarify your intent on the clause B.

Thank you and I’m happy to. I did leave it a little bit open-ended so that we could have more discussion around what it is that we are looking for. I think that it may be a little bit different. I would like to see if there are patterns and things that we’re seeing across the city get an annualized picture, but when I spoke to staff, we didn’t put a timeline on it.

I think initially my draft had biannual and then we thought that that might be too frequent. So just my intention was to get the information for committee but also to individual Councillors so that you knew, for instance, if there was requests in your ward that didn’t go through you as well, that that was something that had been coming up. Okay, with that, I will go to Councillor Frank. Go ahead.

Thank you, yes, I just wanted to say I will support this. Thank you to the delegations who came as well as Councillor Robin for putting it forward. I won’t reiterate what everyone has already said, but I hear the same concerns everyone has already shared and we’ll continue to look forward to seeing how we can make our neighborhood safer for everyone involved. Thank you, short and sweet.

We’ll go to Councillor McCallister, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Second round, just as we’ve been talking ‘cause I’ve been listening with people not to say one of the things that I’ve noticed ‘cause we mentioned a few times now. And so my question to staff is from the sense that we have the two people who are dedicated to this.

So my question is sort of curiosity in terms of do we have the necessary staff and do we think the budget allocated to this is appropriate? I know you can only speak from past experience, but I’m just curious because I do think as part of this discussion, it does lead into perhaps maybe a discussion at the multi-year budget in terms of whether this is an area that needs additional investments. So I’m just curious what staff’s thoughts are in terms of staff complement and current resources for it. Thank you, I will go to Mr.

McCrae and then perhaps to miss share if there’s anything further and noting that we did have some discussion about this item at the multi-year budget update as well. Thank you through the chair, yes. I was going to point to the previous budget discussion just a few months ago that flagged this area as a priority and identified a temporary staff, increase an additional person to assist with some targeted areas of focus identified in the council resolution. So there was a recognition there.

It is a small team, it’s a lean team and we try to work as effectively and efficiently as possible. That said, you know, we’re hearing that it’s a priority for the city. So yeah, we’re going to look to see how we can improve the service, see what improvements we can make with this additional resource for the next couple of years and go from there. Thank you.

Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair to the apologies, I didn’t put this by anyone earlier, but I just think as we’re having this discussion, I would like to do an amendment for Part C. I know we had this discussion last multi-year budget. I think Councillor Robin and I worked on this in terms of the road safety element.

So again, I think this warrants it coming back for the multi-year discussion. So I would have a Part C added that any recommendations requiring additional staff or funding be a business case be prepared for the next multi-year budget. Give us a moment, I’ll go to Ms. Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, in conferring with our treasurer, we would suggest that the wording should reflect that we report back on some resourcing options that would potentially lead to a future business case. We’d be premature to direct a business case preparation in advance of the work, but understand that we would like to give committee and council the ability to sort of choose the level of effort that goes into this and the potential to reduce wait times and improve support to Councillors and community. Sorry, Ms. Chair, just to clarify, so your suggested language is required resources to include that in the report back.

Okay, thank you. Councillor McAllister, you okay with that? Sorry, we’re just wordsmithing. Okay, so this would read that the motion be amended to add a new Part C that reads as follows, that civic administration be directed to report back on any recommendations for additional resources.

And so Councillor McAllister, does that satisfy you? Okay, and I had Councillor Stevenson as a second. Thank you, okay, any discussion on the amendment? Okay, Councillor McAllister.

Thank you through the chair, just to quickly reiterate, I know we had this discussion at the last multi-year, I still think it warrants a discussion through the multi-year budget next time around. As we’ve heard today, many residents are interested, it’s a process, people keenly interested in seeing transformed, but it may require additional resources and funding to go with that. We had this discussion last time, but again, I think this is an issue people clearly care about, and I think we have to afford residency opportunity to weigh in through the multi-year budget in terms of this being a priority. So I appreciate the opportunity to add that in.

I think everything else is all good, and I hope to be your support, thanks. Thank you, any other speakers on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that item for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero.

Okay, we’re back on the main motion. I have Councillor McAllister, that was your final point. Okay, I will go to Councillor Trossa. Go ahead, sorry about that.

Okay, thank you very much. I wanna start by thanking you, Councillor and Chair, to bring in this forward. This is something that I’ve been thinking about for a long time. I’ve received a lot of communications from my residents, asking me, can’t council do more about this?

So I think this is a very timely and very welcomed motion. I’m also really so pleased to notice the level of agreement and cooperation that we have on this council, ‘cause this problem cuts across a lot of the boards. If there’s too much traffic on Adelaide, and people are coming down Adelaide and turning into side streets, it affects my ward, it affects Councillor Stevenson’s ward. And I could say the same thing for a lot of the boarders.

So these problems don’t stop at ward boundaries. In my experience as a Councillor, now in my fourth year, it’s funny how quickly this term has gone, because I think back to the first things that landed on my desk back in the end of 2022. It was traffic, it was pending traffic petitions, and it hasn’t stopped. What is different about the traffic inquiries that I’m getting now compared to four years ago is they are frustrated, they are angrier, and in many cases, and I get this from also monitoring social media, we have a very active Facebook group in Old North, I’m sure other neighbourhoods do, there’s a sense of resignation that the city’s just not gonna do anything.

There’s a sense of resignation that it’s futile to try, because people have heard stories about neighbours putting in petitions, and months, and months, and months, go by, and they’re not responded to. And if they are responded to, it’s often a one line, your request is denied, it doesn’t meet the warrant. And if that comes to my attention, as it often does, but I can’t imagine it does all the time, ‘cause like the Councillor said, I don’t know, there’s no requirement that me as a Councillor get a copy of a petition filed in my work. I would then go back to traffic and say, I would like to see the details of the study.

And it’s often the first response to that is often, well, we don’t like to release the numbers, why not? Well, they’re very technical, and people might not misunderstand them. Try me, and I have experts I can talk to if I need help. And sometimes I actually do get very detailed data back.

And on the occasions I’ve shared that with experts, they’ve gotten their public blogs about this. I’m often told, yeah, you really need a four-way stop here, or you need some traffic mitigation here. Now, I think that the division, the traffic division, is overworked, understepped, and we need to make it clear that if we want you, I’m addressing Mr. McCray, but also his whole team, if we want you to do a better job responding to these community concerns, we as a council have to do a better job supporting you.

Now, I’m glad that that last motion was on the table. I didn’t speak to it, ‘cause I think it goes without saying. If you need more resources, ask, and you will find a very sympathetic council, not to say what would happen during the budget process. Now, the other thing I wanna raise is, it’s important for people to understand that the provincial traffic war on system, where there’s this whole handbook of numbers that you have to reach.

That is not necessarily binding on both ends. It’s a best practice guide, and staff will correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand it as a best practice guide. So, if there’s a reason why a particular intersection does not meet the quantified sort of numbers from an engineering point of view, there still is this whole very rich and often more relevant. Chancellor, you’re kind of veering into other territories.

So, I just want you to bring it back to the motion, please. Yes, I’m speaking to a matter that’s directly on the floor. 30 seconds. In terms of what’s being looked at here, we have to take into account what people on the ground are telling us in terms of the dear accidents that they’re hearing outside of their window.

So, finally, to wrap up, this is a very welcome motion, and I’ll be looking forward to getting the report and moving forward from then. And thank you so much to those of you in the audience who have been speaking to us about this quite a bit. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Pervall next. Thank you, and as not being a member of this committee, I will certainly support this at the council.

But one thing that I have asked, and I would like to ask our communications department to keep reminding Londoners about these issues, has two things. First of all, it’s the safety, safety of the individuals, and also the cost, and even if this is implemented, and even if we are gonna increase the staff, if we do whatever, we are gonna be keeping up with all the requests we have. And I really think that continuous communication to Londoners to understand safety and costs, because that’s coming from the taxpayers’ money, and also for the London police services to increase finding these individuals. And I really think that those are the two aspects that we should address, because even if this is implemented, it’s not gonna start tomorrow, but there are certain things we can start tomorrow or very early.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister, will you take the chair for me? Thank you. Been recognizing that I have the chair.

Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you, and through you, I just wanted to first thank the delegations that came today, I really appreciate the discussion that you’ve played a part in bringing forward, and thank you to Mr. Samuels for your interest, and your support in putting these items forward, and the conversation along the way. Big thanks to city staff, and the team in this small team, and the transportation that’s been working through this discussion with me for the last little while, and also thanks for your support in preparing the budget business case update that was brought forward on traffic calming, and that was also reflective of the conversations that we are having.

But part of the issue is also outside of our hands, and we have to be reminded of that as well. While we’re facing these pressures from the community to meet the needs around traffic calming, we’ve had some significant changes on the provincial front, and those changes, yes, they’ve accompanied some new investments in dollars, but they put even more pressure on this smaller division to be able to meet the needs in our school zones. So we will be under pressure to do that, but also to meet the needs of the community areas that are outside of school zones in our neighborhoods, that also need and are asking for traffic calming. So those are definitely two different components of the discussion that we have to look at, as well as was shared here today, around the concerns around more traffic calming for construction areas.

So a number of different fronts that have to be managed and well timed all at the same time. So I’m glad we’re thinking about this and continuing the discussion that we had from budget, and now looking at ways that we can support our communication efforts to make this process even smoother for residents and less onerous. I will say, after putting this communication out, I did hear from residents asking some other questions that I do think have lots of merits as well around traffic calming, and I will look to bring those items forward at a different time. I don’t think they completely connect to what we’re talking about today, but value the input from residents in my neighborhoods.

As you may know, I represent the northwest part of the city. A lot of my area is new, but there is also older homes and older construction. And it’s interesting to see the differences across newer developments, newer areas where maybe some of these other types of traffic calming mitigations were put in place already. But at the same time, the level and volume of just the traffic in the area is just so considerable that it’s overwhelming the types of traffic calming that were put in place from the beginning.

So I do think we are trying to design better. I really do in our newer subdivisions. The challenge is we are increasing the density so much and people are fearful about getting out of their cars because of the increased density. So we have a lot of work to do in this city to make residents feel confident enough to be able to use all forms of transportation and transit to be able to get around.

So that is something I think that more traffic calming will be helpful for, but I am so pleased that my colleagues are supportive of what’s in front of us today. I’m glad to hear that this is spring discussions in our neighborhoods, really thankful to city staff for the work they’re doing and the continued conversation. I know they’ll be having award meetings and around some upcoming construction projects. So, you know, this is a team effort.

It’s something we’re all working on, which is the safety of our community. And it’s definitely a top priority. So thanks everyone. Okay, thank you.

3.30 of your time and I’ll hand it to your back to you. Go ahead. Thank you. I will look for other speakers.

Seeing none online and none in chambers, we’ll open the vote. Sorry, on the motion as amended. Closing the vote, motion carries five to zero. Okay, thanks everyone.

We’ll be moving back to our deferred matters and then on to any additional business. Under the deferred matters, we have item 2.2 next, which is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Accelerating Community Energy Systems. I was asked to pull this item. I’ll look for a mover and seconder to put this item on the floor, Councilor Friend, Councilor McAllister, and look for any speakers on this.

Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, yes, through you to staff. I just, it was only in the last meeting that we approved what seemed to be something similar to this. So my question is, what is the difference between this one and 2.3 and the last one?

And are there any more of these coming? Because I find it hard to make decisions sometimes when things come a bit at a time and I can’t see the bigger picture. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Chambers.

Thank you and through the chair. Yes, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has several streams to which you can apply for grants. So in our last committee, we talked about getting a study done to look at our buildings and retrofitting them for deep energy retrofits. The two before you today relate to looking at our fleet, that’s 2.3, which is obviously related to municipal vehicles.

And this other one is the Accelerating Community Energy Systems, which actually has to do with looking at compact localized energy supply and distribution for neighborhoods. And that’s in direct response to applications, again, to the same fund by our local development community. There was a report back in July of two quite large private developers who are interested in pursuing community energy systems. So we want to be prepared to respond to those.

So effectively, there have been three applications that we’ve been successful for to date and there will be one more coming forward as well. Just recognizing that they’re all separate initiatives, but just simply the same funding source from the FCM group. Thank you, Ms. Chambers.

I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, again, my biggest concern on this is the dollar factor. So in the last committee agenda, it was our portion. It was $385,000 study.

We were getting a $200,000 grant. In this one, it’s 92,000 with a 54,000 grant. But these three combined is going to be 316,000 of our money that we’re putting forward. And again, I understand in a sense why, but I need to be able to justify spending that money today in this environment with the fiscal pressures that we face and the economic uncertainty ahead that I don’t want us to be operating under something that was approved by a previous council and hasn’t been reevaluated to determine, is it still a priority, a place where we want to be spending this level of finances.

So through you to staff, I’m just wondering, I guess, what, when we spend this money on these studies, I feel like it’s going to be then preparing us for more money that we’re going to be spending later in terms of infrastructure and fleet and that kind of thing. So are we operating under a model that was approved before and just doing what was set out? Or do we— at what point does council get to sort of look again to decide, do we still want to continue on this path and spend this money on— [INAUDIBLE] Sorry, we’re just on item 2.2. So if you could just tie it back to the item that we’re on, because it’s on an agreement for the FCM grant.

So I just want to make sure that your— Well, it is. It’s the $40,000 that we’re being asked to approve here. So yes, it’s about a grant, but really, there’s an expense of $40,000. And what is the value in us spending the $40,000?

How is it going to help taxpayers going forward? I’ll go to Ms. Share, and then I’ll go back to Ms. Chambers if there’s anything to add.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to this work, it has been identified and reinforced through the strap plan, although the climate emergency action plan was approved by the previous council. But while there was not new money provided to do additional climate change work, we were instructed to continue to work within the budgets we have. And this is aligned with that and also helps us maximize them.

With respect to the value of the work, generally when you’re talking about things like the deep energy retrofits that were approved at the previous cycle at CAPS, these two projects that are here, what this allows us to do is to identify where we can maximize potential return on investment and savings by doing these sorts of things. We have a fleet that turns over frequently as we make those fleet decisions. Having this prepared allows us to make choices that hopefully will reduce not only our climate costs, but also the cost of owning and operating those vehicle assets, operating those buildings, or supporting potential alternatives for community energy where they make sense. The investment, though, in any of those things, once we studies are done, would come with not only the approval of the work from council for the studies, but also the subsequent approval in multi-year budgets and in the next council strap plan that those are things they wish to take advantage of.

So this essentially allows us to position to make better decisions around these sorts of assets in the future, bring that information to council for you to approve, and then take advantage of where there’s funding available as well should other provincial funding programs exist that can help offset some costs. Just as an example, one of our neighboring municipalities did a review of owning electric versus conventional light duty trucks, and with the reinstatement of the incentive plan, it’s quite likely that it actually might be a benefit to own more light duty electric trucks, but we need to do some of those work around our own fleet, our own driving patterns, the size of our city and the services we provide. So we did want to be in a position where we were able to provide good advice on those investments in the future. Councillor?

Okay, thank you, that is quite helpful. I would be interested in hearing a little bit more about the two private developers that were mentioned in terms of this specific grant in 2.2. Thank you, and through the chair. Yes, quite transparently, in July of 2025, we actually mentioned the two old oak developments at the legacy land story at Highbury and Oxford is 141 acre subdivision, as many of us are aware of, and they’re looking at for that large scale community development that’s coming down the pipe.

The second one is Drulo, who has three large towers going on at Wellington and Bradley, and when you have that amount of people at one location, these types of energy systems do start to be quite a return on investment to feature to look at, because some of these renewable energies are really coming down in cost in terms of solar and heat pumps and whatnot. So looking at these is actually a viable alternative to our traditional fossil fuels. So it really is, that’s why the private developers are very interested, and so why we in turn are also interested in looking at these because if they come forward, we need to have the municipal policies in place to be able to address, bringing them on board and accommodating new technologies effectively. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I really appreciate the extra information. It’s helpful, thank you. Thank you, I’ll look for other speakers on this item. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes, I’ll be sure on this one too. I think it’s a great opportunity for us to look at ways to provide energy in an affordable and accessible cost where possible as well as reducing emissions, and I think it’s great that there’s already two private developers who are looking into these opportunities as well. I wouldn’t want the city to create any kind of red tape or stand in the way of private development. So I think this is a great opportunity for us to make sure that our side of the equation is in order.

Thank you, other speakers on this item. Councillor Stevenson. Just one last follow-up question. When this came in the last agenda, I passed an amendment saying that the feasibility studies would come public as quickly as possible.

I’m just wondering, is there any value in doing that again here? I’m thinking not as much. It was municipal property before. It was our assets, whereas this isn’t, but I’d just be interested in staff’s feedback in terms of potentially doing the same thing here.

Ms. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Staff are certainly intending to report back on the results of the study.

We certainly have no concerns about sharing that information, bringing them without sort of that analysis probably will be not of as much value for you, but we’re happy to see what the ultimate reports look like and make sure that you get our best advice on those reports when they’re received. Thank you, Councillor. Hey, thank you. Seeing no other speakers on this item, I will look to call the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Hey, thank you. Our next item is 2.3, which was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Visibility Study. Looking for a mover and seconder on this item, Councillor Frank, I’m happy to second, and looking for any speakers.

Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, through you, the staff. I’m looking for the same kind of information on this one in terms of, you know, I’m less interested given some of the recent things that have been happening regarding zero emission vehicles and the decarbonization. So just looking for a little information from staff as to why this would be a good investment in this case of $89,000.

Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Chair. Thank you, and through the Chair. When it comes to the fleet, it’s a similar story about looking at truly that return on investment.

When we look at the life cycle of our vehicles, we do spend currently $3.2 million in fuel costs alone. So we’ve had a couple of examples where, for example, the Ford F1 Lightning pickups for example, save us $27,000 per year in fuel, then Boney’s are saving us $35,000 a year in operating costs. So there have been some, already some examples where we can save money given the amount of kind of miles we put on our vehicles. And secondly, there was a recent announcement by the federal government that they’re gonna be re-invent or resurfacing the EV incentives as well.

So $5,000 for battery electric and 2,500 for plug-in hybrids, as well as 1.5 billion in infrastructure for charging facilities. So again, this study poisons us to take advantage of some federal grants that may be coming forward and really allows us to dive deep into our own fleet as to what is the most cost-effective life cycle purchases for the vehicles. Councillor? Thank you, that’s good.

Okay, I have Councillor Pribble next. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I’m very much supportive of such initiatives.

I do believe they are proactive in both environment and cost savings. But did we ever look at some of these initiatives, some of these studies to do internally? Do we have the resources, do we have to know how? Or if you look at the 50%, it’s still cheaper to go this way and outsource to a third party?

Ms. Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. This sort of modeling that goes into these studies is highly specialized and quite technical.

So generally it’s done by a very small handful of folks across the country. We have excellent staff to lead and interpret and use these results, but doing the actual work is highly specialized and we would not have the need to have that person on full time with us. So this is definitely the most cost-effective way to get this information back to you. Thank you very much for the answer, no follow-up.

Hey, looking for other speakers on this item. Councillor Frank. I like it and I’ll support it. Thank you.

Okay, seeing no other speakers online or in chambers, I’ll open the vote on that one. Closing the vote, motion carries four to one. Okay, our next item is 2.8, which is the restricted acts of council after nomination day and voting day. I’ll look for a mover and seconder on this item.

Councillor McAllister, Councillor Frank, thank you and any discussion. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, yes. While I understand that this is required, my concern is around the details of it in the by-law and in the schedule too particularly.

So this was in play obviously for the last election and I am still concerned about the use of delegated authority on November 8th of 2022 where the city manager allocated the $5 million winter response, which included a 12 month contract with a women’s shelter that had never operated a shelter. Councillor on the motion, that’s in front of me please. Yes, I’m giving my rationale for why I have some concerns around the lack of clarity in terms of when we talk about as needed and emergent issues and short-term service. So when that isn’t clearly defined as to what short-term service is, there were one year and two year contracts that were awarded through that.

And also my other concern is around the reporting out. So there is a requirement to report out, I believe within 90 days, but it doesn’t say what will be reported out. And what happened last time was it was just a very basic six lines or something that said 24/7 women’s shelter for 650,000. As far as I know there wasn’t a budget, we were never able to see the contract for that.

It was done as a subcontract through London CARES. We were also told that, and I’m explaining why, I wouldn’t be supporting this as it is, is that I think we need to put parameters on what and when the delegated authority could be used and in the clarity of the information that’s brought forward in the exercising of the delegated authority. So in that, the contract, we were told it was, like I said, it was a one year shelter for an agency that had never run a shelter before. We were told that London CARES would be mentoring them, but the actual contract was just a flow through agency and the contract for the shelter itself.

We were never able to access and it was never 24/7 and we were criticized, or I was criticized as a counselor for saying that we were expecting a 24/7 shelter when that’s what was brought to council in the agenda as a delegated authority action. So what I’m curious is as to how my colleagues feel, I would like to know if there’s some support, I’m not gonna move the referral right now, but I would like to know if there’s support for a referral to get some clarity on the definitions as to what time sensitive means, what short-term service is, what an emergent issue would be, and then in terms of the details that would be reported out in the 90-day reporting. And through you, I just had a general question around delegated authority. What is the current reporting out on everyday delegated authority, how often does it happen and with what detail?

Thank you. I will go to, I’m looking at the front row, looking at Ms. Pollett as the writer of the report for this item, but anybody would like to jump in on that question, happy to hear back. And councilor, just so you know, if you’re looking to move an amendment, you’re supposed to move the amendment on the first time speaking, so this would be your time to move an amendment if you have an amendment to make any changes as you mentioned that you wanted to get a sense of that, but you’d have to move the amendment now, okay?

Ms. Pollett, go ahead. Thank you, through you, with respect to the reporting out question, it may depend on the delegation itself, so there are some that require a specific report back, say annually, some don’t require a specific report back, so it’s a little difficult to have an overarching, there’s no sort of requirement in the Municipal Act in terms of the delegated authority, but it may depend on each by-law that has given the delegated authority. Councillor Stevenson?

Thank you, so just to confirm then, there’s no overall by-law that says there’s annual reporting or anything like that, Ms. Pollett. Thank you, through you, no, there’s no specific by-law that would speak to that. - Councillor?

Okay, so I am gonna move a referral then, the wording is with the clerk’s office, and I’m hoping that I have a seconder that it’s being referred to the next or to a future ICSC. Would you like to read it out, or would you like me to read it out? I’m happy to read it out, just one second here. Take the support of you reading it out, I don’t have it quite handy here.

No problem, okay, so the referral reads as follows that the staff report dated February 23rd, 2026 to delegate certain authority should municipal council’s actions be restricted after nomination day and/or voting day. In 2026, be referred to the civic administration to report back to a future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Service Committee with definitions in section 2.3 of schedule two for short-term service, and as needed, and details of reporting as outlined in section 3.1, including rationale, contract details, and any other relevant information. You’re looking to put that on the floor? I am, thank you.

Thank you, looking for a seconder for that item. I’m happy to second this item to get it on the floor for discussion. Thank you, I appreciate that. So really again, I just want to reiterate, it’s just for us to set the parameters as an oversight body as to getting clear.

Clear is kind in terms of I don’t want there to be judgment against the use of delegated authority if we haven’t been clear on what that is. And also, in terms of the reporting out, that we just make sure that we get what we need at the end of that period. As I said, in 2022, November the 8th, $5 million was contracted out through delegated authority seven days before we were sworn in, and there were one in two-year contracts there, some of them with new agencies who had never operated before, and for whom we were never able to get to see contracts. So I just want to set us up for success going forward that we just tighten things up a little bit in this next election cycle.

Thank you, looking for other speakers on the referral. Councilor Frank. Thank you, and through the chair to staff, I’m just wondering, are there any timelines in regards to moving this by-law that is presented to us? Ms.

Pellet. Thank you, and three, you would want to do it before the nomination day. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you.

Any other speakers on this item? Okay, so on the referral, I’ll look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, three to two. Okay, thank you.

That’s item 2.8, we’ll go into item 2.9, which is the contract award tender number RFT 2025, 2023, or sorry, 2223, Wellington Gateway and municipal infrastructure improvement phase to a Wilkinson Street to Baseline Road. And I’ll look for a mover and a seconder on this item. Councilor Frank. Seconder.

Councilor McAllister, thank you. And any speakers on this item? Okay, seeing no speakers on this item, I will, oh, Councilor Frank, go ahead. Thanks, yes, since it’s being pulled, I assume someone’s going to vote against it.

So I just wanted to speak in favor of it. This will be occurring throughout some parts of my ward, and I think it’s incredibly important for us to continue the progress that we’ve made on BRT. I think we’ve had this discussion before at Council, but if we start not approving contracts for a project that we have massively undertaken and there’s just large gaps and chunks along Wellington where there’s no RT infrastructure, I think that is setting ourselves up for failure. And I really don’t want this council to do that.

So I just hope that we get approval on this so that we can finish this massive construction project that will be beneficial to half a million of Londoners. Thank you. I will look for any other speakers. Councilor Chaso.

Just to echo what was just said, this does not pass through my ward, but I feel very strongly about the fact that I want to see this project completed. Because if we throw any more roadblocks into this project by not approving contracts that we need to finish it, we’re really just making matters worse for ourselves. So I’ll be voting against this at Council if it passes. ‘Cause I think we need, well, I’ll be voting in favor of this at Council in any event.

Thank you. Thank you, flip it and reverse it. Okay, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you, I just wanted to say, I mean, the BRT has been well supported by this council, but for three years, coming up on a little over three years, I’ve been voting no to every project and every vote that comes forward with regarding the BRT.

And that’s my right to do that as a counselor. And I’m gonna continue to vote no on behalf of the residents. You are very unhappy with this very expensive project and the implications particularly in my ward. Thank you, looking for any other speakers.

Deputy Mayor Loose. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn’t gonna say anything on this one, but I think I will, based on what I heard, I appreciate that people have expressed their opposition to the project. I think it’s time though that people start asking themselves, what is the cost of not finishing it?

Because that’s what we are essentially doing now by voting against individual contracts. Not only are we extending meetings by pulling these things, but honestly, there are federal and provincial dollars attached here that we would be violating the contracts that we took with those senior levels of government. And we would have a project that would accomplish nothing because the leg is half finished instead of fully finished. So as much as I’ve had some reservations about BRT and I did not support the West or the North legs, the Wellington Gateway was always the one that I thought had the most value for dollar opportunity for the city of London.

And while I appreciate colleagues may not support the BRT project as a whole, I do think it’s time we start asking ourselves, “What is the consequence of not finishing the project?” Because that’s the essence of what we’re doing when we’re pulling these votes. So I will be strongly supporting this. I don’t dispute for a moment that it’s a councilor’s right to pull those things. But I do ask really, at this point, if it’s an efficient use of meeting time for people.

Thank you, go back to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna say that, like I said, for three years now, I’ve been pulling them voting no and not saying anything. So it’s been other colleagues today who wanna reiterate the value in moving forward. As far as I understand, none of these BRT projects have been threatened or impact in any way by the 13 to two votes that have been consistently happening for the last three years.

So, and there’s already talk of a North leg of the BRT and our seeking funding request for that. And the federal portion of the BRT is quite small now in comparison to the municipal contribution to get this project finished. Okay, thank you, looking for any final speakers. Seeing none online, seeing none in chambers, I’ll open the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries three to two. Thank you, we are now on item 210, which is the limited tendering cooperative procurement for LTC’s purchase of nine new buses. I’ll look for a mover and seconder on this item. Councilor McAllister, Councilor Frank, looking for any speakers on this item.

Okay, Councilor Frank, then Councilor Stevenson, go ahead Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just wanna reiterate that I think this is an incredibly important vote for us to make. If we want there to be buses on the RT infrastructure that we’re building, we have to buy them and they take about a year and a half to two years to get. So, if we want there to be buses running on those lanes so that learners don’t think we’ve wasted their money, we have to make this investment now.

And we can’t delay it at all because it takes so long for us to order buses. So, just wanna say I’m in full support of this very wise investment. Thank you, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you very much.

I have a ton of questions on this one. As was just mentioned, if it takes one and a half to two years to get these buses, I’m curious as to why this is only coming to us now when I thought BRT was gonna be operational next spring. So, maybe through you to staff, can we get an update on the operations of the BRT and the last staff report that’s indicated here is October 28th, 2019. So, a little over six years ago.

So, I’d love an update on the operation of the BRT, the funding for that and the number of buses that are needed, which I think maybe, is it only these or is this a partial order? Thank you. So, we are on the portion that’s associated with the East London Link Corridor in the Rapid Transit Network. These purchases that are outlined are outlined in the report for $14 million.

I will go to staff on those items associated with the East London Link and the contract, noting that we do use as closely as possible a just-in-time system so that we’re not having infrastructure and costs associated with our projects sitting unused. When we don’t need it, go ahead and stand. Yes, and through the chair. So, the overall number of buses required for the Rapid Transit Fleet is 14 buses.

The first nine are required to operate the East London Link with operations slated to begin in fall of 2027. Wellington Gateway Project is anticipated to follow either in fall of 2028 or possibly the spring later. So, we are ordering the first nine of the 14 buses we need. There is an existing contract in a separate procurement that was done by LTC with New Canada Flyer Canada.

Anyway, so those buses were pulling from their standards spec and so essentially we’re trying to get our bus request into the queue from New Flyer to be able to make sure that we get buses when we need them. They’re the similar spec that’s used by LTC buses. When they arrive, they will have a special localized outfitting to be able to suit our needs for Rapid Transit. Councillor Stevenson.

Okay, thank you. I heard that it was only the East Link, but what I see is six points, sorry, four million of the 16 million for this submission says Wellington Gateway, additional vehicle and equipment. So, could I just get clarity there? Thank you, I’ll go to my stand.

Absolutely, and through the chair, the cost of buses has increased since our original environmental assessment estimates. And so, we did through the last multi-year budget, the approved budget increase accounted for some of those cost increases, but there have been some additional pressures. So, as I mentioned, we need the 14 buses in an overall Rapid Transit fleet. The way our Rapid Transit projects and budgets are set up is they are by category, construction, shelters, buses, land.

And so, what we’re doing is we’re maxing out our East Corridor bus contingent in that account, and we’re using some of the cost overages we’ve seen based on tariffs and other impacts like EPA requirements for engines to be able to pull that extra from the Wellington Gateway accounts for their buses. So, we’re using our overall bus money to be able to purchase the buses we need now. What’ll happen when it’s time to purchase the buses for the South Corridor, so the additional five buses, we’ll look at the current cost of buses at that time, our available budget within our vehicle amounts, and then we’ll also look to our overall RT program and look for savings from other areas to make sure that we’re able to stay well within our overall program budget. Councilor.

Thank you. So, am I reading it right in Appendix A where it says there’s only two and a half million left for future work, and we need five more buses at least? Is that, am I reading that correct, Ms. Stan?

Yes, through the chair. So, at this point, if we were to try to buy five more buses today, we would have to look at other aspects of our program to draw funding from, and we’ve got our particular bus funding source. That’s the one where we need to look for other options, and we have some savings in our other construction and other budget areas. At this point, we want to wait until it’s time to actually purchase the buses.

It is just in time delivery. We may have different tariff impacts, there may be other areas that would adjust the cost of the buses at that time. Councilor. Thank you.

Are any of these electrified buses? Ms. Stan. Yes, through the chair, the buses are all high efficiency diesel.

There’s a separate pilot program going on through LTC to look at potential electrification of the fleet, but at this point, we’re sticking with the standard new flyer contract for high efficiency diesel buses. Councilor, students. Okay, thank you. I do have a few more questions.

I apologize, but this is a big expenditure. It says under 3.0 that the nine buses are close to 14 million, plus almost another million in ancillary equipment. So I’m just curious what the ancillary equipment is. Yeah, so through the chair, we have the base bus that’s in the standard specification that comes from new flyer.

And then with each of those buses, once they arrive in London, they’re outfitted with London specific add-ons that are done by LTC themselves. So that’s after the bus is delivered at its base cost. We have additional at-source items that are added to that. Councilor, students.

Thank you. And then in 3.0, it goes on to further say that the pricing above is subject to shifts of between three and 15% related to tariffs, which will not be known until bus delivery, and that there’s also the potential for a pricing increase related to the 2027 engine, which will be known once the buses are being built. And so again, there’s a lot of unknown pricing increases there. Are we confident that with the 2.5 million left in the budget that there’s enough there to at least cover these potential increases on this order?

Ms. Stan. Through the chair, the source of financing attached to this report does include a 10% contingency on top of the 14 million that’s noted in the resolution. And that’s to address the potential for fluctuation in the estimated bus costs at the time of delivery.

So again, we will be charged the cost of the bus at the time it’s delivered. So if there is a change in the tariffs, or if the 2027 EPA requirements about the engines have come into effect and changed the cost of the engine that we’ve accounted for that within the source of financing, but the amount in the resolution is the current estimated cost of the buses. Okay, thank you. I appreciate all this information.

Just some bigger picture questions. Is the operational funding for the use of these buses already worked into our multi-year budget? Like, have we already approved the operation for this? I’ll go to Ms.

Stan. Yes, and through the chair, we have an RT operations budget, which was modeled out and included within the assessment growth cases for the multi-year budget. It is designed so that as operations begin, it’ll start to account for operator fuel and other maintenance costs associated with operating the buses. In these early years, we’re really just starting to take on some of the early maintenance costs associated with maintaining the lanes of traffic that we’re adding, the shelters as we build them, and that model will grow the annual costs to RT operations as we add elements, and then as we ultimately add in RT operations.

Councilor? Thank you, and I think my last question for now, obviously the East Link really impacts my ward, and so there’s a ton of questions coming around, what will the scheduling be like? Will the buses continue along Dundas Street? In addition to King Street, I’ve had different responses.

Where can I and the public access the information on the operations that are coming and that have already been approved through Council for funding? Ms. Stan? Through the chair, the future operation for RAPA Transit and how local routes will be adjusted once that operations begin will be set by LTCs with their annual service review.

The intention for the RT operations is that on the East Link during peak periods, the buses would run RT buses one bus every five minutes. And then the idea is that any of those existing buses, within the service could be reallocated to increase the service level of local buses that connect into RAPA Transit. In the case of Dundas, there will be one or two existing local routes that continue along Dundas, and so there will be some areas of overlap for existence. The two will continue to run straight down Dundas, whereas the RT operations will pop over to King Street and when they hit Ontario.

But in essence, you’re gonna have that core, a bus every five minutes with the RAPA Transit along the East Corridor, and then local service connecting into that. And how that local service will be adjusted is done through LTC’s service review program. Councilor Stevenson. Okay, thanks, that’s helpful.

And is there a link or a place where the public can go to get this kind of information? And even how it was budgeted in terms of service, like I understand that LTC’s gonna make some final changes, but there’s a lot of concern about the existing transit service along Dundas Street and how that might be impacted. Ms. Dan.

Yes, through the chair, with respect to service delivery of transit operations, I think that’s best directed to the LTC and through their website. And again, when we get closer to initiating the operations for RAPA Transit, there will be a service review for their annual program and they’ll be looking at how they’ll be making adjustments to the routes and the public has an opportunity through that process to provide feedback. Okay, thank you, that’s good to hear. Thank you, I’ll go to Councilor Perbal.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. I have a question, regular buses, when I used to be under Commission V, there was a federal and provincial funding, it used to be called ICIP. Is this a PTIS, is it the same source of funding, same stream, or is it just different because of regular buses and potentially RT buses?

Ms. Dan. Yes, through the chair. So this report is basically transferring funding from our RAPA Transit budget to LTC so they can order the buses through their contract.

It’s part of the overall program, which was funded through the Investing in Canada Infrastructure program. So ICIP, it is part of that original budget and does have federal and provincial contributions towards it. Councillor? Okay, sorry.

And regular buses, there was two other sources, City of London and City of London, DCs. I didn’t see the part of funding of City of London, DCs. Is it gonna be part of it, additionally, or not? Ms.

Dan. Yes, and through the chair, all of our funding sources for RAPA Transit are coming from a combination of federal provincial contributions as well as the municipal chair and then of the municipal chair, a large portion of that is funded through development charges as a growth project and then you have the tax-supported component, which is part of that as well. But it’s a small portion. Councillor?

Thank you very much. No more questions? Thank you, looking for other speakers on this item. Councillor Trossa.

Thank you, through the chair. I don’t have any questions for staff. I think all the questions that I would have have been answered in the staff report and being on the LTC commission, I do a lot of extra reading beyond what’s in our staff packet here at Council meetings. I wanna say the public is expecting us to deliver improvements in the bus system, whether it’s the conventional lines or the new RAPA Transit lines.

There’s a high expectation from members of the public and increased demands for better service. This would be a particularly bad time to say, ah, we’re not gonna buy these new buses. Price of these buses is not gonna go down. Supply chain issues are not gonna get better.

The availability of these buses is not going to improve. I think that if this council refused to approve this measure, which by the way, has already been counted for in our budgets, so it’s not like LTC is asking us for any new money. And if I’m wrong about that, please correct me. I think this is very much like the last item.

And I understand that there is some dissatisfaction in this community with the fact that we’re going forward with this project. But I’ll just say this and I’ll stop. We need these buses and we need them as soon as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had one last question on this. And just to put other colleagues maybe at ease, I plan to support this because regardless of the problem that I hear from residents the infrastructure of how we’ve designed the road, not around expanded transit.

So I’ll be supporting the purchase of the buses. But when we say an approved budget of 18.5 million, was that originally supposed to fund the 14 buses? Ms. Stan?

Yes, so our adjusted budget for all 14 buses to support the RT fleet was the 18 million amount. So we’re using the available bus money that we have to purchase the vehicles we need right away. And then we’ll be looking at our RT budgets to be able to optimize all budget sources within that overall program to make sure we’re maximizing our federal and provincial investments and being able to stay within the total budget. Councilor?

Thank you. Well, that’ll be good to hear because otherwise we’re projecting to be under budget on this section of the BRT as well. Is there any way to know whether we’re projecting to have under budgeted the operating as well? Is there a concern that there’s going to be, or is that, that might be outside of this question, but I’m just curious if we’re going to be funding the buses, is that then, you know, where it’s also going to have another hit coming in terms of operations to use them?

Ms. Stan? Through the chair, the operating budget is separate and something that we’re monitoring as we roll out operations and start to take on those costs. So we’ve made a lot of estimates in terms of an assumptions around what it takes to operate and what it costs to operate a rapid transit system.

So we’ll be taking our model and then adjusting it and right sizing it to our real-time experiences when we start to operate different elements. So that’s separate in terms of the overall capital program for the rapid transit project program. As I mentioned, it is broken into several categories, but in other categories, we are seeing some savings. With respect to item 2.9 that we just had on the rapid transit, you can see that we had a very competitive price come in on that contract below our engineer’s estimate.

So again, those are the types of opportunities where we can see maybe savings in other areas. It’s really important that we optimize our entire budget across the program because for every dollar spent, we get that provincial and federal matching dollars. So if we leave $1, we could leave funding on the table. So we wanna make sure we’re gonna use all of our bus money first.

And then if we need additional money to support buses, we’ll look at other elements of the program to be able to make sure we’re spending every dollar we can to optimize that program. Councillor? Okay, thank you. Again, I really appreciate it because there are a lot of questions around the rising costs on this, so I appreciate it.

Thank you. Okay, looking for any final speakers on this item? Seeing none, we’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, four to one.

Thank you, that takes us to item 213, which is the update to the council policy, travel and business expenses. I will look for a mover and a seconder on this item. Councillor Frank, Councillor McAllister, thank you, any discussion? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, yes, I asked for this one to be pulled because I was concerned about the changes that were made. Under the executive summary, it says that there was enhanced clarity related to telecommunications usage, strengthened environmental considerations and additional guidance on specific expense types. And when I looked at it, I saw things like, you know, that when more than one traveler is attending the same event, that all attendees must wear practical possible coordinate travel arrangements, subject to the, you know, that if you could do one extra conference, subject to the approval of the governing body, which for council, I believe is the clerk’s office. And it just seemed very like prior approval to use a taxi or a ride hailing service.

And again, this is for elected officials as well. My understanding is that these were actually part of the existing policy and haven’t been changed. So I’d just like to confirm that and to see if it would be possible between now and council to get this policy with the changes highlighted so that I can see exactly what I am approving in terms of the changes. Thank you, I will look to Mr.

Collins on the same. Through the chair of the committee, as outlined in the executive summary, as the Councillor pointed out, there were a lot of items considered in our revisions to the travel and expense policy before committee today. A lot of them had to do with ensuring alignment with council strategic plan, taking considerations items such as the environment. So when we’ve addressed some of the items like taxis and ride sharing, we’ve introduced new definitions for ride sharing and what have you, that weren’t included as part of the previous policy.

One of the items that we looked at in aligning our policy with council strategic plan was reinforcing the consideration of environmental considerations so other modes of transportation, where there may be other modes of transportation outside of just the default of going with the taxi, for example, public transit. So that consideration is given while an elected official or an employee of the organization is out at a conference or out of town, that other means of transportation is considered. We also take a look for all of our policies to ensure that we are responsible and accountable for public funds, that we’re looking to ensure that we provide the most affordable option when we expend public funds for the most effective result. There are a lot of provisions within the existing policy that as you identified earlier, or you had questioned earlier, were from previous iterations of the policy that those have not changed.

The biggest change in this policy today was a mechanism to update the mileage rate, which is an alignment with the Canada revenue agencies allowable mileage rate, which is updated on an annual basis. So for 2026, that mileage rate is 73 cents. So we wanna ensure that our mechanism is informed by a public mechanism that’s already out there. So we’ve been pulled that into our policy before you, which was a gap that we had identified that wasn’t there before.

With respect to providing Committee and Council a previous version of the existing policy with all the changes made, that is something that we can easily make available to both Committee and Council prior to Council. So we’ll identify all the modifications and changes should Committee wish. Thank you, I appreciate that. I was not aware that the travel policy was worded in this way and that it lumps together elected officials and city employees in a way that really is very prescriptive and it’s just not something I can support.

Like it even says it’s up to the responsibility of the ERO which would be the clerk to determine whether the meal expense should be reimbursed and that when two or more officials or staff are present for a meal in town, the most senior person present must pay for the expenditure. I mean, like this feels like a benefit claim. We have, I really think we need to separate elected officials from city employees in their process. When I have an expense with a board, I always get approval before I book anything and I don’t do that with my expense account.

I report to the electorate and if they disagree with what I expense, then they won’t vote me back in again. So I’d like to move a referral that I have here and hopefully I have a seconder and I would just like to have the policy separated ‘cause they are quite different. Would you like me to read the referral? Thank you very much.

That the staff report date of February 23rd, 2026 to amend by-law numbers CPOL227479 being a by-law to revoke in repeal council policy related to travel and business expenses and replace it with a new council policy entitled travel and business expenses to repeal and replace schedule eight, the by-law be referred to civic administration with direction to prepare two separate policies when governing travel and business expenses for civic administration and a second governing travel and business expenses for members of council and to report back to the future meeting of the Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee with the proposed policies. And through you, we went back and forth on this today and I appreciate staff’s support in trying to get the appropriate wording on here. I would just like to, I’m happy to move this. If I have a seconder, I’d also like to just hear from staff that they’re happy with the wording of this as well.

Thank you and I’m happy to second this to get it on the floor and I will look to staff maybe to Ms. Barbone or to Mr. Collins. Ms.

Barbone, go ahead. Thank you. I don’t believe there was a question in there but perhaps for some clarification that we would be able to, in the past, the policy has been separate. That’s 10 plus years ago, I believe, but it did exist separately.

In order to separate out the policy, that policy update would not be able to come forward this year, it would take us some time to pull everything out. So the current policy would prevail, which still includes the majority of the items excluding the ride sharing and some of the things that have been added from the environmentally conscious, but certainly we would look to bring something forward as early as we can, but it certainly wouldn’t be until 2027. Councillor? Yeah, thank you.

I’m happy to just proceed with this. Okay, thank you. I’ll look for other speakers on the referral. Councillor Stevenson.

So I will just say, so I wanna clarify, so this referral would then allow the necessary updates in regards to per diems and that kind of thing to go ahead and it would ask staff to come back at a later date with the policy separated. Is that correct? Ms. Bergone.

I thank you for the chair. If this policy update is not approved, the per diems, the changes that have been made do not apply and would not be put into effect. So the per diems would stay as per the current policy as are all the current authorizations that are in this policy that currently exist in the council approved policy would stand. So we would work on a new policy, but we would not be able to bring that until 2027 in the current policy would apply until then.

So very specifically, the per diem update is not included. Okay, thank you. Now, I would imagine that is possible for us to just separately approve the simple per diem updates and allow this to be referred back if we worked with staff between now and council. One moment, I’m just conferring with the clerk.

Ms. Bergone, did you wanna add anything in? Thank you for the chair. So the current policy, the current policy as approved refers to the CRA specific timeline for which the per diems are tied.

Without this policy update, that isn’t there. So you’d need to have a policy update to be able to make that effect. You could not pull out a piece of the change. We would need council direction for any amendment to the policy to be able to bring any change forward.

So given that’s really the only significant change that’s here from what is currently in the existing policy, except for the ride sharing element, all of those other items are in there. If council wants the policies to be separated, we can absolutely do that work. You could consider passing this and then refer, or directing us to bring forward a policy revision that separates the two as we once had. That would be my recommendation to allow that current piece to proceed.

Otherwise, I would need to confer with the clerk what other potential avenues we would have to bring forward a revision that doesn’t take into effect all of the other clarifications that provide administrative guidance. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. And I believe this was the back and forth that I had with staff this morning.

There was an amendment that I was given that added a Part C, I believe, that asked for the policies to be separated and still moved forward with this policy. So that may be the one that we landed on that was meant to be moved right now. Okay, so what we’re looking to do then is defeat the referral and then look to move the amendment. Okay, I will look for speakers on the referral.

Okay, seeing none, on the referral, open the vote. Closing the vote, motion fails, 0-5. Thank you, so we’re back to the main motion. I believe Councillor Stevenson, you had the floor.

So I will give you the floor back on the— Okay, thank you. So I’d like to move the amendment that was provided by the clerk this morning that added, I believe, a Part C. Okay, so I’ll read it that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows. The civic administration be directed to prepare two separate policies.

One, governing travel and business expenses. Four, civic administration. And a second, governing travel and business expenses for members of council and to report back to a future meeting in the ICSC with the proposed policies. Is that what you’re looking to move?

Thank you. I imagine though there’s gonna be some direction required or not, I’d love to know through staff regarding the council policy being different than the policy for staff, rather than just make them two separate ones that look the same. Like I said, there’s things in there around authorization and approval and pre-approval for a taxi. Just doesn’t seem appropriate for an elected official and I’m assuming there’s no direction needed that staff will come back with something that then would be approved by council, a future meeting in 2027.

Thank you, sorry. I still need a seconder on the amendment. Okay, I don’t have a seconder. I’m happy to second it just to continue the discussion ‘cause I do have some points as well that I will be raising so I will second it.

Councilor, sorry, on the amendment, sorry, did you finish off with a question? I can’t remember where we left out. Yes, a question to staff to just confirm that we don’t need to get specifics right now that we can leave that with them to split it and when it comes forward, committee can look at it at that time. Ms.

Perbo? Through the chair, certainly whatever we bring forward, council would need to weigh in on that. So it might be easier for us to take that back and review it. It might not be so easy as just automatically splitting it because obviously council elected officials may be a little bit different but we certainly can take that back.

It might be easier to do the work and then present something and that if there’s changes that council wishes at that time, it might be easier to point to those specifically to provide direction unless there are a specific direction already that the council wishes to provide. We’re certainly happy to take it but that would be my initial sense. I mean, for right now our basis would be likely similar but given the context, we’ll have to look at the definitions and all of those pieces. It’s not quite as simple as just simply mirroring them in two separate documents but we do have the former work that was done previously ‘cause this did work once upon a time.

So hopefully that may make it a little bit easier to separate into two, councilor. Thank you. So just on this amendment, I really dislike the way this policy currently is but the urgency of trying to fix it is not there if this is the existing policy, right? So I think the amendment to just have staff come back and do that at a later date and separate it out would be appropriate.

As I said, reading through the details of this policy, much of it just does not seem appropriate for an elected official and to join the two together just really doesn’t make any sense to me. So I’m happy to forgo the referral and just do this amendment. Hoping my colleagues will support that and I’ll leave it there. Thank you, looking for other speakers on this item.

Councilor McCallister, you take the chair. I have the chair, go ahead, Councilor. Thank you and through you. So I did have some concerns as well.

The ride sharing component of this did raise a flag for me even just for the purpose of things like an expense card. Councilors don’t have an expense card. Is that something that we’re planning to be given a separate expense card? Go ahead, Steph.

Thank you through the chair. I’m just looking to see if Mr. Collins has anything to add. I believe that’s referring to the procurement cards that are city credit cards that stuff have access to as opposed to a specific different process for the elected officials.

So we can definitely look at some of the terminology but there is not any changes that we’re anticipating with the way things are currently being done from that perspective. Okay. Councilor, Mr. Collins, do you have anything to add?

Through the chair of the committee, just to add to Ms. Barbone’s response, when you’re using rideshare and there’s multiple avenues to pay back the rideshare either through your P card if you’re a city employee, you’d use that. If you’re an elected official, you could also use your credit card but you could get that reimbursed through your expense claim. So there are many mechanisms for city staff.

We’d prefer the staff member to use their P card rather than going through the whole reimbursement process. So it doesn’t limit the avenue to use a ride-sharing or ride-hailing tool or boat of transportation. Follow up, Councillor. Thank you.

So again, under the ride-sharing component of it, it does say a corporate purchasing card should be used to pay for any ride-haring expenses. So thank you for clarifying that but I do think because it is a policy, I’d want it further clarified for members of council. Second, is it my responsibility to check ahead of time to see whether or not the municipality has ride-hailing services that are regulated and appropriately insured before I travel to somewhere and maybe some, I’m just thinking of some of the times I’ve traveled where I’m in a location and I can’t get transportation easily to a conference because the conference is running and there’s a little bit of a delay and I’ve had to use ride-share. So I would have to then go and look and make sure that it’s regulated, et cetera.

And then that’s how I would make my determination from there, whether or not I could use it. Go ahead, Mr. Collins. I’m not sure if that’s you or we want to date that below, bestie.

Chair of the committee. Given the amount of ride-sharing platforms that are out there, I think a lot of them are known. There may be some that are unknown. So the preference would be to use a lot of the ones that are on the existing rare that are throughout the various communities be it some of the ones that we find in the city of London ourselves that they’re pretty well-known and well-established versus one that’s probably foreign to us.

Followed, Councilor? Thank you and through you. Yeah, there were some other components that again, I would really benefit from seeing the difference between a marked-up version and the proposed change version. So I’m hoping that that can be provided between now and Council so that I can go through that and get better sense.

I appreciate that we are updating the policy ‘cause I know that’s very important. But I just want to make sure that it makes sense to the way that we are traveling when we’re going somewhere. Yes, we always look for the most economical way to travel whenever possible when we arrive somewhere. If we’re arriving at the same time, yes, we’re not trying to take separate rides anywhere or we’re trying to use transit when it’s possible to do so.

But also keeping in mind that our schedules, again, appear sometimes to not work out to be able to meet that commitment that you have. How, it says say that in the policy that unless there’s circumstances, tight connections, that kind of thing, but how would the ERO determine whether or not I had a meeting that therefore made for a tight connection and then I had an expense associated with it? I pass that over to staff if they want to come in. Through the chair of the committee.

Based on our experience with the application of this policy and when it comes to its usage and execution used by a number of our employees, sometimes it’s good to reinforce some of those considerations that may be out of mind for some of our newer employees. So while it doesn’t necessarily speak to the vast majority of our colleagues, we have found that when we’re reviewing the expenses that come through, sometimes it doesn’t hurt to reinforce or just re-highlight expectations when it comes to using public funds and what items should be considered. Someone could argue that, yes, it’s self-explanatory. However, based on our experience, we just want to have something down, codified in writing to make sure that those considerations are taking place when our colleagues are traveling for municipal purposes.

Follow up, Councillor? Thank you. And just to clarify, for 4.61 authorized travel 202 in page 203, sorry, of not the added, ‘cause of the different page numbers, the original agenda. It has this list A, then I, I, and going into B.

I’m just wondering, in some portions, when it talks about staff versus officials in this policy, so A says officials are entitled to receive reimbursements for the expense as well, attending, and then it has the list. And it says annual conferences of municipal associations which the governing body is a member. And then it says things like one conference in addition to those mentioned. Could I just get more clarity on that?

How that’s intended to be interpreted? Go ahead, staff. So through the chair to committee, earlier on in this conversation, Ms. Barbone mentioned that a number of years ago, there were two separate policies separating the elected officials and civic administration.

As part of that consolidation, there was clear delineation between what was expected at the time from counselors when it came to section 4.6.1, as well as from civic administration. So over the years, that reflects what it was back then. So at the time, from the council’s lens, it may have been expected that there was only one conference. And that’s why we carried on that language within the current policy that has been consolidated.

So we expect to see as part of the committee’s consideration about separating out these two policies that you’d probably see two different 4.6s and we probably deviate it based on what was outlined for officials and what was outlined for staff. So that would be one difference between the two policies that you would see come forward. I should make direct. Thanks.

I love Councilor. Thank you, sorry. So in 4.6.1, where it says officials are entitled to receive reimbursements for expense as well, tended the following. And then it says our annual conferences.

Part V says one conference in addition to those mentions. So I’m just wondering how that will be defined. I’m just trying to get a sense of what that might look like in terms of the policy. So could you give us some realistic or just looking at some of our recent expenses, for instance?

You know, if we go to FCM and we go to AMO, for instance. And then we go to one, it looks like we can only go to one additional conference. But I just need to understand what the parameters of that is. Or we get invited to a lot of local conferences, for instance, where in some cases there may be a time where an expense is incurred, not usually likely, but could be.

Or let’s say Southwestern Ontario conferences. I’m just wondering how this is going to be interpreted a little bit more from the one perspective. Okay, back to staff. If you can provide some further clarity, please.

Through to the Chair, to committee. Based on the concerns being expressed as part of our exercise, as Ms. Verdon said, should committee decide to delineate both policies. We will take that away and work with city clerks to identify what have been some of the challenges based on this existing language to date to see how we can further clarify within Councillor’s expense, traveling expense policy, what that means, given that we’re hearing that further clarification is needed, and which is consistent with how we’ve clarified some of the other language in this policy before you.

So the items that you’ve raised as well noted, and we’ll certainly take that away. Thank you. Thank you, appreciate that. Okay, I will hand the Chair back to you.

Thank you, so I have the Chair. We’re on the amendment to the motion. Any further speakers? Councillor McCausen.

Thank you, and through you. I’ll try to be as quick as possible with this. I’m just wondering, could some of these changes just not be made within the existing policy? Like we’ve had this conversation today.

I’m just wondering if staff could comment, is there not just an ability to clarify some of these things within the existing framework? I don’t want to necessarily throw the whole thing out if we can make some of these minor changes. I don’t think that they’re mountains. It looked to be quite small, but I just want to see what staff think if that’s possible.

Mr. Councillor, oh, Ms. Fairbone. Thank you, Chair.

So exactly what you’re looking at and what we just reviewed is within the existing approved council policy. So as we go and look at trying to separate the two, this is where we can bring in a little bit more clarity with respect to the council expense account policies and the other directions that have occurred over and above this policy, with respect to travel related to council expense accounts. So that will give us an opportunity as we look to bring these policies apart to look at the existing policies and how those all relate to provide a little bit more clarity in terms of how everything is there because those other policies and the traveling expense accounts are still other things that are approved by council, specifically that complement what is here. So this wording hasn’t changed.

It’s still within the existing policy, but as we look to strip them out, it gives us an opportunity to make some changes to look at how it will better inform decisions going forward in terms of payment for travel. Thank you, and it predates my time, but I’m just wondering in terms of when they were separate now, I mean, this debate about bringing them or doing it again, I guess, what was the rationale? Like, I’m just wondering, like, was there efficiencies? Like, what did we find in terms of having one unified policy?

Was it better? Like, I just, I don’t, I wasn’t around curious, just in terms of my decision-making today, I’d like to know what works better. What’s the rationale for one or two? Ms.

Burbaum? Thank you for the change. Ms. McConaughey has some of that history.

So, essentially, efficiency, because it was one policy that coordinated everything, and it was done at the same time with the introduction of per diems and a lot of these other pieces that were common amongst staff, as well as lived officials. So, certainly, they can be brought separately. There will be some things that’ll be very much consistent between the two, and then other things that I think there’s some opportunity to have quite reflective of, maybe, perhaps, the different realities that will come forward through other councilor policies that govern elected officials. Councilor?

Thank you, and through the chair, and I know this came up just with the item we were just dealing with in terms of the referral, but to split these out, is that going to have any impact in terms of the changes? I know you had said in terms of the per diem, that was an issue with the referral, but will the reenie impact to approve a change like that? So, I’m just curious if that would change. Ms.

Bergone. Thank you, through the chair. So, if I understand what is intended, is that there would be, Council would look to approve this current policy, which would update the per diems, and in the meantime, while this new updated policy is available to update the language, staff would work to develop two policies that would separate elected officials between civic administration, and then that would take us a little bit of time to do, and we would bring that forward in 2027, so that instead of having one policy, there would be two separate policies that would be coming forward for approval to be implemented at that time. Councilor?

Okay, thank you, looking for any other speakers. Seeing none, we’ll open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries, three to two. Okay, thank you, that takes care of, oh, no, we’re on as amended, sorry.

I will look for a mover and seconder on the as amended motion for 2.13. Councilor Stevenson, I’m happy to sign. We’re looking to open the vote on the, or sorry, any discussion on the as amended motion? Seeing none, we will open the vote.

Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you, sorry, that concludes our additional business items. We are just looking, sorry, that was our other business, sorry, looking for any additional business if anyone has any items. Thank you, hearing, seeing none, that takes us to our confidential matters.

We have two items by which we are going in camera, and those items are outlined in the agenda, looking for a mover and a seconder. Councilor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, thank you, we’ll open the vote in a moment. Closing the vote, motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, I’ll ask Councillor McCallister to report out from in camera.

Reporting that Committee went into closed session, that progress was made on all items for which we went into camera. Thank you, with that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Frank, thank you, all those in favor by hand, motion carries. Thanks everyone.