Transcript: Council Grapples with $15M Heating Crisis - London City Council - March 31, 2026 | Summary 453

Council Grapples with $15M Heating Crisis - London City Council - March 31, 2026

That's Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, colleagues, welcome uh to the sixth meeting of municipal council. I'll just note uh if you're in council chambers, councilors uh Mallister uh Pribble, Stevenson, Hillier, and Pelosa are uh online uh as well as uh members who have joined us today. I believe councelor Tro Sao will be joining us shortly. Uh I want to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Hneson, Lanipewok, and Adawandron peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wampen belt treaty of the Hodnachon Confederacy silver covenant chain, Beaver Hunting Grounds of the Hodnoson Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKe Treaty of 1790, London Township Treaty of 1796, the Hiron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek, and the Dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anishnabek and Hneson. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipoas of the Temps First Nation, Onida Nation of the Tempames, and Muny, Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. Uh, the city of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda@london.ca CA or 519-6612489 extension 2425. And on to the O Canada singer. Uh Josh Try is a Londonbased multi-instrumental instrumentalist uh music director and tour manager. His his work routinely takes him across North America working with acts like Nate Holler, uh Sasha, Texas King, and Tyler Shaw. Please rise and join me in welcoming Josh who will now be performing the national anthem for us. Oh Canada, our home and native land. True love. In all of us command. With glowing hearts we see thee rise, the true north strong and free. From far and wide, oh Canada we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land. Glorious and free. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Oh Canada, we stand on guard for thee. Okay, that brings us to disclosures of pecuniary interest. I'll look for any disclosures that colleagues might have today. Okay, seeing none in chambers. I don't see any online. All right, we'll turn it to recognitions. Uh there are two uh and I'm going to start with uh councelor Ferrer. You're up first. Thank you, Mayor. Uh I just wanted to make a recognition for a very special Londoner and Canadian, Jeremy Hansen. Uh wanted to just take the moment to recognize, you know, someone who comes uh from the city and represents, you know, the very best of our city and our country. Um, Jeremy was born right here in London, raised just outside of our city. He built a career through discipline, service, excellence, uh, from the Aircadets in London, which I had my own stint in to becoming a Royal Canadian Air Force fighter pilot, which I didn't do. Wish I did, uh, glasses at the time. They didn't allow that. Uh, to, um, now representing Canada on the world stage uh, as an astronaut. um in the coming days, maybe tomorrow, maybe tomorrow to the 6th. That's the launch window. Um he's going to take part in the Aremis 2 mission. It's going to be a truly historic moment. Um this will be the first time humans travel back to the moon in over 50 years, um since the Apollo era in the early 1970s. And more specifically, uh this is the first crude mission since 1972. It is a major step in setting the stage for humanity once again to walk on the lunar surface. um after decades being decades away and to push further into deep space exploration um something that we should have been working on ever since then but that's that's another conversation. Um so like many I've been following the Artemis program very closely for years. I've been waiting for this my entire life to go back to the moon or at least get close to it. Um, so I'm very I'm very uh excited and um I'm very excited to see uh this stage now uh and to see a Canadian and more importantly someone from London uh take part in this. Um it's something we should all take pride in. So it is an honor uh for Canada and for those who spent our entire lives uh watching space exploration and hoping to see humanity return to the moon in this moment is a is a great deal. So, um, we know this mission has not been without its challenges. The launch date was delayed, uh, I think a couple months ago. I was excited for that, but I have faith that we're we're going to be going either tomorrow or in the next couple days. Um, so, uh, for the moment right now in front of us and for Canada and from London, this is a milestone uh, and it's going to be making history and it's exciting stuff. So on behalf of council and behalf of Canada and on behalf of us in London, we wish Jeremy a very good luck and we're there with you. We're rooting for you. Thanks. Great recognition and I don't usually comment on recognitions, but I'll say uh councelor Farah, we share uh lifelong interest in space and space exploration. I remember sitting on the couch in the '8s watching the space shuttle launch with my dad. And it's kind of an amazing uh an amazing moment for this region to have uh someone who grew up in our region go further than humans have ever gone. Like this mission will have humans go further into space than have ever gone before. They won't land on the moon, but they're going to as they orbit the moon travel further away from the Earth than we've ever been. So, it's quite a moment and uh it'll be something really uh really amazing to watch over the over the coming days. Um, I have uh council van next. Thank you, mayor. I'd like to uh recognize a true London gem. Uh, Adventures on Wonderland. For 26 years, Adventures of Wonderland has provided countless countless um uh young people from the London area, their parents and grandparents and their caregivers. Uh an experience of joy, experience of fun, experience of learning. And this was founded and was guided by uh Barb Fia uh and and through Barb's guidance um many of those children who got to have all that fun got their allimportant first job at Adventures. And many still of these children from the earlier years having all this fun and creativity more recently returned to adventures with their own children. This place has had a profound impact on London. Situated of course as most good things are in Ward 10. It's u it's a place that uh we celebrate and Barb we wish you all the best and we thank you for the memories and all the best going forward. Thank you mayor. Thanks and uh councelor Cuddy asked to uh add a recognition as well there just at the last minute. So go ahead councelor. Thank you your worship and through you. Um I'd like to recognize u my colleague from the upper temps river conservation uh authority board uh councelor Hugh McDermott. Um, uh, Hugh is deputy mayor of, uh, Perth East Council and and, uh, your worship. If you asked me to point out, uh, Perth East on a map, I probably couldn't do it, but it's it's in the Stratford area. You I'm sure you would probably know where it is, your worship. So, but, uh, Deputy Mayor McDermott has been on council from 2010 to 2014 and then again then again from 2000 to uh, uh, 2018 to present day uh, as deputy mayor. Uh Hugh lives um on the family farm that's been in the family since uh 1837. Um Hugh, my family's been here since 1816. So we're close, but uh I'm not on the family farm anymore, but uh colleagues, please uh join me in welcoming Deputy Mayor McDermott to uh our council today. Thank you. Your worship. Thanks for being here. I guess you didn't get enough of your own council meetings. You wanted to pick up some in London, so glad you could be here. And uh yeah. Yeah, we'll see. We'll see if you think that at the end of the night. Um uh okay, so that's it for recognitions. Really appreciate uh colleagues uh uh with those. We have review of confidential matters to be considered in public. We have none. We have a council in close session which includes uh four items. We're going to use committee room 5, but I need a motion to go into close session first. Uh councelor Hopkins, seconded by councelor Van Mirburgen. Uh any discussion? Okay, we'll open the vote to go into close session. Council of Prebble votes yes. Noted. Thank you. Councelor Hopkins votes yes. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay. Okay. So, we'll be going to committee room 5 for the public. We'll be back shortly. Do our little Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, that completes our in camera session. We'll have a report out on that later. Uh we're on to item five, which confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have the fourth meeting which was March 3rd and the fifth special meeting which was March 13th moved by councelor Van Mirburg and I'll second it. Uh okay so those are on the floor. Any discussion on the minutes? Okay, seeing none we'll open that for voting council approve. Councelor Hopkins. I vote yes. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay. We have a number of communications and petitions, seven different groupings. Uh we have a motion consolidated to refer them all to the relevant points of the agenda. Councelor FRA is willing to move that and councelor Cuddi's willing to second it. Okay. Any discussion on moving those items to the relevant parts of the agenda? No. Okay. We'll open that for voting. Council appal. Just need a vote. Councelor Hopkins. I vote yes. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 15 to zero. Okay. Uh item seven is uh motion which notice was given. We have none. Which means we're on to the reports section of the agenda. And the first one up is community and protective services committee. Councelor Ramen, I will let you present the report. Uh thank you. And through you, mayor, I'll look to put uh the fourth report of community and protective services committee of a number of items that have been pulled. Um I would like to put items one, two, three, or sorry, I would like to put items one, two, and three on the floor. Making sure I get the numbers right. uh 6 8 10 and 11 unless I hear from somebody that they want to eat those pulled. Okay. So, councelor Ramen is trying to do one to three 6 8 10 and 11. Does anybody want those dealt with separately? I don't see anybody. So, I'll let you make that motion. Thank you. I'll put that on the floor. Okay. So, we have 1 2 3 6 10 and 11, I think. Right. Oh, and eight. Yeah. And eight. Okay. All right. Any discussion or comments on those items that are before us? Okay. Seeing none, then we'll open that for voting. Council appal votes. Yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. I will look to put item four on the floor, please. That's the amendment to the parks and recreation area bylaw uh PR2 related to bill number 141. All right. So that's on the floor by the chair. I'll look for any discussion. I see councelor Stevenson online. You can go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I've got a referral that I've circulated to council and with the clerk's office. I can read it out if you like. Uh yes, if you could read it out, that would be uh that would be great. Okay. that the staff report dated March 9th, 2026 from the deputy city manager, neighborhood and communitywide services regarding proposed amendments to bylaw PR2 being the parks and recreation area bylaw be referred to the broader review of the parks and recreation area bylaw PR2 scheduled for 2026 2027 and be considered as part of that comprehensive review process. And I believe I have a secondary and counselor Hillier. I see councelor Hillier confirming a second. Okay. So that is now a referral on the floor. I'll introduce it if Yep. I'm just uh making sure we get it up on the screen so people can see. Should be it should be up now. So yes, if you want to go ahead and and speak to it, that'd be great. Thank you. So yeah, this was a change to the age that caregivers, parents and others were able to bring uh minor children into the change rooms and the washrooms in our recreational facilities. And I believe the change was uh going from six and under to 10 and under. When I uh posted this on social media and asked for some feedback, there was a lot of interest in this and a lot of concern actually in the change. So given that it's not an urgent issue and that we're doing a formal review that it's going to include a uh public participation meeting at some point in the future, I wanted to bring forward this referral uh hoping that my colleagues would support in allowing the public to have a say in this important issue and uh that we make it part of a comprehensive review and and give the public an opportunity for input into something that's going to affect uh them and their children. Okay. So, on the referral, I'll look for speakers. Councelor Troau. Um, I'm just curious to the through the through the chair to the maker of the referral motion terms of the concerns. Um, we did have this we did have this come up at committee. I don't recall anybody appearing uh at at the committee. Or am I wrong about that? Yeah. So I'm just wondering why we're doing a referral request. So coun uh so counselor just let me stop you. So um I would say the committee chair can answer whether there was any delegations at the committee and I'll have her do that in a sec but also I think public feedback comes in many ways. So it might have come from the committee could have come directly to different counselors. So I I I don't think we can presume what it is or how much of it is um because as you know people give feedback to municipal council in a number of ways but I'll the committee chair confirm whether or not there were delegations at the meeting. Thank you. And through you there were no delegations on this item but uh just uh point of clarification may be needed from staff as to what was actually in the staff report because I believe the numbers and ages were were uh presented incorrectly. Um maybe but councelor Troau has the floor so he could do that through a question or you could later but I've got to go back to him on the floor for now. Um I would I would ask uh the chair if through the chair through you the mayor who's the chair chair of the committee if you have any further um information that might help us understand the purpose for the referral because I don't see anything in our agenda either for added. So, could you help me out with that? Well, I can help you out with what the chair said, and that is um I think the council in the presentation uh had the the age numbers the opposite way. Um so if you could just clarify what the item was before the committee and uh and the related uh just the related high level details of that and then I'll go back to councelor chos your microphone. Thank you and through your worship the current age for uh children to use gender specific bathrooms is 10 and under. Uh the amendment we proposed to the bylaw was to change that to seven and under and that's what came through committee was uh support for the change to the bylaw. So before us today is that particular change which has now been uh moved and seconded to be referred to a subsequent process uh and review of the parks and rec area by linear. Thank you. Um excuse me. Thank you very much. Sure. Okay. Uh other speakers to this uh Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Uh thank you, Chair, and through you uh your worship, I won't be supporting this referral. I'll be supporting the committee's recommendation. Our staff uh as they presented at committee have done their homework. They've done environmental scans of best practices in other municipalities. Uh and quite honestly, I have not uh I concur with councelor Trussau. I've not heard a single comment from any of my constituents that this is a concern to them. I would also point out that our aquatics facilities um and through you I I'll ask staff to correct me if I'm wrong, but our aquatics facilities also have family change rooms in them as well as gender specific change rooms. Uh which means if a parent's not comfortable with this, they have another option. So I don't need to refer this back, talk about it again and again. And frankly, um, while the councelor uh may not appreciate this comment, um, I don't do governance by social media commentary. Uh, I've looked at the staff report here and for me, I am comfortable with what staff are recommending. So, I will not be supporting the referral. And you had a question of staff about the availability of um uh f like there there's gender- based uh facilities, but there's also family facilities in in our recreational services. So, I'll go to our staff for that comment. Thank you. And through your worship, in all of our indoor pools, we have universal change rooms. In the majority of our outdoor pools, we have universal change rooms or alternatives for individuals. Um they are separate bathrooms and change rooms. We do have uh three uh outdoor pools that uh do not have uh these facilities. However, in the past uh when people with disabilities or others required separate space, we have used a first aid room and we have closed a bathroom off or used a staff bathroom to accommodate in those three uh outdoor pools, but we really have not had those requests. Okay, good. All right, other speakers to this. And again, we're on the referral. I appreciate people needed some information to support their discussion, but anybody else on the referral. Okay, so we're going to open the referral for voting. Council approval votes no. Closing the vote. Motion fails 2 to 13. Okay. So, that was on the referral. I'll go to speakers on the staff recommendation which is on the floor by the chair. Go ahead, chair. Uh thank you and through you. So, I just wanted to say uh first uh thank you to staff and to the public that have reached out on this item. Um, as well uh I will say that one of the things I did hear uh in feedback and this is just for commentary because I think it's things that we will consider during the parks and wreck master plan as well as other facility plans as we move forward is that one of the concerns is that in some of our facilities like our outdoor pools and like the aquatic center um it does put pressure on those spaces where we maybe do not have adequate enough family spaces. So, um, specifically at the aquatic center, I do hear that concern from folks uh that they would like to see an upgrade to that facility to see more opportunities to allow for families to to be able to use uh family change spaces. So, that is something that we need to consider for for the future as we look to uh bring this update forward. Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers to the committee's recommendation? Okay, seeing none. So, this is on the committee's recommendation. We'll open that for voting. Council approval votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to2. All right, back to you, committee chair. Thank you. And through you, this is item 5 2.4, the community safety and well-being plan update. There was added communication in the agenda which uh made a change to appendix C I believe. So that was uh here for uh for us. So I'll put that on the floor. Okay, this is on the floor. I'm going to look to uh uh councelor Stevenson who I think has an amendment to this. Go ahead. I do. Thank you. Um and I believe I have a seconder and councelor Layman. Do you want me to read this out? Uh yes, please. And whenever there's a motion that isn't on the um added agenda, I it's just great to read it out. So because we've got a number of people in the gallery and they won't know what it says unless we unless we articulate it. So if you could read it out, that would be fantastic. I did circulate it through email to council just just prior to the meeting. So it's that the motion be amended to include a new part C to read as follow C. the civic administration be directed to include a member of the London Police Services Board on the Commi Community Safety and Well-being Advisory Committee, the CSWB Advisory Committee, in accordance with the Community Safety and Policing Act 2019. Okay, that's on the floor. And I just confirmed that yes, there's a seconder for that. Um I don't know if you want to speak now, counselor, or if you'd like to wait. Yeah, I'll I'll speak now just to quickly let um just one second. I got a I have a just a quick point of order from councelor Troau. I just find this so confusing. Oh, sorry. I find this confusing because it says in accordance with the uh the the the policing act. Is there a mandate in that act that a member of this board be be there? I just don't think this tells me what I need to know and I didn't get a chance to review it. Uh yes, that's my understanding uh of the act. I mean, my police board colleagues probably know the act as well as I do. So, uh, it was something that, uh, I I'm not sure if it's like Yeah, I can let my my colleagues speak to that if like I I can say it's section 250 3.7 didn't say. So, thank you. That would have been helpful of the Canadian safety or the CSPA. Thank you. Okay. Uh, councelor satisfied with his question. That was a point of order. So have dealt with that. That information is here. I'll go back to you, Councelor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you. This is just I I want to put this on the record that uh that the city reach out to the LPSB and make sure that a members on that committee to ensure that we're compliant with the CSPA. Okay. Other speakers to this? Go ahead, Councelor F. Trust. Thanks, Mayor. I just want to go to staff on this one. Um, so I do see that uh a reference um from the police act was or the community police act was was made. Just want to go to staff on that to see if uh staff can confirm that to see if there it is mandated. We'll go to the our staff. Thank you. And through your worship, uh the CSWB advisory committee, uh and the act determined that uh municipalities must create one of these plans. In order to do that, they were to develop a community safety and well-being advisory committee, which we did, having all the members, including the uh London Police Service Board member. Um once a plan is approved and implemented, we then followed in two on 255 revisions by the municipality in the act that uh then tells municipalities to go forward and implement your plan. So in order to implement our plan uh we have what we call a working group or an implementation uh committee and on that committee sits all the actual plan members and we do have members from the London police services who sit on that plan and sit on that uh implementation group as the London police services plan is on that group. So the active members now are currently those who have plans that are part of the community safety and well-being plan in front of you. Go ahead. Thank you. So, the act mandates London Police Service members and not necessarily London police board members on the uh safety and well-being advisory group. Thank you. And through your worship for the advisory committee, it uh it lists and to develop your plan. An advisory committee helps uh develop the plan. So when our plan was developed over 5 years ago, we did have members of the London Police Services Board. Now to implement our plan, we have members of the London Police Services on our working group. We do not long no longer have the official community safety and well-being advisory committee because we've already developed our plan. We're now implementing it. Okay. So we are no longer using the community and safety wellbeing advisory committee. We are now in the implementation of the plan. So adding a police service board member to this advisory committee that is no longer being used. Uh okay. I'll go to the chair. Uh thank you through you. Um, I'm just wondering if we should refer this matter for further clarification at this point because I can't uh I can't pull up the act fast enough to verify which component of I agree with sorry, let me rephrase that. I understand what staff is saying. I just want to be able to better understand this, but I don't want to refer the whole plan. So, this to me is a separate component of this because we're just talking about adding somebody. I think we can still deal with the plan and refer the item of putting somebody else from the police service board to a further discussion. So, I'm wondering if I can move that referral. Uh yeah, referrals is in order if there's a second. I see councelor uh uh Hopkins willing to second. Um so this is referring just the amendment, not the entire item. Um, okay. Yeah. So, the referral is in order and you can refer just that piece of it. Um, and uh certainly it could be dealt with uh at committee without any prejudice of uh us moving forward with the the other piece of the plan. So, go ahead. Thank you. And three, if I may speak to it. So, first I just want to thank my colleagues for bringing this up because I think it's always important that we look at legislation and make sure that we're compliant as possible. Um, and I think that there would be value if we were missing voices. But what I hear from Miss Smith is that we're in the implementation plan and we have voices from police services there. Um, so I just want to be able to look at this a little bit further. I hope my colleagues will support it going back for uh as a referral so that we can have this discussion uh when pending when we receive that information. Okay, I'll look for other speakers on the referral. Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you your worship and uh thank you to the chair for the referral. Happy to second it. I think as we are here at council making these decisions to me without all the information I feel a little uncomfortable. So having it go back to committee and having a better understanding uh we're not delaying um the um the working group or the work that's going on. So happy to support the referral. Councelor Tro, thank you to the chair. As I understand this, we're not under an obligation to make this change. I don't see the point in referring this back. And while normally it's fine to refer this back, I really worry about the fact that this committee and other committees, we're we're hard we're hardpressed in terms of the time that we have at our committees. And unless there's unless somebody from the staff wants to tell me that there was a mistake in the original staff report that needs to be corrected, which is not what I'm hearing, I just want to finish with this matter today and not refer it back. I just think we have to be more mindful of uh the u the demands on our agendas that that that result in long meetings. And I don't I don't know what's underneath this. I'm not going to try to guess, but it doesn't seem to me as if we've made any mistakes. So, I'm ready to proceed based on what uh what we had before. I should I should add it would have been nice to have this a little earlier, but you know, then again, uh here we are. Thank you. Okay, I'll look for other speakers to the referral. All right. I see no other speakers to the referral. So, we'll open the referral for voting. Council approval votes yes. Closing vote. Motion carries 8 to 7. Okay, that part's referred, but we have the original staff recommendation still on the floor by the chair. I'll continue any discussion or debate on that or the committee recommendation. My apologies. Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Council approval votes. Yes. closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to1. Okay, back to you, chair. Thank you. I'll put item seven, which is 3.1, the short-term accommodation license and penalties related to bills number 134, 135, and 140 on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to speakers. Councelor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. Yes. And included on the uh agenda was a letter from myself, the deputy mayor, and councelor Prible in regards to some amendments we'd like. So, I'm happy to um read out the motion uh to get on the floor if possible. So, this one's on the added, so you can read it out if you like, but you don't have to because it's on the public record already. We can just load it up and keep going if you like. Wonderful. Yes. And um maybe I'll just confirm I have a seconder. Yeah. I kind of saw a nod from one of your colleagues, but I'll make sure that just in case. Deputy mayor, you're going to second this, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead. Okay. Uh so, just to further expand on the letter that was submitted, but I won't go over it entirely. Uh I had some feedback from residents who do have short-term accommodations. We saw um some folks in the gallery who spoke and some folks emailed in some of the feedback. Uh one of the main ones being that the age of allowing uh folks who are under two to be with their parents um was a little bit too young and changing that up to 12, which is more common when folks are traveling as a family. Um additionally, some of the concerns that were being created were the difference between hosted or non-hosted or essentially landlord on-site versus landlord not on-site short-term accommodations. Uh generally I found that the more problematic uh short-term accommodations are the ones where there's no landlord or owner on site and therefore sometimes turns into a bit of a party place. Uh so uh some of the concerns I had from from residents in my area was you know they live on site, they live within the building or addition to the building and they've never had those complaints and yet they were still being penalized in the same way for um those who have more of a a party Airbnb approach. So, uh, these two amendments are to try and address that and specifically in regards to, um, providing an exemption for those where the host or owner is present on site during the guest stay. And that way those um, folks who are on site are not being um, you know, swept into the same legislation that's governing more of the party uh, locations. So, I'll stop there, but I'm looking for support on those two amendments just to improve the uh, bylaw. Yes, and I will say thank you for preparing that ahead of time. Uh because of that, if this changes, we do have alternate versions of the bylaw available today. So if colleagues pass this, we can actually continue forward and pass the bylaw tonight rather than a referral back. So it's moved and seconded. Councelor Frank has spoken. I'll look to other speakers on this. Okay. Uh Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councelor Tro. Uh thank you your worship and through you. Uh I'll be brief. I'll just say ditto to everything that councelor Frank has said. Um, you know, I'm supporting this through my own uh experience. You all know I spend part of my time away from here coaching hockey. This is not an uncommon situation uh for families to share hotel rooms, share Airbnb rooms uh as they're traveling for sporting events and things like this. This is pretty consistent with industry standards in the hotel sector. Uh so I'm comfortable applying the same standards to the Airbnb short-term accommodation vendors. Councelor Tro, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. I I do need a clarification because I'm a little bit confused about the uh discussion about distinguishing between on-site owners and uh situations that don't have on-site owners under our current bylaw. And as we're talking about amending it, isn't there a requirement that this only apply to um owner owners who are on the premises or what am I missing? Mr. Mers, go ahead. Uh, through your through your worship. So, the it has to be in a unit that's owned by the that's it's owned by a person who resides in the home, but that person could be um, for example, on a sbatical or away from the home as long as they still own the home. This hosted aspect would require the the owner to be on site while the actual booking and accommodation is occurring. Um, yes. And in in my in my view, we have that on we had that on-site requirement very consciously in the initial bylaw and I am not prepared to change that. So unless unless uh I'm I'm sorry. Is am I do I have um do I have the floor? You do have the floor. Yes. Okay. Um it it's hard when people are making faces at you. Um, I just I I'm not going to support this because I think we um we we have that on-site requirement as um for a reason and I don't want to start departing from that. So unless there's something else uh that that that should lead me to think this amendment is well thought out, I'm I'm very very concerned about um uh disturbing things that we've been through very very well. And uh I don't want to make this change unless um yeah, given the fact that there's a requirement that people people be there, I just don't want to make this change. So I'll be voting no on this. Okay. Other speakers? Um, I don't have a list actually. Oh, councelor Privble, sorry, got you on got you online there. Go ahead. Thank you. And sir, chair to the staff, if Mr. Mayor could clarify, I'm under the impression that uh in it states primary residence and I believe it will still state primary residence. So there is no change in this perspective. Just let me clarify because Mr. uh said this primary residence and then being there while you're having someone stay are different things, right? You could be your primary residence, you cannot be there that day or week while someone is renting your space. The counselor's amendment is you get an exemption if you're there on site. Um, so that's the difference between what it says in the bylaw or what it says under the current rules and what the council is proposing as the change. Mr. Mayers, you can confirm that if you'd like through the chair. Absolutely. That's that's correct. The the current bylaw and the new bylaw would still have a primary residence requirement. the the uh change that we'll be making to address the the uh the motion here would be to actually create create a new definition on hosted short-term accommodation which would add this additional criteria that would have the ability of the exemption. Okay. Does that help clarify councelor privile? It certainly has the confirmation. Thank you. Okay. Other speakers go ahead councelor Ramen. Uh thank you and through you to staff. I'm just wondering how would this be enforced or interpreted in terms of I mean if the person was there for a period of time but not the full time etc. How would that be um defined? Okay, I'll go to Mr. Matherthers. Uh through through your worship uh it would have to be the entire time. It have to be something that actually is included in the the marketing materials for the site to say that there is this is a hosted accommodation and the person will be there for the entire period of time and that's something that's need to be certified to the city as far as meeting that criteria. Uh thank you. And do you see any enforcement related challenges? For instance, a bylaw officer, you know, shows up on site and they're the person isn't there. I'm just not sure how much leeway do we give to that person getting back to the house for instance or or or whatnot. I'm just looking for more clarification on how I understand the purpose of the definition as it relates to a particular or or some of the communication that we've received from particular owners, but I just I can't understand how that would be enforced. Go ahead. Sorry. Uh through your worship. Yeah, it definitely would be a challenge. We would use the same type of approach as we do on on any of these uh is is require that compliance to ensure that they are on site. If they're not on site, try to understand why they may have not been for that period of time. Um and uh it is it will be a little bit more complex. We're not expecting a huge number of folks going down this road because there is more documentation that they have to provide us to be able to undergo this special exemption. We're thinking that it's going to apply mostly to the to like uh larger units or like locations where they really are focusing on bringing in in families, but uh it will be a little bit more complex to be able to administer. Go ahead. Uh thank you and through you. I appreciate that feedback. Um I'm just looking to separate A and B then, please. Sure, we can vote on A and B separately. No problem. Uh other So we can vote on A and B separately. However, if one of those fails, we would have to refer the other piece back to have the bylaw rewritten. So just so colleagues are aware that should a part of this fail, um we don't have a bylaw that doesn't have both in it. I'm going to allow it because I want colleagues to vote their way, but I I'm going to ask if one passes but not the other that we move to a referral back to committee to write the bylaw. So, because we would not pass a bylaw today. Okay. Alternate. We don't have to refer it. We just have to bring the bylaw forward to a future meeting of council for approval. So, we could approve it in any way we want today, but it would not come into effect until later once a bylaw comes to council and gets three readings. Point of order. What's the point of order, counselor? I'm I'm having difficulty understanding why we can't vote on the um amendment separately. And if the amendment is voted down, we just have the the uh the report that came to us. So, um you can do that. What I'm saying is the amendment is separated into two pieces. We have two bylaws prepared. the one has came through committee and one that has both of these changes integrated in the bylaw. So if you pass A and not B or B and not A, we don't have a combination of bylaws that actually has that legislation in it. So that cannot happen tonight. But you can vote down all of it, no problem. You can approve both, no problem. Just anything else we can't do. Okay. Well, I just think it's unfortunate that we're going to have to maybe have to look at some more delay cuz we need these changes, but whatever you rule. Yeah. Well, it's not whatever. It's how it works, counselor. So, colleagues are allowed to make changes. We sometimes can pass legislation the same day. Sometimes we can't. So, um that's the consequences of making changes. Uh I will say the counselor did suggest two changes, brought a bylaw for that. Um didn't bring every possible combination. That just wouldn't be functional for our staff to do. So, um, that being said, you have you can vote whatever way you want. And whether it gets implemented today or it gets implemented at a future meeting, that'll depend on how how the votes go. Okay. Okay. I still don't understand why we can't just uh enact the bylaw that came to us through committee. You can by voting down these amendments. You can do that. So, just vote no to both A and B and then you'd be you'd be passing what exactly what came through committee. Okay. All right. other speakers to the amendment. I have councelor Ferrer and then councelor Hopkins. Thanks chair. Um from what the chair's questions were, that was my my question as well. I did have an additional one as a follow-up. Um and that would be I guess with respect to the age limit at 12 years and older, like how would we be able to enforce something like that? Um would that be up to the owner occupier doing the enforcement? Would staff come in? What type of documentation are we looking for? Go ahead, Mr. Matherthers. Yep. Uh through the through your worship. So, uh a couple pieces to that would be one as part of any kind of a marketing of that unit that they be very clear as far as what the requirements are for occupancy. So, um that they that uh children under 12 years are allowed within certain units in different sizes. So it should be uh that's part of like the uh ensuring that people are aware of that and then if there is a any kind of uh um municipal compliance action then we would be asking for information about the folks that are staying in that unit and confirming their ages. Go ahead. Thanks. So the only real matter of enforcement from the city perspective would be a compliance officer going there and that would I would assume only get raised if the owner occupier or the hosts would be the ones who are flagging that and I would be concerned because um you know we do like I I like the intent of the motion that the counselors are bringing but at the same time I wonder how the enforcement aspect would be because a host I would assume wouldn't necessarily be willing to enforce that if there you know is an accommodation a review that's involved and anything like that. Um, I would think that what I would support is if we referred this back to staff, this part, and enact the the bylaw as it was that came to committee because I think that's a good bylaw as it was written. And it does give us more uh I guess protection as a city. Um, and but if I if I wanted to do something like this, I'd need more information on that and that' have to be separate. So if if if we're not able to do that, then I'll have to vote both A and B down. Councelor Hopkins, you're next. Yeah, thank you your worship and uh thank you to the counselors for bringing this forward. I find these amendments um satisfactory. I don't want to get too much into the weeds here at council, but uh for me ultimately uh this new bylaw is to preserve the uh rental housing stock. It doesn't really change that. It it really um the whole idea is to preserve the rental stock. So I am okay with these amendments and uh with the uh committee recommendation as well. Okay. Um any other speakers on the amendments and we'll do them separate. So okay, see none. Okay, we're doing A first. A is uh the piece about uh the owner being present uh during this day. So hosting we're going to open A for voting. Council approval votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to three and B is the provision uh that permits uh two adults with children's AED 12 years or under which replaces uh the 2 years or under. So that is the change going from 2 to 12. Everybody's clear? Okay, we'll open that for voting. Council of triple votes. Yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to2. And now look, councelor Frankie willing to move the as amended motion. Okay. As amended, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Still. All right. On the as amended motion. Any further discussion? Councelor Tros. So, if if I understand the situation I've been placed in, if this is defeated, then the um very badly needed amendments to the um bylaw are a decided matter of council for the rest of this term and we're done. So, I feel as if I'm in a situation and I want to make sure I understand procedurally what's going on. Um I feel as if I need to support this motion. albeit with fundamental flaws that I think are really going to complicate the enforcement. We're gonna ask children to produce ID to show how old they are. Do children usually carry ID showing how old they are? I I I think this is a terrible amendment. I voted no on it. So, I don't want anybody to think I'm going to vote yes on this overall motion because we very badly need these amendments. But I just um I need I need to say I'm very unhappy about these amendments and I certainly hope that they don't rise to the level of creating yet another loophole in this in this bylaw the enforcement of which has proven problematic. So, I think I think we've done a disservice here and I I'll there's not much more I can say here. I'm not going to make um another amendment um other other than to ask can can I can I make an amendment saying we're going to um uh enact the um the by the bylaw as submitted and have the amendments referred back to the committee with respect to the children's age or was that out of order? No, that's that's out of order. We just had those votes. Um you voted in the contrary. You weren't successful. majority of council has changed it. And so you are in the situation as you described. That's how democracy goes. A majority want to proceed this way. You might not be happy with it. So you can either support it all or you can vote against it all. But it's all together now. That that that's fair. And I will be I will be supporting the um flawed bylaw that's in front of us. And as soon as we can next next council term, if if circumstances are such I will try to fix it. Thank you very much. Okay. uh others to the as amended motion. Councelor Frank and then councelor Fahra. Thank you. Yes, I'll be supporting this as amended motion. I think we've actually approved it. Uh additionally, if anyone is concerned in regards to uh the age limitations, the bylaw that was passed at committee did have age limitations of two and now it is 12. And so either way whether the original uh committee recommendation had passed or the one that just got amended there would have been age requirement which so if people are concerned about people producing documentation uh would have happened both ways. Thanks councelor Ferrer. Thank you for that. Um I like I'm going to support the as amended motion. Um yeah I worry about uh any loopholes that we may have opened up here as well and I know that they're going to reveal themselves. I hope that there's not, but there are some questions that I have and I know that as I guess we get things rolling, they will come up. I will also say, you know, a 2-year-old, 12year-old is easily distinguished by just by looking. Um, but I will say, um, I do want to see this I do want to see the extra protections and the extra actions from the new bylaw come in as quick as I can. So, I guess I'll ask with the amendment and it coming back as a bylaw to the next council, so that's one cycle away. Is it right to assume that it's going to just be a month behind on the as we enact that bylaw? So, we're passing the bylaw tonight because we have that bylaw because both of these passed. The only thing we didn't have is if one passed and the other didn't. So, council's added uh added to the motion two things. There's a bylaw that represents those two things and it's going to be voted on tonight at bylaws. So, yeah, I'll let you ask whatever question you want, but we're having a vote tonight on this. Okay, that's the answer. So, um that I guess schedule will still continue and we'll have the bylaw as amended um get enacted when it is supposed to as it was at the committee. Okay. All right. So, um like I said, I I worry about the loopholes, but I am going to support this because we do have those extra protections and I guess we'll see how it translates out uh into into the real world. Councilor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you and through you. Just wanted to say um although I didn't support all of the amendments, I'm happy to support what's in front of us because I do still see it as an improvement overall. So, thanks to uh colleagues for their work on this and thanks for the engagement from the public on this. And I wanted to say thank you to staff because I know they went out of their way to communicate with the public as we were in in cycle committee cycle and between council on this matter as well just to let them know where things were. So, thanks for that as well. All right. Any other speakers on the as amended motion? Seeing none, we're going to vote on that now. Council approval votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Okay. Councelor Ramen, go ahead. Thank you. I'm introducing item nine, which is 4.2, two, which is the restricting city funded organizations from distributing safe use drugs, smoking supplies. Okay, that's on the floor. Um, councelor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Um, at committee, my letter was received, but the motion was not put forward. So, I would like to bring it forward now. I am looking for a seconder so that we are able to debate and vote on this publicly. Do you want to just read your motion and then I then I'll ask for a second or if you could. Yeah. That notwithstanding the city's current policy endorsing the whole of community system response, the following actions be taken. A. Civic administration be directed to implement the following restriction effective April 1st, 2026 with respect to all city services and all organizations receiving funding through the city of London excluding the Middle Sex London Health Unit. the distribution of safe use substance inhalation supplies including but not limited to pipes, foil, straws, cookers, and snort kits be prohibited within the core area, meaning downtown, Midtown, and Old East Village. Okay, I'll look for a second for that. I see no. Okay. I see a seconder and councelor Hillier. So, uh, if you want to have debate, you can have debate now, councelor. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to hold my, uh, comments. Okay. Is there any other speakers to this? This is now the amendment uh, that councelor Stevenson just read out. So, I'll look to speakers on that. There's no speakers here. Councelor, if you wanted to provide some context, you can. Okay, I will then. Yes. So, the reason I brought this forward was to help support the goal that we have regarding reducing uh public open public drug use within our core area. We currently have the Lenin Police Services uh open air drug strategy where they are um working on addressing those issues within our core area. And so to me it made sense not to have two taxpayer funded services working at cross purposes. So that within this res within this area where we've committed to reducing open public public drug use that we not be handing out um pipes for crack and meth uh foil and straws for fentanyl and snort kits again just within this core area where we're focused on reducing it and um my understanding is through the committee that London Cares had already agreed to not hand it out a along Dundas Street from the river to Eggertton. So, this would just be really it's it's it's a twob block width, you know, on the north side of Queens, you'd still be able to to access this. We've got uh harm reduction outreach teams through HIV AIDS. The health unit has mobile uh or and HIV AIDS has mobile delivery service where people can get these drug supplies uh delivered to their homes uh free. It's also available at the Middle Sex Health Unit and various other locations. So, this isn't about not allowing people to have access. It's about um stopping the taxpayer funded services that are working against each other in a particular area. So, I'm hoping that council will support on this. As I said, London Cares has already agreed to do it um indefinitely along Dundas Street. This would just widen it a little bit and go up Richmond Street as well. and people will still be able to access what they need to. Um, and the other thing is that this does not include needles. It's only the inhilation supplies. So, I'm hoping to have my colleagues support on this. Okay. Any other speakers to this amendment? Go ahead, Councelor Ferrer. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I got to speak to this one. Um, look, I understand the intent of the direction. Um, but this motion I don't really know if we really have any control on that. Like I do hear that the service agencies have already voluntarily said that they would not distribute those um kits, but I also know that if those kits are being distributed outside of the core area or a block therein, it doesn't mean that those kits can be moved into the area or not. I would understand I'd like to understand how that would be operationalized, how it would be enforced and if its intent is to to reduce open drug use. Um I don't think people who are substant suffering from substance use disorder are going to be able to I don't think that's going to really have um I guess it's going to achieve its intent. I would just wonder um I guess the first thing I would ask and I know that we spoke at committee about this uh but within our municipal service contract agreements do we even require um the service agencies to provide those kits from what I understood in those uh contract agreements we say you know harm reduction approaches but we don't actually have any type of line items budget line items that purchase those kits or actually distribute those kits and from what I understood I about the Middle Sex London Health Unit followed the provincial health standards uh which does require that. So I would just wonder we don't have the ability to um have the province uh I guess change uh the provincial health standards that is within their health standards and then the Middle Sex London health unit has to follow those health standards. So I'm just I'm just a little confused on uh the operationalization of this. So if anybody can um provide some uh I guess enlightenment for me on this. Okay. So let me start uh with some stuff and then I I'll go to staff. So at at committee um the question was asked, you're right, and uh it was responded to by staff. There's nothing in a contract uh that compels uh anybody to hand out harm reduction kits. Um the only exception to that is the emergency treatment fund with the federal government which ex which is out of money and completed by tomorrow. I think April 1st is when it ends. Um but there's no contract between the city that requires an agency to the the motion before us is essentially the municipality using its spending and contract power to say even though we're not asking you to do something, you can't do something. Um, so I'll go to our staff for any additional context, but um um happy to get you as many answers as you need. Thank you and through your worship. That's correct. Uh the only reference to harm reduction uh kits or safe use gear is through the Health Canada contract and that is the ETF emergency treatment fund. Uh that actually expires today. Uh we do have uh some other contracts that uh are with regards to outreach. Uh those being at LOSA and London Cares, but neither of those uh contracts have any funds attached to uh the procurement or obtaining of any harm reduction kits. Go ahead, counselor. Thank you. So like I want to see open drug use in our core and throughout the city obviously reduce as much as anybody else does. And I want to see individuals get help as much as anybody else does. And I want to see that help actually get translated into reality. I want to see people actually have the resources um or the spaces to go to to get that help to actually get that real wraparound healthcare support to get that real, you know, pathway to treatment and recovery. I want to see all of that. But I also know that, you know, the more we confuse on who's responsible for what or who can do what, the worse it gets. We need to, you know, at this point in time really start to figure out that we we need to understand who's responsible. We need to understand what we can do, what we can't do, and what we are doing and what we are not doing. Um, a motion like this, I feel like, you know, fogs the the understanding of really what's going on here because we don't actually do this in the first place. Um, this comes from direction from the province. And I think that, you know, the more we kind of step in and say we can do this, we're going to save the day and then we can't because we don't even actually have the enforcability for it or the accountability for it. Um, that will confuse people more and that just muddies the water. Muddy muddies the waters here. I think we should really start kind of focusing on a more of a of an enlightenment kind of perspective. really kind of pointing out really who's responsible for what what we're trying to do, what the intent is, where the gaps are, what exists and what doesn't exist. And the more we do that and have that conversation, the more we can all have the same voice and point to the same entity who's responsible for these things and see if we can actually get some proper movement here. So, I'm not going to support the motion. I I I want to see, you know, uh nobody openly use in the city and in the core. I want to see that. This motion is not going to solve that. This motion is just going to confuse and this motion is going to get us further away from actually seeing a real tangible change for the good. So I can't support the motion as it is. Okay. Any other speakers to this amendment? Go ahead councelor Troab. Well through the chair thank you so much for what you just said because um it needed to be said. I do have a question though for staff. um civic administration be directed to implement the following restrictions. How how how do you read that? What what exact if this passes what exactly would you do to implement this? And it's with with respect to all city services all city services and all organizations receiving funding. So how would you implement this? There just be a second uh to let them confer counselor. Okay, go ahead. Uh thank you and through your worship. I think we we'd need to take it back and take an assessment of you know what we do fund and make make determinations on any future contracts. Uh I wonder if my colleague Mr. Latiser might wish to add anything to that. Go ahead, Mr. Lacer. Through your worship, currently we don't uh we don't offer funding as was uh mentioned earlier. It's um it's um somewhat uh related to harm reduction in the current existing contracts. We could ask uh certainly our outreach partners. Um, but it gets into whether or not we have the legal ability to restrict uh them from doing it outside of the contract that they hold with the city. So, that would be I would suggest a legal question as well. Councelor Chos, I'm I'm wondering if the solicitor would like to add to that last piece so I don't have to ask my next question. I can see if uh that's possible. Go ahead. Uh thank you and through you. I think um certainly if council wanted uh some additional legal advice we could give it. I think we would have to go through the contracts and look at how much we could uh sort of micromanage what our service provider pro providers are doing. Um again it's it's it's difficult because we're not currently funding these. So, um, we're sort of dealing with, uh, proving a negative. Uh, thank you. And, and based to the chair, based on your last, um, response and the one that came before that, I would suggest that this is a, um, I'm trying to choose my words very carefully so as not to have to deal with the point of privilege here. But I just I just don't think this is a viable motion. The way it's written, I don't think we can do this. I think it would be a burden on staff and I'm not sure it well I'm sure it doesn't make any sense from a policy point of view but as drafted I think it's uh it's not necessary because we're not doing it but we're going to do it anyway because somebody wants to make the point. So I really I really hope that people don't support this. I am not going to ask the further question to the solicitor as to whether we would even have the authority to pass this because I don't want to have to go into a clo close session to to discuss this. I think I know what the answer to that is, but I'm not going to put everybody through that. So, I'm I'm just going to say this this is uh an illconceived, poorly drafted, likely illegal and not practical uh motion. That's just my opinion. I'll say that's in my opinion all those things I just said. So ple please please please don't support this. We need to come together as a community and think about what our positive response is going to be to the many challenges that we're facing. I feel that this is overly overly divisive and it's not going to result in any in any additional enforcement tools. Uh the the final question I have is say somebody is agrieved and feels as if uh an agency has violated these rules. We're we're we're saying that you can't do this if you're a funded agency. What mechanism are we going to put into place to uh test such allegations should they arise? So I can go to our staff but I think their answer was they don't know that yet. um they would have to basically think about that and see what would be possible. But go ahead, Mr. Liser. Yeah, through your worship. I think we'd have to take it back and evaluate the current contracts and the legalities around those contracts as well. So to give an answer at this point, I think we'd have to do a bit more research into it. And these contracts for the chair are expiring when? I'll go to Miss Wilcox uh through your worship. The ETF agreement uh expires March 31st, so today. Uh there are other agreements. So the the ones noted uh with ATLOSA and London Cares, those were part of the extension that was approved by council uh a couple of cycles ago, but they're not with regards to the ETF. So, I would add to my objections that we're even if we passed this and even if there was a good reason to pass it, we wouldn't be getting a lot of value out of it uh in comparison to the amount of uh undetermined staff work that this would take. And that you don't have to respond to that. That's just another good reason in my opinion to just reject this motion. Thank you very much. Okay. And I appreciate uh counselor that you tried to square it into my opinion. I'm still going to just caution colleagues that you can oppose something. You can say you disagree with it. You can say you don't think it's good public policy. Try not to say things like it's poorly drafted. Um you know, a number of colleagues will get support from clerks in some cases and others and and are trying to draft uh pieces that council can deal with. Um, so appreciate everything you said, but let's just, you know, I don't want to have to deal with points of personal privilege and things like that. So, appreciate that's on people's minds, but we can avoid those with just cautious language and thinking that colleagues are uh are are doing their best to get things before us that we can act on. I'll go to councelor Pribble and then councelor Ramen. Thank you, chair. I will not be supporting what's in front of us. As already stated, uh the community organization is already working with our London police services already one section of Dundas or downtown Dundas place and uh uh the organization is open uh to enlarge the area. So I really think that for us to achieve something we don't have to always pass a motion. We have two great organizations or a couple of them that are working together already and uh they are open-minded to enlarge this area. So therefore I don't think this is necess necessary in addition to the other points that were stated in last five minutes. I will not be supporting it. Thank you chair. Councelor Ramen. Uh thank you and through you and I mean it's not often that councelor PL and I agree completely but that was one of those moments. So thank you councelor Purbble for what you just said. Um I will say uh I I think we had some discussion about this. The opera operationalization of this motion is quite challenging. But what I agree has happened is um that through the discussion we were able to hear about those collaborations that are already happening, the conversations that are already taking place, which I always think is great in the public space to be able to have those types of conversations. So I won't be supporting what's in front of us. I I don't think that it it it's operational. It can be operationalized at all at this point. Um and would require quite a bit of work from our staff who have a number of items in front of them already. So, thanks for the time. Okay. Any other speakers? All right. So, this is on the amendment um that's uh before you. I'm going to open that for voting. Council votes no. closing the vote. Motion fails 2 to 13. Okay. So, back to the uh item as it came through committee uh which was put on the floor by council ramen. Any other speakers to that? Okay, seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Council app votes. Yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Go ahead, councelor Ramen. Thank you. That concludes my report. Great. Thank you for that. Um, next up we have the fifth report of the strategic priorities and policy committee. I will have Deputy Mayor Lewis present that report. Thank you. Your worship and through you. Uh, I have been asked to deal with item five, that's the draft economic development strategy, uh, separately. Uh, councelor Steven wishes to vote uh, in the negative as she did at committee. Uh otherwise I have had no other requests to pull items. Uh so I'll look to see if anything else needs to be pulled before I move one through four, six, seven, and eight. Okay. Is anybody So five is going to be dealt with separately. Anybody want anything else dealt with separately? Okay. Seeing none, looks like you can move that motion then. All right. Then I will move 1 through 4 and 6 through 8. All right. Those items are on the floor. Any discussion on those items? Okay, I don't see anybody with discussion, so we're going to open that for voting. Council of purple votes yes. Councelor Stevenson. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. And your worship. I'm now prepare prepared to put item five. This is the draft economic development strategy on the floor. All right, that's on the floor. Any discussion on that? I see none. So, we'll open that for voting. Council votes. Yes. Motion carries 14 to1. And that your worship concludes the fifth report of SPC. Um we're on to infrastructure and corporate service committee. Coun council McGaller, were you intending to present have the vice chair to present or were you going to present that remotely? Uh no, my intention was for councelor Frank to present that. All right, councelor Frank, you're prepared to present uh this report. Thank you. Yes, it is a gift. Uh, so I have many items to be pulled. Uh, I have pull requests for item 10, 11, uh, for the staff circulated edit, uh, 14, 15, 16, and 19. And I'm not sure if there's any others. I can repeat myself though cuz I think some people Okay, so 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, and 19 to be pulled. I'm not sure if there's any others. Well, let me just check to see. So right now we're going to deal with 10 11 14 15 16 and 19 separately. Is everybody okay? Does anybody want anything else separately? 16. I don't see any. So why don't you make a motion then? Sure. Yes. I will make a motion then to uh move the remainder of the items. Okay. So, just for clarity, we're going to have 1 through 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, and 20 through 23. All moved by councelor Frank. I'll look to see if there's discussion on any of those items. You don't need a secondary. Okay, we're just going to need need a second to get all this up. All right, I have myself on the list for one item. Um, I'll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, I will take the chair and recognize Mayor Morgan. So, uh, colleagues, I'm going to comment on item 23, which is the contracts related to the Nwave, uh, steam service transitions. Uh, I didn't speak at committee. Uh, I actually had a call with the provincial government, uh, to get to. Uh, but I just want to express my extreme uh, disappointment uh, in how this has played out. Um, this is a significant amount of taxpayer dollars that we will tie up in providing boiler services to multiple municipal buildings across the downtown. Uh, a service that when you have a utility providing a service, you expect to be there for the foreseeable future. Uh, not only has the low pressure steam line been decommissioned, but segments of the medium pressure steam line have. And now uh we're hearing that uh further um segments of the medium pressure steam line that will likely include places like RBC Place will be impacted beyond the costs in this budget here. Every time we spend a dollar on something like this, we don't have a dollar to spend on say the downtown plan when it comes forward or the economic development plan or fixing roads or sewers or parks or bridges. And this is a significant amount of money. We're not talking about, you know, a few hundred,000. we're talking about approaching, you know, $15 million without without the costs of places like RBC Place and and others impacted. And that is one of the frustrations as well. We are not even aware of the private sector impacts of other buildings because there's no obligation for Nwave to disclose that to us. You know, we know the public sector buildings because we've received the notices on those and we know partners have shared with us. But this is a this is a situation that you would think would be untenable in, you know, a modern city with a modern downtown, right? Other regulated entities aren't able to do this in the same way that this particular entity is. And I continue to say to the executives at Nwave, you got to financially contribute. This shouldn't be on the backs of the taxpayers. We got more than enough good things to spend money on in this city. filing boilers to provide heat to our buildings because a service wasn't able to be continued by a utility that was providing that for multiple decades. You know, that's not a good use of our money. That's not a good use of our time and it's completely unacceptable. So I will continue to be very clear to Nwave and I will continue to advocate to the province to say this is not a situation that any major downtown should be able to face and unregulated entities like this need to have some level of oversight in the future to avoid this from happening. That being said, we're stuck with the current regulations today, which are pretty much none. And there's no choice but to uh move forward with the item before us because we have to provide heat to the buildings. You know, notice has been given. We're not going to have that option in the future. So, we don't have a choice but to spend this money. But I think, and it's my opinion, Nwave should be paying these costs, not us. And that's my expectation of them. Whether we have any legislative ability to make them, we don't. But it's still the right thing to do. And I still call on Nwave executives to make a financial contribution to these public assets because they're no longer able to provide the service. To me, that's just fair. And that's being a good corporate citizen in a downtown core of our city. And I want to say like downtowns are in different states of recovery across the country. ours we're investing a lot of money in whether it's the open air drug strategy whether it's the investments in uh Canada life place whether it's our activations whether it's the plans we're coming forward the quick start actions all of that can be set back when you stick municipal partners and private sector businesses with a significant bill at a time when they can least afford to do it from our perspective it ties up our money that we can't use elsewhere on the private sector you've got struggling businesses and business property owners downtown trying to get people to grow their businesses, trying to recruit people back to the core who are now spending sign significant capital dollars on heating their buildings or transitioning to boiler systems. You know, it's just the impact is too great on the downtown right now. And I wanted to stand today and express my extreme disappointment uh in Nwave uh for providing these notices and discontinuing the service. Thank you, worship. I will return the chair to you noting we have councelor Trussau and councelor Ferrer on the speakers list. Councelor Trussau. Go ahead. Thank you. Um through the through the chair uh I want to agree with and applaud everything that was just said by the mayor. I I think we've been left in a terrible situation here. We have to do this work. I mean I know what this means for the library and the museum. We have to do this work. We can't not do this work. and we're not in a position to negotiate. Well, I think we do. We are. I'll I'll get to that in a second. But I just feel that we've really been treated very poorly here and we're being we're being backed into a corner where we have to make what I think are very excessive expenses and I don't know what we can do. So my procedural question is is is passing this today without prejudice is passing this today without prejudice to our ability to seek redress from uh the company later. So, councelor I I'm first off, I'm not given any sort of advice because I'm not an obst. But let me just clarify what's before us. before us is not any sort of acceptance of a position like the notice has been provided. We're going to have to issue contracts to actually complete the work to actually heat our buildings. Um and so uh I don't I don't see this as related to any other um any other things that you might be contemplating because at the end of the day, you know, we know we have to provide heat to these buildings and civic administration responsibly is bringing forward the transparent and clear costs to us doing so um because we've been given the notice that the service is being terminated upon a certain date under the provisions of the contracts that that exist. So I I don't know if anything could be added. I don't want to speculate on anything else, but I just wanted to be clear what's before us today. And um I don't know if I see Miss Plet nodding that that's the case. You have nothing to add. Uh thank you and through your worship. I I think that's an accurate statement. um these these contracts are are uh critical to maintaining the the heating and so um I don't see that it would uh have implications other than that. Go ahead counselor. Thank you. And that that answers my question. I'm certainly going to support this because we have to do it. And uh in terms of whether there might be something coming else later, that uh remains to be seen. So, thank you very much. And thank you very much. And I'm very satisfied to just vote yes on this for now. I was I was thinking of adding an amendment saying that we refer this. I'm not going to uh do anything. I think this is fine. Thank you, Councelor Ferrer. You can go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. Uh, so I agree with everything that you said and I this is one that I struggle to keep my inside voice in um and my outside voice out because you know as you correctly said downtown has got a lot of struggles and now we have this extra one which is huge when it comes uh to the financial implications here with the city but not just with the city with you know private residences. You got um condos who have already high condo fees and now they're are scrambling to figure out how are they going to maintain heat. Um and it just seems as though that you know Enwave did inform us that we were going to get some help or we were going to get any type of support. I don't see that. Uh I remember when Enwave first made the announcement for the low pressure line. um they gave a very comprehensive uh understanding and and and information that really showed that they were working on this for a very long time and yet they told us a couple days before they made the announcement and I I didn't really like that. That was a very clear indication of you know you know what's going on. You could give us a little bit of runway or at least help us understand so we can at least budget a little bit further down the road. And I said this when I was speaking with Enwave as well like you know you you clearly have been working on this for a while. Why are you telling us now? and didn't really get any answers for that. And then I said, and I think I said this on the public record too, I would expect that if this is what I've seen already, it's probably going to happen again. And then we get the medium pound pressure line being shut down. And the same thing, very short notice on that. And clearly a lot of work. So they probably knew about it for a long period of time, maybe even when they said they were decommissioning the low pressure line and Nway purchasing London District Energy only a few years back. Where was the due diligence there? Did they not see that the infrastructure was, you know, crumbling? It was too expensive to to repair. I I just I have questions and I see a lot of the things that are happening. You know, it would be it would be helpful if the city were at least informed a little bit more. Um and it would be helpful if there was at least, you know, um at least some type of move or some type of understanding that there's a lot of people impacted here. There's thousands of people that are impacted here and all of the taxpayers of London and city and city hall. So, you know, I agree with everything the mayor said because we have, you know, plans that we're trying to implement and we need money to implement them and this is taking away from that cash. So, I'm really, you know, I'm disappointed, frankly, of just kind of what we've seen. And again, I really hope that if there is another decommissioning of the line, which we just got a recent one, and again, you know, uh when I reached out to Enwave saying, "Hey, can you at least let us know of some of the properties, uh who are eventually going to reach out to me so at least I could be prepared?" No privacy act. Okay. Thank you. I'll find out anyways. Um but it would be nice if we could at least get a little bit more leeway or a little bit of support like you say that you're going to give us. So, I agree with everything that was said. struggle for me to keep that in that outside voice outside. So, I'll just maybe leave it there before I go off the rails, but I appreciate uh everything and uh yeah, thanks. All right. Any other speakers to all the items before us? All right. Seeing none, then we can open that for Council Prible. Second call. Council Pribble. Marking Council PL absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 140. Go ahead. Councelor Frank. Thank you. I'll put item 10 on the floor, the contract award for Hibbury Avenue South Reconstruction. and council Mallister indicated he had a an amendment. Council Mallister, go ahead. Uh, thank you. And sorry, this was a late addition so I can I can read it out for council. I did have it circulated, but just so uh everyone can uh hear it. Okay. So, um that the motion mended uh to add a new part that reads as follows. H the transfer of responsibility to the province of Ontario for Hibbury Avenue from Temps River South Branch to the south city limits be endorsed by city council and this resolution be forwarded to the ministry of transportation. Yes. And I've agreed to second that for councelor McAllister. So if you want to provide some commentary you can. Uh thank you. And through the mayor um I first off u I want to thank our mayor as well as Mayor St. Thomas Warden of Fullan um and then all the city staff uh from again uh city of London Elgen St. Thomas. Um this is one of those rare opportunities. Um we're all in uh agreement. Um I think there's good alignment in terms of this being something that we want the province uh to take on. Um hybrid was downloaded to us in 91. Um we've all kind of had our respective struggles with it in terms of having to upgrade that infrastructure. Uh and as part of the discussion you know we're having today um you know we're having to allocate the 27.5 million dollars and this was a project as we talked about at committee um where we had to save up for a few years to do this. Um so it's a big undertaking. Um I'm at apologies for my absence today. I am at good roads. Um and we had a very productive conversation with the Ministry of Transportation this morning. Our delegation was very wellreceived and the reason why I'm bringing this forward to you today uh for council's consideration is uh the province said in terms of their next step that they wanted to see uh council endorsements um from city of London, Elgen and St. Thomas um to ensure that you know we collectively are agreeing that this is something that we would like the province to take on. Um I I know from my perspective, I'm not going to speak for any of my other colleagues. I'm curious to hear what people have to say, but um this is a road where we see a lot of opportunity. Um obviously Power Co gets a lot of attention, but all along hybrid um there is a lot of potential in terms of the economic growth and so uploading this uh I think is very important um from a regional point of view in terms of uh the future for our whole area. Um I think this is something we as a council should endorse. uh the province is very keen on it. Uh and so I would highly uh encourage my colleagues to support this. We rarely get opportunities to upload things to the province. So um this is one of those rare moments where I really think we need to take advantage of it and uh I hope I can get your support. So I'll leave it there and thank you uh to the mayor for seconding this. I know he's done a lot of advocacy um with our colleagues at Elen and St. Thomas as well. So thank you. Yes. And I have myself next on list. We'll turn it over to Deputy May Lewis to chair. Thank you, your worship. I'll take the chair again and please go ahead. Yes. So, I hope colleagues support uh the amendment. As you've heard, um uh this is something that the province is seeking from us, St. Thomas and Elgen County. uh uh those two jurisdictions will pass uh or take similar uh resolutions to their councils to align with the province's desire to see uh more breadth of support than just the mayors and wardens coming and asking them to do something but they want to see uh some endorsement from municipal councils. Uh which I think is a very positive step in the process and discussion. Uh I will say uh I'll tell you where this came from. Um I have a regular set of meetings uh with our regional partners. uh as you know operating as a region you know economically um from a transportation perspective from a planning perspective and thinking about how this region grows and moves people around together is something that has been a priority of mine and a priority of my other colleagues uh in the region we have a regular set of meetings. one of the meetings when we brainstormed how we could work together on regional transportation and again thanks to this council in the most recent budget for supporting um in partnership with the province and others uh transportation between our cities through the middle sex connect transportation service but this is an important transportation corridor that we both recognize both us Elgen and St. Thomas all see a need to make improvements to hybrid road in the future as an important economic corridor. And as we discussed the possibility of aligning EAS across multiple jurisdictions, you know, the idea came up that this used to be a provincial highway and this could be coordinated much better as a critical economic corridor as a provincial asset. And us all being in agreement, we set out uh the approach to see if there was interest. Minister Flack is on record saying um this is a great idea. Uh as the Minister for the Region, I think it's really great to have his support. That doesn't mean it automatically gets done. It means it's in goodstead with the provincial process. So today's vote is a great next step much later in the process to say we've got enough interest that we've got to formalize these endorsements from the local civic governments. Uh and then we'll we'll discuss the next step. So, I want to thank uh councelor McAllister uh for representing us at Good Roads. I asked him uh to be there rather than here in the city for this council meeting so that he could do that delegation. Uh and I appreciate the the good work and thanks to uh the mayor of St. Thomas and uh and Elgen County for supporting you in that joint delegation as well. So, um I'll ask for my colleagues support on this and look forward to the next step. Thank you, your worship. I will return the chair to you. I have no one else on the speakers list at this time. Okay. Any other speakers? This is on the amendment as is now moved and seconded as councelor Mallister articulated. I see no one else. So we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Okay. And now I need uh an as amended motion. Councelor Frank, you were presenting. Councelor Verberan, you're willing to second the as amended. Uh so this is for the all of the clauses altogether. Any discussion on on that? Okay, we're going to open that for voting. Motion carries 13 to1. Okay, councelor Frank, go ahead. Thank you. I'll put item 11, the contract award for the consulting engineer for Western Road and Cernney Road on the floor as there was a typographical error that's been circulated and uh needs approval. Do you have the amendment before you so you can just read it out? Oh, will we can Oh, let me read it out for you. Uh that the motion be amended in part B to correct the amount of the approved project contingency to 1.3 million excluding HST. Uh the number is incorrect in the in the document. So that's the correct amount. So I'll second that. So it's moved by um councelor Frank and seconded. Yes. Councelor Troa. Yeah. I I just through the chair want to briefly say how pleased I am that this is finally coming to our table and it looks like we're going to be making progress on this. Um I I think we were just uh in our first couple of meetings in this council term where we were still working on the plans for this. So I'm just so pleased that um it there's been some bumps and there's been some minor I'd say minor disagreements, but this is just uh wonderful. I already see that work is is being done on very badly uh potentially life-saving work is being done on Philip Aiz. So this is this is just great news that this is that this is here. So, thank you to everybody that worked on this and thank you for bringing this forward. Okay. So, again on the uh amendment, any other speakers? No, we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 140. All right. Councelor Frank, you move the as amended. I'll second. Okay. So, as amended now, any further discussion. Okay, that as amended motion is now going to be open for voting. and councelor Pribble. Second call council councelor Pribble marking the councelor absent. Councelor Mallister thank you closing the vote. Motion carries 140. Councelor Frank. Thank you. I'll put item 14, respectful workplace policy on the floor. It was requested for pulled uh from councelor Stevenson. Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Councelor Stevenson. Yes, thank you. I'll just make it quick. I I'm not going to be uh accepting this report. I don't think it even comes close to being an adequate response to the concerns that were ri raised regarding harassment um over the last year or two. I mean, there were some real issues that were raised and um this this report that only addresses one piece of the reporting and that I I just Anyway, I'm just disappointed that uh this is all that the response is to what was raised. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Councelor Traso. Uh, thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carried 13 to1. Uh, Eastcribe is having some issues. Okay. Go ahead, Councelor Frank. Thank you. I'll put item 15, revised respectful workplace policy on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor. Uh, councelor Stevenson, I see your hand up. Yeah, thank you. I made a submission and I made comments at committee, so I'm not going to belabor it here, but again, there have been concerns raised around what's in and not in and how this policy has been interpreted and applied in the past, and so I will not be receiving uh or uh approving these revisions to a policy that has uh so many apparent issues with it. Okay, any other speakers? Okay, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. Councelor Frank. Thank you. I'll put item 16, final program design for better homes London on the floor. All right, that's on the floor. Any discussion? Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to1. Thank you. I'll put uh the final item, item number 19, Smart Commute London, on the floor. Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 12-2. Councelor Frank. All done. Perfect. Thank you very much. Uh that brings us to the planning and environment uh committee. I'll have chair layman present that report. Thank you, mayor. Um please support the fifth report of the planning environment committee uh on the floor. I have had a request to pull uh item 13 and no other uh items have been requested to be pulled. All right. Anybody want anything else pulled? Item 13 is going to be dealt with separately. Anything else? Okay. Seeing none, you can make a motion then. So I'll I'll move all those items. I'll move uh 1 through 12 and 14 through 16. Okay. So 1 through 12, 14, 15, and 16 are on the floor. Councelor Hopkins, you have some comments. Yes. Uh thank you, your worship. I just want to make a comment on number 11, which is 6712 James Street. I want to thank the the committee uh for adding a um an amendment that I presented. This is a development in my ward. There are many many trees coming down with this development and the committee did support uh that they would use um an added direction uh to use best efforts to offset the anticipate pay to tree loss in uh from this uh development hopefully finding other developments that we can add extra trees in. So thank you to the committee and councelor Fro. Thanks mayor. Um I just wanted to make a comment on item 10 for 325 Grey Street. Uh just a thanks from the resident, one of the sweetest human beings around. Um she came to my office uh just requesting um an issue with her fence and I really appreciate uh the report adding the communication from Zelinka that Blue Cactus Holding is is going to repair that fence. So my sincere appreciations on behalf of the resident um and thank you. Okay. Any other speakers to this grouping? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 14 to zero. Councelor Layman. Uh, thank you, Mayor. Hold on one sec. You're okay. All right. Sorry, we just had to wrap that up. Go ahead. Yeah. Okay. Uh, so I will put 13, which is regarding 929 Cheap Cheapside Street on the floor. Uh, Deputy Mayor asked us for this to be pulled. Okay. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Uh, thank you, chair. So, the reason I've asked for this one to be pulled is to make a referral on this. uh that the application for from 929 Cheapside Inc. Monteth Brown Planning Consultants related to the property at 929 Cheapside Street be referred back to civic administration to allow for the submission and review of a re revised application addressing elements of the requested special provisions in the original application including but not limited to the parking ratio and that civic administration report back to a future meeting of the planning and environment committee on the revised application. It being noted that the applicant has requested this referral and has voluntarily committed in writing and on the public agenda dated today to suspend any appeal to the Ontario Land Tribunal for a non-decision for a period of 90 days. And I believe I have a second and councelor Hopkins. Then I'll speak to it. Councelor Hopkins nods that she's willing to second. So that referral is on the floor. I'll uh I'll if you want to speak to it now, you can. Yeah, I'll speak to it now. Um colleagues, I think it's very important that we send this back, particularly given the applicants indicated and put on the public agenda uh that they will not appeal for a non-decision. I think we have to look at the very specific staff recommendation that was refused at committee. There were three components to that. Clause A was a base level zoning. Clause B dealt with the special provisions and was actually recommended by staff as a refusal. and we've refused the refusal and then we also voted down the site plan uh the matters to be referred to site plane. uh we've actually put ourselves in my opinion in a very tenuous position uh with respect to the Ontario land tribunal but also uh with respect to the base layer zoning uh had we upheld the staff recommendation and refused the special provisions uh the applicant would not have been able to move forward uh until they could have met conditions that would have not required those special provisions. However, we we did not do that. uh we voted the whole thing down the the approval of the base zoning as well as the refusal of the special provisions. Uh so I'm going to suggest particularly as the applicant has indicated um that they're prepared to bring forward a revised plan um that will address the parking deficiency uh as well as uh the paratransit layby concerns and actually reduce the building footprint and unit count. Uh I think that this should be referred back to civic administration to review. That doesn't mean that civic administration is going to come back necessarily with a re recommendation to approve it all. But what it will allow them to do is have time to do the technical analysis of the revised plan and bring forward a new recommendation to us that we can then consider because I think the alternative as has been indicated by the applicant in their written submission uh is that this will go to the OLT and we are not in a position in my opinion to defend what committee voted on in actually refusing the refusals. So, I think that we should uh be consistent with things that with similar applications that we've received in councelor Hopkins ward as one of a number uh and I know she and I discussed that. Um but I think we need to be consistent where we're uh looking at the base layer zoning and the London plan framework and then the special provisions that come in on an application. So, I'm asking for your support to refer this back. Other speakers, councelor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you and thank you to the deputy mayor for uh bringing this motion forward. I am going to be seconding. I think it's very very important that we uh are consistent. I was disappointed in the recommendation coming out of the planning and environment committee. I had grave concerns about the appeal that could have taken place. really pleased to hear that the applicant is willing to refine this application and have an extended period of time that will not take us um that he uh the applicant won't take us to the appeal process. I think it's really important that we make decisions in London for London. So um pleased that the applicant is willing to have those conversations. I also want to thank the community too for their involvement in the application. I know there uh we received a lot of um responses from uh residents. It's important that we hear from the community and I hope the community too um learns about the process and what we can and can't do as a municipality. Uh I uh want to thank staff too. Uh partial refusal. I didn't hear much of a conversation about that at planning. Uh I know uh staff uh did a lot of work uh on this application. So thanks to staff for their work and uh again hoping uh council will support the referral. I have councelor Stevenson online. Thank you. Um, and thanks to the members who are there in the gallery, um, the residents I should say that are there in the gallery and that have been communicating, uh, as with the tenacity that they have over the last little while. This one has been a challenging one. And, um, you know, I've heard really loudly from the neighborhood that they believe that six stories is too high. And when I looked into it, that only just came to pass uh, last July. So, it's a very recent change. Um, and the council passed it in the September of 2024, but it didn't get enacted until the province did the approval in July of 2025. So, it's a really recent change. So, when we say, well, they're allowed to do six stories, and that's what I understood. I didn't realize that it was so recent. I also, when I went back and looked at the public notice and the communication, it wasn't really clear. And um even in table 11 which uh shows it it's this piece of property. It's a neighborhood connector. It fronts onto a neighborhood connector. And then there's a neighborhood connector on one side of it and a neighborhood street on the other. So the connection you the intersection of two neighborhood connectors allows it to be six stories. But the other side of the property is a neighborhood street and a neighborhood connector which usually only allows four stories. And so I I really think that this is something that the that is going to impact neighborhoods across our city that um residents really didn't have this discussion as to whether they wanted this in their neighborhoods and whether they were okay with six stories. So that's the part that has me concerned is that we say we've given them up to six stories. When I when I emailed back and forth with staff and thank you for all the emails back and forth, they say, "Well, it's not uh a given that you can go to six stories, you know, it's up to." But then we get told, "Oh, well, uh, at the OOLT, it's like you got to have a really good reason to not allow six stories." So as we go forward and we set you know blanket zoning and blanket uh regulations I think the public public opinion in my understanding of it has changed in the last couple of years. This rush to build units and to want uh more density everywhere. There's a real pullback on it and we're seeing it in other cities as well in Calgary and in Windsor where they're saying no. Point of order. Go ahead. Point of order. We have a referral on the floor. The council's debating now uh the height plan review that was conducted over a year ago. Um if we can stick to the referral, please one second. Yeah. So I I actually gonna agree with you, Deputy Merror, at the start. I think the counselor was pretty clearly on the referral has has kind of strayed from that now. So to uh councelor Stevenson, um this is a referral back um as described in the uh as described on on the in the motion. So if you could keep it tight to the rational for either supporting or or not supporting the referral um that would be beneficial to your colleagues. Yeah. No, and I understand that. But there is a bigger picture again when we make these decisions. um there's a bigger picture in mind and it is impacting other and it will continue to impact neighborhoods across our city. So, you know, I really appreciate the developers willingness to make changes, but we still have this issue of changes that were passed and made and what are the implications going forward. Um I am concerned about what the deputy mayor said. I I may support this referral. Um, I'm going to listen to the rest of the debate, but I will be speaking with the residents and uh the public in general and really trying to understand what it is that we've done in the changes that we've made and the impacts that these are going to have across our city and what our options are when a revised plan comes forward. Yep. Just uh you're just starting to stray there again. So, I appreciate you wrapping wrapping it up. Uh other speakers to the referral. Go ahead, Council Troa. Well, I'm I'm glad to the chair that we're not talking about passing this tonight because I think that would be something that I would not be willing to um support. I'm not sure about the referral. Um my problem with the referral is if we do a referral, are we going to be able to have another public participation meeting with respect to uh the the the many amendments that are going to be made? Go ahead. Thank you. Through your worship. Yes, that's correct. There will be another public participation meeting. Go ahead, councelor Tro. Well, I'm always worried about the deadline, but it it sound it sounds as if we have um something in writing. My worry about sending this back is I would prefer and I think it would be cleaner to just reject this application, which of course would be without prejudice to them uh bringing bringing it back. If if going the route of referral um the if going the route of referral may may save us the the expense and risk of of uh litigation, I'm I'm good for that. But my sense is when all is said and done, if we don't give the developer what the developer wants at the end of the process, he's going to take us anyway. So, um, I I I guess I would like to get some guidance. I guess I would Could you just stop my time for a second? I'm just going to look this way cuz I'm getting better vibes over here. Um, I guess I'm just going to um say that I'm uncomfortable with the referral, but uh what I would like to know from staff is how much of a risk would it be to just say no to this understanding that the developer can come back and um just just refile an application that has the changes in it. May I ask that? Yes. So, let me let me just provide some uh context for our staff and their response to this. I think just for you to help preface your comments. I think part of the the questions that I I'm hearing from colleagues is committee says no. Um I think there's members of the community very happy with no. One of the concerns that the deputy mayor raised in the referral was when we said no, we created a bit of a double negative. staff were actually layering on some significant restrictions in part B of the clause. if we just say it right now and we it goes to the OOLT that there could be some level of risk that we've taken no position on those restrictions and obviously you can't predict what would happen at the OOLT but um I think the counselors are trying to ask you know is it good to do the referral to not only have a discussion about what might be there and that there would still be public engagement but how does that relate to any sort of OOLT proceeding and I don't know how far you can comment on that I think that would be helpful to all of us if to provide some context within that space through your worship. Um if should this go to the OLT the the report itself the planning report would be the evidence that would be provided and so those matters that uh the planner would report on would be dealing with those special provisions that are outlined. So we'd look at the the property as a whole. Um having said that the the chair or the member of OLT would have to take those matters into consideration but there was always a counterpart um representative of the applicant. So really it is it's a 50/50 chance. Um but ideally um they would be looking at the policy framework being provincial planning statement, the official plan being the London plan, the zoning framework um in terms of what those permissions are. What isn't in the um recommendation and what we've heard from the public is about the height and uh so height is of six stories is a permitted uh permission within the London plan and so there wouldn't be that debate um at the OOLT. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm inclined not to support the referral although I still want to hear the rest of the debate. I I I just I just want to tell people in the neighborhood through the chair that I think that these are the types of issues that come up all the time. And one of the things that I'm worried about is don't if this gets referred don't let it wear you down. You got to you got to come back and come to the next meeting through the chair of course. But um I'm I'm very impressed with uh with the quality of the comments that I've received and I'm I'm very concerned about this project. I represent. I'm just across the way in Adelaide. And uh I have very similar concerns um from my neighbors in uh Old North and and elsewhere. So I really think that um I'm glad to see this is not going through tonight, but um I guess we're not I guess one way or another we're not done with it. So there we are. Other speakers. Go ahead. Councelor Ramen. Uh, thank you. And on the referral, um, I just wanted to get clarification because I think I'm understanding this differently, um, related to a potential, uh, how how this would be perceived by a tribunal on this matter. Um so my understanding is that whatever decision we render today they would look at the entirety of the application which includes the special provisions which were recommended for refusal and the part on the zoning which was uh recommended for acceptance. Um they would look at the response from the committee uh which was uh non-support and any decision we made at council and from there they would look at all those that information as evidence and make a decision. I understand what staff is saying on the six stories. I do believe though is there not a way for us to clean that up? Uh so I'll go I'll go back so back to to the question about the tribunal is uh in the in the request for the refusal through the amendment that was brought forward uh it seemed as though the decision between or the the information around the acceptance of the zoning and the refusal of the special provisions was going to be seen as decoupled. But my understanding is these are all part of the same application. So when they're looked at, they're looked at as a whole in the application, not decoupled into set sections in the conversation. I'm just trying to get clarity. I don't know if that was clear to you, but go ahead. Thank you. Through your worship. Yes, that's correct. That'll be looking at the application as a whole. What the applicant submitted was with those special provisions um to allow the reductions that staff did not support. So that would be that we'll say debate at uh at the OOLT um it'll be the staff position and their opinion um which may is contrary to the applicant's position. Thank you through you. So I read this as uh as contemplated as a partial refusal. But I actually think then to follow that chain of thought then the decision coming out of planning uh and then whatever decision this council makes um and let's say in this case the speculate that it's not approved then to me that's actually a stronger case for saying we don't support what was proposed at this time. the way that it was conceived and brought forward. I think where it creates a challenge is actually supporting the referral because if we support the referral then we're saying well there were portions that yes we all agreed with but coming out of committee committee did not agree with those things and having listened to that discussion at committee I actually think I'm more comfortable not supporting a referral because I think it creates a level of indecision that actually creates a harder case to take to the OOLT. We had a strong recommendation coming out of PEC and that was not to support this. So we weaken our position if we don't if we move forward with the referral. That's just the way I read the situation. I'll add myself to the list. I'll um have Councelor Frank chair. Thank you. in recognizing the mayor. So I appre So this is a really good discussion because I think there's a number of us who are trying to um support some concerns in the community but we have a bit of a difference of thought on might what might be the best way to do that cuz here's my understanding of the OLT process. The city gets standing and the developer gets standing and the kind people in the gallery don't uh get to say anything there. And so if it goes to the OOLT through refusal, basically what's going to happen is our staff are going to talk, the developers going to present their original piece and someone there is going to figure all this out. Um, and I don't disagree with Council Ramen that we can be pretty definitive on our position, but we basically leave it up in the air. And what we do know is that there is a base there is a base um permission for six stories there. So that probably doesn't I don't know. I'm not going to predict what the OT will do, but basically that's that's that situation in what the deputy mayor is suggesting. Although I I would agree there's some risk that um we haven't really finalized the council position. We put it back into a process where we know there's a commitment not to appeal. There's a commitment to modify the development and there is a whole other opportunity for the public to say whether they like or not what comes out the other end of that process before we actually have to go to an appeal. And I although I respect what councelor Ramen said, I actually think that from the public's engagement perspective, that might be a better process to ensure that what comes out the other end might be a modified proposal that our staff have given planning committee feedback on the public has weighed in on. Then we go fight that at the perhaps or not. Maybe it's acceptable to the public, maybe it's not. Um, but I'm think I'm going to support the referral because I think that gives an opportunity to change the development and reduce the units, address some of these concerns, gives the public another opportunity to present with a revised application. And we're not just leaving it up to the OLT to decide with with no public standing whatsoever there. So, I I'm going to support the referral, not because I disagree with what some of my colleagues who support the referral say. I just think it gives another opportunity for modification. we don't have to we don't let someone at the OOLT decide the final piece on this yet and we give the public another opportunity for say on whatever comes out the other end. So I'll support the referral and uh uh this discussion won't won't be over but it'll be on something else and not what what's necessarily being been proposed originally by the developer. Thank you. And I'll return the chair back to the mayor. Okay, other speakers. Okay. So, this is on the referral. We're going to open that for voting. Council Roman, I'll vote no in my screen is frozen. Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to four. Council Layman. Um, thank you, mayor. That concludes the fifth report of the planning environment committee. Okay. So, the fifth report of planning committee is done. We have added reports now. Um, so we have two items that are coming out of in camera for public consideration and vote. Councelor Frank has kindly volunteered to kind of volunteered uh volunteered to read out the in camera uh piece. So I'll turn it to you councelor Frank. It's not that long. Six report of the council and close session. Your council closes session report. One, RBC Place double tree lease that on the recommendation of the city manager with respect to the RBC place double tree lease, the following actions be taken. A the request from London Convention Center Corporation with business name RBC Place London to enter into a lease agreement with Holloway Lodging Limited Partnership to lease space in the Double Tree Ballroom located at 300 King Street, London, Ontario from January 1st, 2028 to December 31st, 2030 if the purpose of doing so is for the object of the London Convention Center Corporation set out in subsection 22 of the London Act, City of London Act 1992, being to maintain, operate, manage manage market and promote the convention center for the benefit of the city and the people of the city of London be approved. And B, the civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps necessary in cond in connection with this lease extension. two property acquisition Hamilton Road/Southeast uh Tempame's River Parks that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager finance supports with the concurrence of the director of forest parks and forestry environment in infrastructure on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to part 8 concession 1 westminster and part 1 foot reserve abuing cardinal lane plan 747 designated as parts 4 and 25 on 33rd 9372 to except part 8 on plan 33r19767 being all of pin 08198-0136 and part lot 8B concession B Westminster designated as a park one on plan 33R18787 being all of pin 08198-0125 being the property in the city of London as shown on appendix B the following actions be taken a the offer submitted by Robert Klein, the vendor, to sell the subject subject property to the city for the sum of $235,720 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C and B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report here too as appendix A. That progress is made with respect to items 4.2 and 4.4 noted on the public agenda. Okay, that's presented. You're looks like you're presenting a report, so you get to stay there. And uh that's on the floor. Any discussion or debate on those two items from colleagues? If not, then we can vote on them. Okay, we'll open that voting. Did you know I've been I think so. Noting councelor Ferrer absent and councelor Traso absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay. Um we've got no deferred matters. We've got no inquiries that I see. Nope. Uh no emerent motions that were submitted. We're on to bylaws. We have a few pages of bylaws. And I think we can divide it up this way. We'll do bill. So, councelor Stevenson, I think you're online. Um, you I think you were contrary on bills 133, 137, and 141, but you were the only one. So, I could put those all together. So, if you want to vote against those bylaws, you could, and we could do those as a set, 133, 137, 141. Okay. Uh, councilors Van Mirburgen and Stevenson, I think you voted against the Wellington Gateway project and the East London and Len project bills 147 and 148. We could do those together if you guys are okay. And then we could do everything else and then the added bill. Um includes everything from camera. Okay. So everything plus the addeds from in camera would be next. That's kind of everything everybody agreed on. business that we just passed. And then the last thing we'll do is the uh licensing amendment that councelor Frank passed, which I think there might be some that's that's the alternate version of the bylaw, an amendment to the bylaw that based on the changes we made to the um the H12 thing. Okay. All right. So, we'll do it that way. I see everybody nodding. Great. This will be a lot faster by packaging them together that way. So, is there anybody who is good with everything we did today? Ah, usually it's the two of you. Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councelor Cuddy are going to move and second everything cuz they're very agreeable. Um, so we'll do that and we're going to do 1337 141. These are related to the items councelor Stevenson wanted separate. Uh, we'll do first reading of that. Closing the phone. Motion carries 12 to 1. Okay. And we'll do second reading. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. And third reading of the same bill. Same move and second. Motion carries 121. Okay. The next we'll do bills 147 and 148 related to the Wellington Gateway and East London Link. I'll have that moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis and seconded by Councelor Cy and we'll open first reading. What was that? Uh motion carries 112. Okay. Second reading of uh those two bills. Look for any discussion. Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 122. All right. Third reading of those bills. We'll open that for vote. Motion carries. 122. Okay, so now we have everything else including the addeds with the exception of the uh stuff related to um the Airbnb stuff. Um bit the business licensing piece just a Okay. So, so it's everything but that. I'll explain what that one is in a moment. Um, so if you you wanted to vote against that, it's not coming yet. It's everything else on the agenda, including the added now. Okay. So, this is uh first reading is going to open for voting. Motion carries 140. Okay, we'll open second reading. Is there any discussion on second reading? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 140. Third reading is open every voting. Motion carries 140. Okay. The final item we have is the businessing licensing bylaw item with the amendments that Council Frank um passed earlier. We'll open that for first reading. Motion carries 131 and second reading. Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Motion carries 131. Okay. Third and final reading. We will open that for voting. Motion carries 131. Okay, that concludes uh that concludes all of the items before us. I only have a motion to adjourn. Councelor Van Mirburgen and Councelor Ferrer moved and seconded. Uh we can do this one by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. All right, we're ajourned. Thank you. Enjoy watching the uh moon launch tomorrow. Tornado.

Full Transcript