Transcript: Approves Traffic and Transit Upgrades - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee - February 23, 2026 | Summary 553

Approves Traffic and Transit Upgrades - Infrastructure and Corporate Services Committee - February 23, 2026

Good afternoon everyone. We're going to get started with the fourth meeting of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. We'll start with a land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Inishabek, Hodnesoni, Lenopoic, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Matei, and Inuit. Today, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats uh and communication support for meetings upon request. To make a specific request uh a request specific to this meeting, sorry. Please contact ICClondo.ca or 509-661-2489 extension2425. Uh for those that are here or watching online, uh we're joined today by members of the committee, myself, councelor McAllister, councelor Stevenson, councelor Frank in chambers, and councelor Van Mirburg and online as well as visiting counselors. Uh I see councelor Layman, councelor Pribble, councelor Traso, and online councelor Cuy. So thanks everyone for being here. Uh we'll get started with item number one which is the disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none uh we'll move on to the consent items. I've been asked to pull a number. So I'm just going to read my poll list. Just a moment. Okay. So I've been asked to pull 2.2 2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, 210, and 213. Do I have any other poll requests? Okay, seeing none, uh then we'll look to craft a motion with all the remaining items and have uh members put that on the floor for discussion. Councelor Mallister, thank you. Councelor Frank, thank you. So that's item 2.124,25 26 27 211 and 21214 that are on the floor. Uh would anyone like to get us started on discussion? Okay, I have visiting counselors asking for time. I will go to councelor Perble first. Go ahead. Thank you very much and the chair to the staff talking about to 2.14 which I'm very much supportive of it but I do have a question um when it says ask to bring forward uh to bring forward the necessary bylaw uh what will be the timeline for that thank you thank you I'll go to Miss Barbone sorry Mr. Collins go ahead through then I will refer to Mr. Collins thank you Mr. Mr. Collins, go ahead. Uh through the chair to the committee, uh given this is the first opportunity the uh civic administration has had to bring forward this type of opportunity for leases, we would like to ensure that we had council support to work on the necessary bylaw, but more importantly the necessary agreements between the parties that would be involved in uh between ensuring this happens. So we would expect it to be in the next uh couple of months based on uh the back and forth between London Police Service uh Cadillac Fairview and the city. Uh there has been some work ground work done to date and we're all ready to go. We're just waiting to hear uh direction from council that we should proceed. Thank you. And I just wanted to mention that um we have uh Mr. Ram Cassoon online as well from the London Police. So, thank you for being here as well. Um, in case we did have any questions for the police, councelor PBLO, back to you. Thank you very much. So, for the followup, if it passes the council next week, so are we looking potentially for this committee to come back in April? Coming back to this, Mr. Collins uh civic administration, London Police Service and Calc forever would endeavor to bring this agreement uh to council as soon as possible and if it could be made in April, we will certainly do so and endeavor to do so subject to any refinements that need to be made to the agreement as it stands. Thanks. Approval. Perfect. Thank you very much. And I do hope, as I said, I'm very much support of it and I hope it's going to come sooner than later. Thank you very much. No more questions at this time. Thank you. I'll look for other members of committee or visiting counselors. Okay, seeing none, uh, councelor McAllister, do you mind taking the chair for me? Thank you. Okay, recognizing I have the chair. Go ahead, councelor Rome. Thank you. Uh, and through the presiding officer, I just wanted to, um, first say thank you to staff for the reports that are in front of us today. Um and thank you to London Police for the contribution uh of being here to join us to talk about this municipal capital facility designation. Um for for those that are in attendance and and maybe listening, this is a great opportunity for the city uh in in London Police. And I think that uh expanding uh London Police's presence in the community and at Masonville Place is a is a warranted and welcome um addition to uh this part of the city. So, it's great to have this um paperwork in front of us. Uh just looking to get a little bit more insight into the numbers. Um so, I just wanted to confirm because I thought that that amount um seemed a little bit high and I just wanted to confirm that that's the uh property tax portion for the 2500 plus square feet that the police are looking to uh utilize. Go ahead, staff. Yes. Uh through the committee based on the information that has been provided to us uh through Cadillac Fairview and Lind police services that would be the uh property tax uh in question which comprises both the municipal portion and the education portion followup councelor. Thank you and maybe through you too uh Mr. Ram Cassoon. I'm just wondering if this uh agreement would also uh allow for London Police to have a presence for instance with vehicles uh at Masonville Place or would this just be around the uh square footage of the internal space? Okay, moving online. Go ahead. Go ahead. Sorry. Um uh to the chair. Yes, we do intend to have I think it is six vehicles parked right outside of the external space that we'll be utilizing at Mville. Followup council. Thank you. I think that's wonderful to hear. I think uh just that presence of having uh police in the area close by. I know um can be reassuring for residents um in the northeast and northwest part of the city uh that uh have cited that that's a concern for them not seeing places visible um in the area. So very pleased to see that at Masonville Place. So thank you for those answers and that's all my questions for today. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Uh returning the chair to you and you used a minute 20 of your time. Go ahead. Thank you. Uh looking to any other members for any questions on the items that are in front of us. Council Leman, go ahead. Uh thank you, Chair, and I'm glad to see the committee is uh in favor of this. I think it I'm just speaking kind of as a member of the police board. Uh, I know the long-term strategy as we, you know, um, get to a city of this size, um, you look at other cities, um, you see satellite police officers throughout the community. Um, so you don't have it all concentrated in downtown as it is now. Um, so I think this is the first step of a longer term uh, solution. And I'm I'm glad to hear I think there's an appropriate spot up in a very heavy heavy populated area in the north. I'm glad to hear uh support from this end. Um little surprised as you mentioned, chair uh at the cost uh of the tax rate up there, but I guess uh Masonville is a uh uh you know high tax area retail wise, so would commend that our commercial tax rate. Um can't imagine what the uh rent is the rent is there, but I'll find out probably at the board for sure. Um so thank you very much. Appreciate the committee's work. Thank you. Uh looking for any other speakers on the items. Councelor Prebble, go ahead. Thank you, chair. And one more to the staff through you, please. 2.12 the drinking water. I just want to ask you if I can get some feedback on the Ontario max acceptance acceptance concentration and there were three that actually exceeded it uh exceeded it. If you can just give me a brief uh feedback in terms of if there are any concerns or how it's addressed. Thank you. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Ramloo. Thank you through the chair. So there were uh two types of exceedences. So the one was sodium uh and the other were microbiological. So I'll address the microbiological first. So that's ecoli, solve nitrogen um and colifform. Those were actually determined to be false positives if you will. Um so although the sampling and testing procedure is very controlled, it is also very sensitive. So it um generally when these happen um it is a matter of the sample was contaminated along the way somewhere. But that being said there is a very strict um procedure in place for when there is an adverse sample. So the ministry of the environment is notified as is the health unit and there is re immediately immediate resampling of all locations. So in each of those instances of microbiological exceedence, it was retested and those um samples were within the um the requirements. So um between that and the fact that on the original samples that had higher microbiological um levels, the chlorine level in it was also still quite high, too high for actual bacteria to have survived in it for any length of time. That's why we are confident that those samples were actually um contaminated during the the sampling or the testing process rather than it being an actual water quality issue. Um and that is not an uncommon thing. We usually have a few of those occurrences each year that are easily explained that way and and don't pose any actual risk or concern in the system. The other one that we did have in 2025, we did have u an instance of high sodium levels. Now, sodium is not actually a regulated um substance underneath the the health the quality uh standards for health. Um it is rather an aesthetic guideline um because you can get a negative flavor from it. Um but that said, for the majority of the population, it is not a health concern. Um and therefore, it's not regulated as such. However, this is where legislation gets a little awkward because although they do recommend that it be not the health unit be notified without it being treated as an exceedence the same way the the quality standard ones are, they don't have a mechanism to force municipalities to do it. So when there's an exceedence in sodium, we use the same mandatory reporting um and resampling procedure that we use as if it was microbiological. So the ministry is notified and the health unit is notified. Um and we do resample. That said, um there's no further action from the municipality. It lays with the health unit. So if the health unit um believes that uh certain members of the public do need to know about it. So if they are on um a low sodium diet, for example, because of certain health conditions, um the health unit can make that call as to whether they should notify the medical community or the public at large. and then if they were to do so, we may amplify their their uh notifications, but otherwise there's no um there's there's no action for the city to take beyond that. Um and I will note so we had one in 2025. The last time we had a high sodium level was in 2013. Councelor PBLO, thank you very much for a detailed answer. No more questions. Thank you. Looking for any final speakers on these items? Okay, seeing none, we will open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to item 4.1, which is the traffic calming uh request um excuse me, communication and request for delegation status. That's uh there as well. Um we will return to our other consent items after uh this item under deferred matters and additional business as usual. Uh so with that, I will look for a mover and seconder to uh receive the delegations as well as the communication. Thank you. of Council Mallister and Councelor Stevenson. Thank you so much. Okay. Uh I will look to get started uh with those in the gallery. Thank you for being here. Um I will start with Mr. Samuel. Sorry, I need to vote first and then we'll start with Mr. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5. Thank you. Okay, so we'll start with Mr. Samuels. Thank you for being here. You have 5 minutes. You're a regular, so you know the drill. And go ahead. Good afternoon, uh, members of the committee and visiting counselors. Uh, my name is Brendan Samuels. I'm a resident of Ward 4. I'm here today also speaking as the vice chair of the Old Northeast Neighborhood Association. And as somebody who's made repeated attempts to access traffic coming from the city in my neighborhood, uh, I'm really pleased to be joined up here in the gallery by folks from Old North and Old South, uh, who I expect will share from their experiences with traffic calming in the city. You've got three old neighborhoods up here. Um, I fully support the direction outlined in the letter on your agenda and I want to thank the chair of your committee, uh, Councelor Ramen, for taking the time to hear my concerns over the past couple of months and to consult with the city staff. Uh, I encourage you to pass this motion, and I believe that the changes being discussed will lead to the trafficcoming process becoming easier for both residents and your offices to navigate. There's an opportunity to improve transparency and to restore trust in the community. I tried to organize trafficcoming requests and petitions at three intersections in my area. The city actually has multiple parallel channels through which trafficcoming requests can be filed. One is the petition process where a resident downloads and prints a form from the website. They must then collect signatures from 10 households on the street of interest. Another channel is to request trafficcoming through the service London portal where no signatures are required. Then there are requests initiated through a separate process through school zones and another for reaching out to your counselor or perhaps to city staff to ask directly about trafficcoming. And finally, where intersections have previously seen vehicle collisions that were reported, there's the angle of reaching out to the London Police Service to access data and get a safety opinion. When it comes to petitions specifically, there's some conflicting information out there on the website and on the form itself. Um, for a petition to be received, the author needs to collect signatures from at least 10 residents across households with addresses on the street that is the subject of the petition. But these criteria for signing present challenges and in my opinion, they can lead to a bit of a discriminatory process in terms of who can and cannot sign. Uh, and I found these instructions rather confusing. So, what is a unique address? I've tried to petition for traffic coming at an intersection in front of an apartment building where residents share the same street address and I could not gain access to the building to knock on doors. Um, I tried to initiate a petition at a cemetery where there's a one-way stop with a history of collisions and major sighteline obstructions, but there's not enough houses in the cemetery to constitute addresses. Um, that site happens to be between two elementary schools but outside the school zone, so it doesn't qualify through that process. Um, and at many of the busiest intersections and commercial zones, I expect a lot of users of the intersections don't actually live on that street, but nonetheless need to commute that way to get to businesses. So, are they ineligible to sign a petition? I tried this for a commercial zone at Adelaide and Victoria Street. I initiated a petition in 2023 after experiencing some near misses. And I filed it via email. The city staff said, "Yep, they're going to initiate a study and yes, they will keep me apprised." But I've never heard anything back from the city about that petition. Um, council actually approved an illuminated pedestrian signal in 2024. Then it was marked on the 2025 map for infrastructure projects. Still hasn't been built. And there were more collisions that took place at that intersection uh at the end of last year. Apparently now they're doing another study in light of the new data to figure out if traffic calming is needed or what type of traffic calming is needed. The whole thing is just a bit confusing. I mean, if the intersection has been studied and mitigation has been approved, then why are we doing another study? I consider myself to be reasonably informed about how the city delivers services. I do a lot of outreach and communication work in the community. Um, I know how to find and contact staff. If the process is difficult for somebody like me, I can imagine it's really hard for residents who might feel alienated. U, they don't have the same privilege or access. uh and they might be frustrated to not be able to advocate effectively for keeping themselves and their loved ones safe as they're crossing the street. So, here's what I think would make this all better. I think residents and counselors would benefit from clearer, more frequent communications about trafficcoming requests throughout the process. At minimum, if a resident has filed a petition, they should be kept apprised of the outcome and any changes in the status leading up to the implementation of trafficcoming. It used to be possible to identify and track service requests through the service London portal, but that functionality was removed. Imagine if you could just see on the map where traffic requests had been received and steps were in process. Overall, I think the mechanisms for trafficcoming are in need of a wider review. It seems like we're kind of stuck. Yep, almost done. I think we're kind of stuck in a cycle of putting out fires and building up new neighborhoods in ways that replicate a lot of the structural causes of traffic in existing neighborhoods. Maybe that wider review will will come at a future date. In the meantime, I believe the motion before you will help to make data on trafficcoming requests and project implementation more accessible and I encourage you to pass it. Thank you for considering. Thank you. Perfect timing. Okay. Uh with that, we will move on to our next delegation. I have uh Dan Cameron. Hi Dan. Thank you for joining us. Uh Dan, you're uh advocating for calmer traffic in Old North and that's the action group. So, thank you for joining us. You have five minutes. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Dan Cameron. I'm a resident of Ward 6 and I'm uh representing a neighborhood group we formed called Action Advocates for Calmer Traffic in Old North. Um so I want to support this this movement to get more transparency and communication about the traffic calling petition process. I first want to talk a little bit more about our group to give context. So, we were born out of frustration with traffic in our neighborhood and frustration with specifically with the petition system itself, but I'll come back to that and out of a desire for a positive, constructive, community-based vision for what we want our neighborhood to be. So, to this end, we work with our neighbors and with the city hopefully to find effective solutions that are welcomed by the community and are affordable and sustainable. This motion will help us um toward this goal by increasing the transparency and data um around traffic issues and possible solutions so that when we engage with our neighbors, we have better information to find solutions and to work towards something that's concrete and and effective. And more generally, accessible data, I think, will help community groups like ours uh work with city staff and their neighborhoods to uh find uh to achieve these shared goals. So, the Old North community's sense is that traffic in our neighborhood has been worsening and will continue to worsen without dramatic change. And that when a crossing guard is hit by a car, when three serious collisions occur within a week, steps from a daycare, and when an SUV flies onto the sidewalk outside one of our few community hubs where children and families gather, that the situation has become intolerable. We're pleased that the city has begun a traffic study for a limited part of our neighborhood and our group will continue to engage with that process and the staff who I'm appreciate are genuinely engaged with us about it. So, action has engaged the community ourselves. We conducted a survey. We had 240 respondents and the results showed overwhelming consensus. And by that I mean about 90% agreement, that there are too many cars, that they drive too fast, that drivers are too aggressive, that there's part of the problem is cut through traffic, avoiding the major roads where they're intended to be, and that these issues are are worsening children's safety and freedom. But with a forward-looking consens uh perspective, there was also strong consensus about an openness to using infrastructure and engineering based solutions um to help this problem. So community members have been very eager to share their personal experiences. They don't feel it's safe to walk their children to school or to for their children to bike to school or for them to walk their children to daycare. This is all in residential streets even though they know they're contributing to the problem by driving instead. innumerable everyday experiences of unsafe driving and near misses and of abuse from drivers who fail to stop while children are crossing or drivers screaming obscenities at families riding their bikes. So this is what I mean by livability in our home neighborhoods. And we understand action understands that these behaviors are not just the result of bad individuals but of an infrastructure system that promotes the entitlement the drivers feel to use our home streets as highways. So in our survey, all areas of Old North were represented and the problems were reported to be everywhere. So this is underscoring that it's a systemic problem and there was an exception which is William Street which has had more dramatic change. We did not hear complaints about that. Uh as and I hope that as staffing and and and council continue considering how to fix the traffic and transportation issues, they consider how sustained and genuine engagement with the community is essential to get systemic solutions rather than peacemeal ineffective band-aids. So many people in our community have submitted petitions for traffic calming on their blocks and intersections. And rather than leading to any apparent improvement, the petitions have been angering community members and are perceived by many to be pointless. The petitions angered people for a few reasons, not knowing whether their petitions were received, receiving insufficient explanations for why they failed and unclear processes, guidelines, and requirements for implementing traffic calming. Overall, there's a lack of clarity about how this process process works or should work. So, action supports uh these suggestions to obtain more information about the state of the petition system and how it compares to that in other municipalities. And we strongly support improved communication and engagement with a community about traffic problems and about realistic and effective solutions. So we hope these can be first steps in improving the petition process, but perhaps more broadly they could be a step toward necessary and dramatic improvement to the culture and policy approach that will support effective and durable solutions to the traffic problems now and in the coming years. So appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to our final delegation for today. This is Carrie L. Mitchell, associate professor, school of planning, University of Waterlue fellow, the Silly School of International Affairs. Thank you for being here. You have five minutes. Thank you, counselor. Um, good afternoon. Thank you for the time. My name is Carrie Mitchell. I'm a resident of London, a board member of the Old South Community Organization and an associate professor of urban planning at the University of Wateroo. So, I just wanted to begin by thanking councelor Ramen for this motion. It will improve communication, transparency, and reporting within the trafficcomming program. I think it's thoughtful and constructive, and I hope you all support it. So, over the past couple months, I've actually had the opportunity to work with city traffic calming process on a local issue in my neighborhood um that has been successfully resolved. And during this time, I met with multiple transportation staff and saw really firsthand the care and professionalism that they bring to these very complex problems that we're facing. So, what's become really clear to me in speaking with staff as well as many of you um down uh in the floor and also my fellow residents here is that this is obviously not a pressure that's just affecting my neighborhood in Old South. This is not isolated and it's not exceptional. London's traffic challenges are significant and they are structural. So for decades, our land use decisions, our zoning rules, and our street design standards have produced a city where most daily trips require a private vehicle. And of course, this has predictable consequences. high traffic volumes on arterial corridors as we are all aware um congestion during peak periods and spillover traffic into neighborhood streets as my colleague Dan describes. So traffic calming is a retrofit response to patterns of urban development that generate high traffic volumes and this demand is measurable. We know that there are over 300 trafficcoming requests that are submitted to the city of London each year. And I'm sure many of you have heard from your constituents directly about speeding and cut through traffic and safety concerns in your wards. This is not noise. This is a system signal. It suggests that we are looking at a pattern here and it's not isolated complaints. If that many communities across London are signaling concern, the next question that we have to ask ourselves is do we have the capacity and are our policies aligned with the scale of this issue. So at present there are two staff members who handle trafficcoming for the city of London. Just as a context, in the city of Waterlue, they also have two staff members, but London is 2.5 times larger in terms of population and six times larger in terms of area. So, inevitably, when demand consistently exceed exceeds capacity, our systems become reactive. So, staff are responding case by case, email by email, um residents experience delays and frustration grows. So, Councelor Ramen, your motion addresses an important part of this equation, improving communication and reporting so residents better understand the process, how it works, and also where they stand in the queue, the very long queue. And this matters, of course, transparency strengthens trust. But at the same time, this the volume of requests invites us all to think upstream. So if neighborhood safety concerns are reoccurring across the city, this reflects how we are designing for urban growth, how tra transportation options are balanced or not, and how traffic volumes are distributed. So please, strengthening the retrofit system improves fairness and responsiveness. This is excellent. I hope you can all support this motion. Addressing structural conditions can reduce overall demand on our road network over time. And both conversations in my opinion need to move forward. So just in closing, we are seeing the transporta transportation consequences of long-term policy decisions made in the city of London and also in the province of Ontario. The city we experience today reflects decades of these small and large choices. But the choices that we make right now that this council and the next council will make will shape the future of this city for our kids and yours as well. So please supporting this motion will strengthen that response but continuing to align land use transportation planning and safety goals will strengthen the overall system and we can and we should be doing both. Thank you. Thank you. And that concludes our listed delegations for today on the trafficcoming issue. So, uh, our first vote we dealt with, uh, the approval to hear those delegations. Um, I'm looking for a mover and a seconder for, uh, the motion related to the letter. Um, so that I'll stay in the chair. I'm hoping somebody else might move it. Thank you, uh, Councelor Mallister and councelor Stevenson. And just for those that are in the gallery and may be listening, I'll just read out what's here. that the civic administration be directed to take the following actions with respect to petitions and requests for traffic calming measures on neighborhood connectors and neighborhood streets. A review and report back to a future meeting of ICSC on a a jurisdictional scan of pure municipalities processes for re receiving traffic caling petitions and requests including how those processes are communicated to residents. Uh I I an assessment of how the city of London communicates with residents who submit trafficcoming petitions or requests with a view to improve clarity around the process and providing timely information updates. I I obtain options to improve the quality and frequency of information reported to council members regarding traffic calming requests. Receive studies undertaken and upcoming projects within their ward. And part B provide updates to the counselors and committee on approved traffic calming projects. the completion of a project and any other pertinent information. So, thank you. Councelor Mallister and Councelor Stevenson have uh moved and seconded that I will look for discussion on this item. Councelor Mallister, go ahead. Uh thank you and through the chair, really appreciate uh Council Ramen bringing this forward. Um I'm sure all of us can speak to petitions, traffic calming, um issues that we all have in our wards. It's definitely one I hear a lot about. Um, and I know we heard from two neighborhoods. I'd say in the east, similar problems. Older neighborhoods. Uh, traffic coming, especially on those smaller streets. Um, quite narrow. Um, a lot don't have sidewalks. Um, and you know, we have people cutting through, uh, causing a lot of issues. Um, and I do have a question to staff about this. Um, I love everything that's being put before us. not um going to um take time on any of that, but I do just want um as a point of clarity um for my own sake and those in my ward that often ask when it comes to traffic calming with these older neighborhoods, especially ones that don't have the sidewalks um you know, when petitions are received, is there any prioritization that goes on? because I do have a number of streets where um you know some of them don't have street lights, sidewalks, any traffic cominging and I do find it a bit frustrating that those are the neighborhoods where I really do hear the the voices being the loudest that those are areas that we really need to focus on. And so I'm just wondering if there's any thought in terms of refining this process, the areas where they don't have really anything that those might um be looked at differently because um you know they're facing the problems but they don't really have any alternatives um to really help with the situation. So I'm just wondering if staff could comment on how those would be dealt with. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. McCrae uh through the chair. Thanks for the question. Yes, the current process does consider uh the context of the street I like if there are uh sidewalks present or street lighting and factors that into the prioritization. Uh so that's all part of the evaluation of the program they we would consider uh whether that's appropriate and or not and uh and bring forward recommendations to council. Council Mallister. Uh thank you and I appreciate that. Um and as you know we've discussed a little bit today. I I would like as this process moves forward and we make refinements um that clarity is given kind of at the outset. I think what I've heard from a lot of my residents when something is submitted and I think Mr. Samuels had had touched on this as well. Is is that followup in terms of what's happening, where we're at, but also providing them um in terms of maybe where they are in the queue or some sort of notification in terms of when they could expect um you know response or the the study to actually take place um because we just don't really have a good understanding right now where we're at. Um also the timeline in terms of when the last study was uh conducted. I think sometimes there's confusion as to um you know are they allowed to make u another request because we do have those restrictions in terms of how many you can receive in a certain amount of time. Um so I think having that clarity with residents keeping them informed. I would love to see service London have some sort of um a portal that allows people to look at a map and see you know you just hover over your street and it says you know petition received and it just so people aren't um you know duplicating efforts. Um, I know a lot of residents, uh, you know, they're interested in these things, but sometimes we have the same people asking for the same thing and we don't necessarily need to duplicate those efforts, but to allow, uh, residents to be able to easily look up what's going on, where we're at in the process, I think would really help this. Um, so I'll leave my comments there for now. Curious what everyone else has to think about this, but um, thank you, Councelor Ramen, because, uh, I definitely think this is an issue we've all heard of and we're interested to see improvements. So, thank you. Thank you. And I'll go to councelor Stevenson next. Yeah, thank you. This is likely to have widespread support. I mean, this is something that many of us have been talking about what we can do to address the concerns of residents who are increasingly frustrated with the process, the lack of communication, the lack of clarity, and um the the deadends that are hit. You know, for some it's that it hasn't been long enough since the last study was done or that the study said that uh it doesn't meet the requirements. Meanwhile, there's been a significant change uh but that's not taken into account that they got the petition done. But the um and even if the study says that it's warranted, then they have to go back and get 50% of the residents to agree again. And sometimes that is a problem. or as we've heard it gets approved but then years can go by and it's not implemented and there's a sense of frustration. This is um one of the number one issues for Londoners I think and so whether whatever we need to do to address that if there's funding required uh we it's got to be more transparent it's got to address the needs of uh the neighborhoods that are impacted. I just want to thank the people who spoke today because you very clearly and eloquently outlined the system as it is, the problems with it and uh thanks for your advocacy. It's it it's in every single area of my ward and I and I know others are the same. So really happy to support this. I did just want to take the opportunity through you to staff to just clarify because there's a there's this process which was clearly outlined, but there's also another process when there's road construction and mitigating measures are put in to try to address that. I just wondered if the public's listening if we could have staff just outline that there is a bit of a different process involved when we're addressing the implications of road construction. I'll go to Mr. McCrae. Thank you. through the counselor. That is correct. Uh when we have uh road construction on major streets that uh is going to be in quite impactful to traffic I so you know such as a a significant closure. We will assess uh potential traffic diversion routes, you know, routes through neighborhoods that are going to be prone to increases in traffic volumes. Uh we'll also complement that with uh feedback we hear at public meetings for the project. And uh in in the case where we see uh the potential for uh increased traffic through neighborhoods, we will implement uh temporary measures and these are specifically temporary because many of them are uh not uh suitable for winter road maintenance. You know, they get in the way of snow plows for example, but these often include uh uh flexible markers uh along the center line of the road. So targeted measures along potential cutthroat routes just to mitigate the impacts of the construction project on the adjacent neighborhoods. Thanks, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. And I just wondered one last question through you to staff. Is any idea on what the timeline would be in terms of when we could expect to see some of this come back? U Mr. McCrae through the chair. uh we know this is important to council uh so we will make it a priority. It it already was uh on our radar because it's a action item in the identified in the mobility master plan. That said uh we're currently uh it is a small team and we're currently quite busy uh identifying plans for the uh f provinially funded road safety initiatives fund trying to uh figure out ways to uh implement that money. So that said, it's uh it's a priority for us, but uh our report back uh will likely be later this year, likely in the fall. Councelor Stevenson. Uh thanks again. Very happy to see this and support this today. Thank you. I will go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, I will Okay, I'll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis, then back to Councelor Frank. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. So, uh I'm going to share a few thoughts. Um first of all um it was indicated by a speaker in the gallery that there's a separate process where counselors can bring forward items through you madam chair to to our staff if councelor flags trafficcoming should they not be referring the residents to the petition process um rather than bringing it forward in some other way I mean that's always been my understanding uh and it's the approach I've taken with my residents uh is here's the petition process. Uh, so I just want staff to clarify that there's not a separate process for counselors to ask for traffic calming. Thank you. And I'll go to staff. Mr. McCra, go ahead. Through the chair. Yeah, the intake process uh comes through various forms. Uh, we try to promote service London as a uh one-stop portal. Uh but certainly we receive them through various ways. But the process that trafficcoming is uh rooted through is uh for neighborhood streets it is the petition process. And the one exception to that is if it is a school zone we uh bypass well first of all we we start by assessing the request to see if there's a a distinct safety concern. Then we we we take it upon ourselves to address that as soon as possible. But if it's a typical traffic caling request and it's in a school zone, uh we will uh bypass the petition process for those locations and we'll implement those without uh that full process applying. Thanks, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh thank you. And just for clarity, you kind of referenced it already uh Mr. McCrae, but there is a process wherein uh an assessment for warrant um staff does have through you chair the authority to circumvent the partition process because a significant public safety hazard has been identified through the warrant study. Um but that's at the discretion uh of the appropriate uh individuals of the staff team based on public safety matters is through you chair. Is that correct Mr. McCrae? Through the chair. That that's correct. Uh road safety is a priority and and if we're if we become aware uh like the first first thing to check is if there's a distinct safety concern and that'll be addressed uh as quickly as possible in that case. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. Uh appreciate the clarification there because I I think and I think that's that's part of where this is stemming from is is clarity in communication uh for our residents so that the expectations are really clearly laid out. um uh and I do agree that um we should have somewhere the opportunity to see the the frequency ideally without having to to bother staff. I know it is a small team and rather than having to send a couple of emails, it would be great if we could check uh h have a repository where we could check our streets and see where the last frequency is cuz I certainly wouldn't support and and encourage people to submit a petition again for the same street that was submitted last year. Uh I believe um our current timeline is we only review at a maximum of a three-year window. Seeing nods from staff there unless there's been a significant change in circumstances that would warrant that. Um and so I I think that that's quite reasonable. Um we can't just keep circling back to the same streets all the time because that is what would lead to long cues uh to be constantly reviewing those. I will say my experience with the staff team has been very positive in terms of their communicating back uh to the petitions in my ward that I have been aware of. Now that said, there may be petitions that have been submitted by residents that I'm not aware of. Uh but certainly uh where I've been made aware of them and and often I bring them in myself cuz I offer to pick them up and and send them through inner office mail. Uh but I have found uh the staff team to be very good at updating me um where they are in the process and at least providing sort of a a quarter as to when the expectation of a study might happen. You know, I might hear that it's going to be Q2 or Q3 before you get to it. So, I did want to offer my my personal experience and thanks to the staff that they have been communicating, but I I can certainly understand with the volume and with board counselors not necessarily being aware of every request that comes in that perhaps, uh, what's getting back to us is not a full picture of what's happening out there. And so, um, you know, I I generally think that, you know, a nice clear, welloutlined process, um, online that we can point residents to would be really helpful. I will say that since our last City of London website update, I have found um, the current web page not very helpful. Um, including the fact that the petition itself is now no longer available for download. Now you have to email and request it. Um, so I think that there's some some challenges with how our website functions and communicates some information out. Um, and I see councelor Truss, I was looking. So maybe I was sent the wrong web link. Um, entirely possible, but if there's two of them floating out there, that's even more of a challenge. So I think that we do need some clarification on the communication side. But I I wanted to share that staff are very have been very positive in terms of communicating back to me when I've asked about the status of things. I also think we have to be uh a little bit cautious on this and remember that uh traffic calming uh as much as many people want it, many other people are opposed. And I I've seen this in petitions in my ward where the vote has failed. Um it's been within the realm of warranting uh and the residents don't support it. um you know, you get back 21% of the vote and it's mostly the people who signed the petition and nobody else on the street was interested. So, I think that there has to be a caution flag here that um while there are many people who are very supportive, there are also many people who are opposed. Um I also think that speed cushions aren't always the the ideal solution. Um but we only have limited engineering tools at our disposal. um a raised crosswalk was deployed in my ward and councelor Stevensson's ward on the boundary last year that's been very effective at slowing traffic on one street and so I I think and particularly for pedestrians which I think is where some of the concern comes from with as we heard those walk to school sort of experiences well if you've got a raised crosswalk that is known to slow traffic um that's helpful so just wanted to share those thoughts um I might have more to say at council but I did want to ask one final question through you madam chair or I guess to you. Okay. Yeah. And then your time's up. Go ahead. Um your part B providing updates to councilors and committee on approved trafficcoming projects, the completion of a project, and other pertinent information. I is the in is the intent of that clause to be an annual report back of projects completed in the previous year? Because I I'll be honest, like I don't need a report about a traffic calming happening in your ward and you probably don't need one that's happening in my ward, but it would be nice to get an annual list. So, I'm just kind of looking for you to clarify your intent on the clause B. Thank you. And I'm happy to I did leave it a little bit open-ended so that we could uh have more discussion around what it is that we are looking for. Um I think that it may be a little bit different. Um I would like to see uh if there are patterns and things that we're seeing across the city get an annualized picture but uh when I spoke to staff um we didn't put a timeline on it. I think if initially my draft had bianual and then we thought that that might be too frequent. So um just my intention was to get the information for committee um but also to individual counselors so that you knew for instance if there was requests in your ward that didn't go through you as well that that was something that that had been coming up. Okay with that I will go to councelor Frank. Go ahead. Thank you. Yes. I just wanted to say I will support this. Thank you to the delegations who came as well as councelor Ramen for putting it forward. I won't reiterate what everyone has already said, but I hear the same concerns everyone has already shared and um we'll continue to look forward to seeing how we can make our neighborhood safer for for everyone involved. Thank you. Short and sweet. We'll go to Council Mallister. Go ahead. Uh thank you uh through the chair. Um second round just as we've been talking because I've been listening what people have to say and one of the things that um I I've noticed because it's been mentioned a few times now. And so my question to staff is um you know from the sense of we have the two people who are dedicated to this. Um so my question is bit of curiosity in terms of do we have the necessary staff and do we think the budget allocated to this is appropriate. Um um I know you know you can only speak from past experience but I'm just curious because I do think as part of this discussion it does lead into perhaps maybe a discussion of multi-year budget in terms of whether this is an area that needs additional investment. So I'm just curious what staff's thoughts are in terms of um you know staff compliment and current resources for it. Thank you. I will go to Mr. McCrae and then perhaps to Miss Sher if there's anything further and noting that we did have some discussion about this item at the multi-year budget update as well. Thank you through the chair. Yes, I was going to uh point to the uh the previous budget discussion uh just a few months ago that uh flagged this area as a priority and identified a temporary uh staff uh increase an additional person to uh to assist uh with some um targeted areas of of focus identified in in the council resolution. So there there was a recognition there. It's it is a small team. It's a lean team and we try to work as effectively and efficiently as possible. Uh that said, you know, we we're hearing that it's it's a priority uh for the city. So, um so yeah, we're we're going to uh uh look to uh see how we can improve the service, see how that uh what improvements we can make with this additional uh resource for the next couple years and uh and go from there. Thank you, Councelor McCallister. Uh thank you and through the chair. Uh, apologies I didn't put this by anyone earlier, but I just think as we're having this discussion, um, I would like to do an amendment for a part C. Um, I know we had this discussion the last multi-year budget. I think Council Ramen and I have worked on this in terms of the the road safety element. Um, so again, I I think this warranted coming back for the multi-year discussion. So, I would have a a part C added that um uh any recommendations uh requiring additional staff or funding um be uh a business case be prepared uh for the next multi-year budget. Just give us a moment. I'll go to Miss Chair. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. In conferring with our treasurer, we would suggest that the wording should reflect that we report back on some resourcing options uh that would potentially lead to a future business case. We'd be premature to direct a business case preparation in advance of the work, but understand that we would like to give committee and council the ability to sort of choose the level of effort that goes into this and the potential to reduce weight times and improve supports to counselors and community. Sorry, Miss Sher. Just to clarify, so your suggest suggested language is uh required resources to include that in the report back. Okay. Thank you. Uh councelor Mallister, are you okay with that? Sorry, we're just word smithing. Okay. So, this would read that the motion be amended to add a new part C that reads as follows. That civic administration be directed to report back on any recommendations for additional resources. And so, Councelor McCallister, does that satisfy you? Okay. And I councelor Stevenson as a second. Thank you. Okay. Any discussion on the amendment? on the amendment. Okay, Council Mallister. Uh, thank you through the chair. Just to quickly reiterate, um, I know we had this discussion at the last multi-year. I still think it warrants a discussion through the multi-year budget next time around. Um, as we've heard today, many residents are interested. It's a process, um, people keenly interested in seeing uh, transformed. Um, but it may require additional resources and funding to go with that. Uh we had this discussion last time, but again I think this is an issue um people clearly care about. Uh and I think we have to afford residents the opportunity to weigh in through the multi-year budget in terms of this being a priority. So appreciate uh the opportunity to add that in. Uh I think everything else it's all good. Uh and uh uh hope to get your support. Thanks. Thank you. Any other speakers on the amendment? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that item for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, we're back on the main motion. I have uh councelor Mallister, that was your final point of the Okay, I will go to councelor Tosa. Oh, go ahead. Sorry about that. Okay. Thank you very much. I want to start by thanking you, counselor, and chair for bringing this forward. This is something that I've been thinking about for a long time. I've I've received a lot of communications from my residents asking me, can't council do more about this? So, I think this is a very timely and very welcomed motion. I'm also really so pleased to notice the um the level of agreement and cooperation that we have on this on this council because this this problem this problem cuts across a lot of the wards. If there's too much traffic on Adelaide and uh people are coming down Adelaide and turning into uh side streets, it affects my ward. It affects councelor Stevenson's wart. And I could say the same thing for for a lot for a lot of the borders. So, these these problems don't stop at at ward boundaries. Um, in my experience as a counselor now in my fourth year, it's it's funny how quickly this term has gone because I think back to the first things that landed on my desk back in the end of 2022. It was traffic. It was it was pending traffic petitions and it hasn't stopped. What what is what is different about the traffic inquiries that I'm getting now compared to four years ago is they are frustrated. They are angrier and in many cases and I I get this from also monitoring social media. We have a very active uh Facebook group in Old North. I'm sure other neighborhoods do. There's a sense of resignation that the city's just not going to do anything. There's a sense of resignation that it's futile to try because people have heard stories about neighbors putting in petitions and months and months and months and months go by and they're not responded to. And if they are responded to, it's often it's often a one line. your request is denied, it doesn't meet the warrant. And if that comes to my attention, as it often does, but I can't imagine it does all the time because like the counselor said, I don't I don't know. There's no there's no requirement that me as a counselor get get a copy of a petition filed in my ward. Um I would then go back to traffic and say, I would like to see the details of the study. And it's often the first the first response to that is often well we don't like to release the numbers. Why not? Well, they're very technical and people might not misunders people might not understand them. Try me and I have experts I can talk to if I need help. And and sometimes I actually do get very detailed data back. And on the occasions I've shared that with experts. They've been there their public blogs about this. I'm often told, "Yeah, you really you really you really need a four-way stop here or you need some traffic mitigation here." Now, I think that the division the traffic division is overworked, understaffed, and we we need to make it clear that if if we want you I'm I'm I'm I'm addressing Mr. McCrae, but also his whole team. If we want you to do a better job responding to these community concerns, we as a council have to do a better job supporting you. Now, I'm glad that that last motion was on the table. I didn't speak to it because I think it goes without saying. If you need more resources, ask and you will find a very sympathetic uh council not to say what would happen during the budget process. Now the other thing I want to raise is it's important for people to understand that the provincial traffic warrant system where there's this whole handbook of of uh numbers that you have to reach uh that is not necessarily binding on both ends. It's a best practice guide and staff will correct me if I'm wrong but I understand it as a best practice guide. So if there's if there's a reason why a particular intersection does not meet the quantified sort of numbers from an engineering point of view, there still is this whole very rich and often more relevant. You're kind of veering into other territory. So I just want you to bring it back to the motion, please. Yeah. Yes. I'm I'm speaking I'm speaking to a matter that's directly on the floor in terms in terms of what's uh what's being looked at here. uh we have to take into account what people on the ground are telling us in terms of the near accidents that they're hearing outside of their window. So, you know, f finally to to wrap up, this is a very welcome uh very welcome motion and I'll be looking forward to getting the report and moving forward from them and thank you so much to those of you in the audience who have been speaking to us about this quite a bit. Thank you. I'll go to councelor Pribble next. Thank you. And as not being a member of this committee, I will certainly support this at the council. But one thing that I have uh asked and I would like to ask our communications department to keep reminding Londoners about these issues has two things. First of all, it's the safety safety of the individuals and also the cost and even if this is implemented and even if we are going to increase the stuff if we do whatever we are not going to be keeping up with all the requests we have and I really think that continuous continuous communication to Londoners to understand safety and costs because that's coming from the taxpayers money and also for for the London police services to increase finding these individuals and I really think that those are the two aspects that we should address because Even if this is implemented, it's not going to start tomorrow, but there are certain things we can start tomorrow or very early. Thank you. Thank you. Uh council Mallister, will you take the chair for me? Thank you. Okay. Recognizing I have the chair, go ahead, councelor. Uh thank you and through you. Um I just wanted to first uh thank uh the delegations that came today. really appreciate the discussion uh that you've uh played a part in in uh bringing forward and uh thank you to Mr. Samuels for your interest and your support in putting these items forward and the conversation along the way. Big thanks to city staff and uh the team in the small team in transportation that's uh been working through this discussion with me for the last little while. And also thanks for your support in uh preparing the budget business case update that was brought forward on traffic calming. Um and that was also reflective of the conversations that we are having. But part of the issue is also um outside of our hands and we have to be reminded of that as well. Um, you know, while we're facing these pressures from the community to meet the needs around traffic calming, we've had some significant changes on the provincial front. And those changes, yes, they've accompanied some new investments and dollars, but they put even more pressure on this smaller uh division to be able to meet the needs uh in our school zones. So we will be under pressure to do that but also to meet the needs of the community areas that are outside of school zones in our neighborhoods that also need and are are asking for traffic calming. So those are those are definitely two different components of the discussion that we have to look at as well as as was shared here today uh around the concerns around more traffic calming for construction areas. So a number of different fronts that have to be managed and well timed all at the same time. So, I'm glad we're thinking about this and continuing the discussion that we had from budget um and now looking at ways that we can support our communication efforts to make this process even smoother for residents uh and less ownorous. Um I will say after putting this communication out, I do did hear from residents asking some other questions that I do think have lots of merits as well around traffic calming. Um and uh I will look to bring those items forward at a different time. I don't think they completely connect to what we're talking about today, but uh value the the input from residents in my neighborhoods. Um, as you may know, I represent uh the northwest part of the city. A lot of my uh area is new, but there is also older homes and older construction. And it's it's interesting to see the differences um across newer developments, newer areas where maybe some of these um other types of traffic calming and mitigations were put in place already. But at the same time, the level and volume of just the traffic in the area is just so considerable that it's overwhelming the types of uh of traffic calming that were put in place from the beginning. So I do think we are trying to design better. I really do. In our newer subdivisions, the challenge is we are increasing the density so much and people are fearful about getting out of their cars because of the increased density. So we have a lot of work to do in this city uh to make residents feel confident enough to um be able to use all forms of transportation and transit uh to be able to get around. So that is something I think that more traffic calming will be helpful for. But I am so pleased that my colleagues are supportive of what's in front of us today. I'm uh glad to hear that this is spurring discussions in our neighborhoods. Uh really thankful to city staff for the work they're doing and the continued conversation. and I know they'll be having ward meetings and and uh around some upcoming construction projects. So, you know, this is a team effort. It's something we're all working on, which is the safety of our community, and it's definitely a top priority. So, thanks everyone. Okay, thank you. 3:30 of your time, and I'll hand the trigger back to you. Go ahead. Thank you. I will look for other speakers. Seeing none online and none in chambers, we'll open the vote. Sorry. On the motion as amended. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay. Thanks everyone. We'll be moving back to our deferred matters and then on to any additional business. Um under the deferred matters we have item 2.2 to next which is the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund agreement for accelerating community energy systems. I was asked to pull this item. I'll look for a mover and secondary to put this item on the floor. Councelor Frank, councelor McCallister, and look for any speakers on this. Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Yes, through you to staff. I just it was only in the last meeting that we approved what seemed to be something similar to this. So my question is um what is the difference between this one and 2.3 and the last one and are there any more of these coming? Because I I find it hard to make decisions sometimes when things come a bit at a time and I can't see the bigger picture. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Chambers. Uh thank you and through the chair. Uh yes, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has several streams to which you can apply for grants. Uh so in our last committee we talked about getting a study done to look at our uh buildings and retrofitting them for deep energy retrofits. Uh the two before you today relate to looking at our fleet uh that's 2.3 which is obviously related to municipal uh vehicles and this other one is the accelerating community energy systems which actually has to do with looking at um compact localized energy supply and distribution for neighborhoods. And that's in direct response to applications again to this same fund by our local development community. There was a report back in July of two uh quite large private developers who are interested in pursuing community energy systems. So we want to be prepared to respond to those. Um so effectively there have been three applications in that we've been successful for to date and there will be one more coming forward as well. Um just recognizing that they're all separate initiatives but just simply the same funding uh source from the FCM group. Thank you, Miss Chambers. I'll go to Councelor Stevenson. Go ahead. Thank you. Again, my biggest concern on this is the uh dollar factor. So, in the last committee agenda, it was our portion. You know, it was $385,000 study. We were getting a $200,000 grant. In this one, it's 92,000 with a 54,000 grant. But the these three combined is going to be 316,000 of our money that we're putting forward. And again, I I understand in a sense why, but I need to be able to justify spending that money today in this environment with the fiscal pressures that we face and the economic uncertainty ahead that that we still that I don't want us to be operating under something that was approved by a previous council and hasn't been re-evaluated to determine like is it still a priority, a place where we want going to be spending this level of uh finances. So through you to staff just um I'm just wondering I guess what when we when we spend this money on these studies I feel like it's going to be then preparing us for more money that we're going to be spending later in terms of uh infrastructure and fleet and that kind of thing. So, are we operating under a a model that was approved be before and just doing what was set out or do we at what point does council get to sort of look again to decide? Do we still want to continue on this path and spend this money? Stephenson, sorry, we're just on item 2.2. So, uh if you could just tie it back to the item that we're on because we're it's on an agreement for um the FCM grants. So, I just want to make sure that you're Well, it is it's the $40,000 that we're being asked to approve here. So, yes, it's about a grant, but really there's an expense of $40,000. And what is the value in us spending the $40,000? How how is it going to help taxpayers going forward? I'll go to Miss Shar and then I'll go back to Miss Chambers if there's anything to add. Thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to this work, it has been identified and reinforced through the Strap plan. Although the climate emergency action plan was approved by the previous council, uh while there was not new money us uh provided to do additional climate change work, we were instructed to continue to work within the budgets we have and this is aligned with that and also helps us maximize them with respect to the value of the work. Generally, when you're talking about things like the deep energy retrofits that were approved at the previous cycle, it caps these two projects that are here. What this allows us to do is to identify where we can maximize potential return on investment and savings by doing these sorts of things. We have a fleet that turns over frequently as we make those fleet decisions. Having this prepared allows us to make choices that hopefully will reduce not only our climate costs but also the cost of owning and operating those vehicle assets, operating those buildings or supporting potential alternatives for community energy where they make sense. The investment though in any of those things once these studies are done would come with not only the approval of the work from council for the studies but also the subsequent approval in multi-year budgets and in the next council strap plan that those are things they wish to take advantage of. So this essentially allows us to position to make better decisions around these sorts of assets in the future. bring that information to council for you to approve and then take advantage of where there's funding available as well should other federal or pro provincial funding programs exist that can help offset some costs. Um just as an example, one of our neighboring municipalities did a review of owning electric versus conventional uh light duty trucks and with the reinstatement of the incentive plan, it's quite likely that it actually might be a benefit to own more light duty electric trucks. But we need to do some of those work around our own fleet, our own driving patterns, the size of our city and the services we provide. So we want to be in a position where we're able to provide good advice on those investments in the future. Councelor. Okay. Thank you. That is quite helpful. Um I would be interested uh in hearing a little bit more about the two private developers that were mentioned in terms of this specific uh grant in 2.2. Uh thank you and through the chair. Uh yes, quite transparently in July of 2025, we actually mentioned the two. Um Old Oak developments uh at the Legend Legacy Land, sorry, at H High and Oxford is 141 acre subdivision as many of us are aware of and they're looking at for that large-scale community development that's coming down the pipe. Uh the second one is Drew who has three large towers going on at Wellington and Bradley. And when you have that amount of people at one location, these types of energy systems do start to be quite a uh return on investment uh feature to look at because um some of these renewable energies are really coming down in cost in terms of solar and uh heat pumps and whatnot. So looking at these is actually a viable alternative to our traditional fossil fuels. So it really is that's why the private developers are very interested um and so why we in turn are also interested in looking at these because if they come forward we need to have the municipal policies in place to be able to address uh bringing them on board and accommodating new technologies effectively. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I really appreciate the uh extra information. It's helpful. Thank you. Thank you. I'll look for other speakers on this item. Councelor Frank. Thank you. Yes. Yes, I'll be short on this one, too. Uh, I think it's a great opportunity for us to look at ways to provide uh energy at an affordable and accessible cost where possible, as well as reducing emissions. And I think it's great that there's already two uh private developers who are looking into these opportunities as well. I wouldn't want the city to create any kind of red tape or stand in the way of private development. So, I think this is a great opportunity for us to make sure that our side of the uh equation is in order. Thank you. Other speakers on this item. Councelor Stevens, just one last follow-up question. When this came in the last agenda, uh I passed an amendment saying that the feasibility studies would, you know, come public as quickly as possible. I'm I'm just wondering is there any value in doing that again here? I'm I'm thinking not as much. It was municipal property before. It was our our assets whereas this isn't. But I'd just be interested in staff's feedback in terms of potentially doing the same thing here. M chair. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. Staff are certainly intending to report back on the results of the study. We certainly have no concerns about sharing that information. Bringing them without uh sort of that analysis probably will be not of as much value for you. Uh but we're happy to see what the ultimate reports look like and make sure that you get our best advice on those reports when they're received. Thank you, councelor. Okay. Thank you. Uh, seeing no other speakers on this item, I will look to call the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Okay, thank you. Our next item is 2.3, which was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund Agreement for Municipal Fleet Decarbonization Fasibility Study. Looking for a mover and second on this item. Councelor Frank, I'm happy to second. Um, and looking for any speakers. Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Uh, through the staff, I'm looking for the same kind of information on this one in terms of uh, you know, I'm less in less interested given some of the recent things that have been happening regarding zero emission vehicles and the decarbonization. So, just looking for a little information from staff as to why this would be a good investment in this case of uh $89,000. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Chamber. Thank you. And through the chair, um when it comes to the fleet, it's a similar story about looking at truly that return on investment. Um when we look at the life cycle of our vehicles, we do spend currently $3.2 million in fuel costs alone. Um, so we've had a couple of examples where, for example, the uh Ford F1 Lightning pickups, for example, save us $27,000 per year in fuel. Uh, Zambonies are saving us $35,000 a year in operating costs. So, there have been some already some examples where we can save money uh given the amount of uh kind of miles we put on our vehicles. Um and secondly, there was a recent announcement by the federal government that they're going to be reinvent or resurfacing the EV incentives as well. So $5,000 for battery electric and 2500 for plug-in hybrids as well as 1.5 billion in infrastructure for charging um facilities. So again, this study poises us to take advantage of some federal grants that may be coming forward um and really allows us to dive deep into our own fleet as to what is the most cost-effective life cycle uh purchases for the vehicles. Counselor, thank you. That's good. Okay, I have councelor Pville next. Thank you, sir chair to staff. I'm very much supportive of such initiatives. I do believe they are proactive and both environment and cost savings. But uh did we ever look at kind of some of these uh initiatives, some of these studies to do internal internally? Do we have the resources? Do we have the knowhow? Or if we look at the 50%, it's still cheaper to go this way and outsource to a third party. Mr. Chair, thank you Madam Chair. The sort of modeling that goes into these studies is highly specialized and quite technical. So generally it's done by a very small handful of folks across the country. We have excellent staff to lead and interpret and use these results, but doing the actual work is highly specialized and we would not have the need to have that person on full-time with us. So, this is definitely the most cost effective way to get this information back to you. Thank you very much for the answer. No followup. Okay. Looking for other speakers on this item. Council Frank, I like it and I'll support it. Thank you. Okay. Um, seeing no other speakers online or in chambers, I'll open the phone on that one. Closing the vote. Motion carries 4 to one. Okay. Our next item is 2.8, which is the restricted acts of council after nomination day and voting day. I'll look for a mover and seconder on this item. Councelor Mallister, Councelor Frank, thank you. And any discussion? Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Yes. Um, while I understand that this is required, my concern is around the details of it in um in the bylaw and in the schedule two particularly. So this was in play obviously for the last election and I am still concerned about the use of delegated authority on November 8th of 2022 where the city manager allocated the $5 million winter response which included a 12-month contract with a women's shelter that had never operated a shelter. On the motion that's in front of you, please. Yes. So I'm giving my rationale for why um I have some concerns around the lack of clarity in terms of when we talk about as needed and emerging issues and short-term service. So when that isn't clearly defined as to what short-term service is, there were one year and two-year contracts that were awarded through that. And my also my other concern is around the reporting out. So there is a requirement to report out I believe within 90 days but it doesn't say what will be reported out and uh what happened last time was it was just a very basic six lines or something that said 24/7 women's shelter for 650,000. As far as I know there wasn't a budget. We were never able to see the contract for that. It was done as a subcontract through London Cares. We were also told that um and and I'm explaining why I wouldn't be supporting this as it is is that I think we need to put parameters on what and when uh the delegated authority could be used and in the clarity of the information that's brought forward in the exercising of the delegated authority. So, uh in that the contract we were told it was like I said it was a one-year shelter um for an agency that had never run a shelter before. where we were told that Lenning Cares would be mentoring them, but the actual contract was just a flowthrough agency and the contract for the shelter itself we were never able to access and it was never 24/7 and we were criticized or I was criticized as a counselor for saying that we were expecting a 247 shelter when that's what was brought to council in the agenda as a delegated authority action. So, what I'm curious is as to how my colleagues feel. Um, I would like to know if there's some support. I'm not going to move the referral right now, but I I would like to know if there's support for a referral to get some clarity on the definitions as to what time-sensitive means, what short-term service is, what an emergent issue would be, and then in terms of the details that would be reported out in the 90-day reporting um and through you, I just had a general question around delegated authority. What is the current um reporting out on everyday delegated authority? How often does it happen and with what detail? Okay, thank you. Uh I will go to uh I'm looking at the front row looking at Miss Plet as the writer of the report uh for this item, but anybody would like to jump in on that question, happy to to hear back. And counselor, just so you know, if you're looking to move an amendment, um you're supposed to move the amendment on the first time speaking. So this would be your time to move an amendment if you have an amendment uh to make any changes as you you mentioned that you wanted to get a sense of that but you'd have to move the amendment now. Okay. Uh Miss Pollock go ahead. Uh thank you. Uh with with respect to the reporting out question it uh it may depend on the delegation itself. Uh so there are some that uh require a specific um report back say annually. uh some don't require a specific report back. So it's it's it's a little difficult to um uh have an overarching there's no sort of requirement in the municipal act in terms of the delegated authority but uh it may depend on each um bylaw that has given the delegated authority. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. So, just to confirm then, there's no uh overall bylaw that says there's annual reporting or anything like that, Miss Plet. Uh thank you. And three, no, there's no specific uh bylaw that would would speak to that, counselor. Okay. So, I I am going to move a referral then. The wording is with the clerk's office. Um, and I'm hoping that I have a seconder that it's being referred to the next or to a future ICC. Would you like to read it out or would you like me to read it out? Uh, I'm happy to read it out. Um, sorry, just one second here. We'll take the support of you reading it out. I don't have it quite handy here. No problem. Okay. So, the referral reads as follows. that the staff report dated February 23rd, 2026 to delegate certain authority should municipal council's actions be restricted after nomination day and/or voting day in 2026 be referred to the civic administration to report back to a future meeting of the infrastructure and corporate services committee with definitions in section 2.3 of schedule 2 for short-term service and as needed and details of reporting as outlined in section 3.1 including rationale, contract details and any other relevant information. You're looking to put that on the floor. I am. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for a seconder for that item. I'm happy to second this item to get it on the floor for discussion. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um so really again I just want to reiterate it's just for us to set the parameters as an oversight body as to getting clear clear is kind in terms of I don't want there to be judgment against the use of delegated authority if we haven't been clear on what that is and also in terms of the reporting out that we just make sure that we get what we need at the end of that period. As I said in no in 2022, November the 8th, $5 million was uh contracted out through delegated authority 7 days before we were sworn in. And there were one and two-year contracts there, some of them with new agencies who had never operated before and for whom we were never able to get to see contracts. So, I just want to set us up for success going forward that we just tighten things up a little bit in this next election cycle. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on the referral. Councelor Frank. Thank you. And uh through the chair to staff, I'm just wondering are there any timelines um in regards to moving this bylaw that is presented to us? Miss Plet. Thank you. And three, you would want to do it before the um nomination day. Thank you, counselor. Thank you. Any other speakers on this item? Okay. So, on the referral, I'll look to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 3 to two. Okay. Thank you. That's uh item 2.8. We'll go on to item 2.9, which is the contract award tender number RFT 2025 2023 or sorry 2022 Wellington Gateway and Municipal Infrastructure Improvement phase 2A Wilkinson Street to Baseline Road. And I'll look for a mover in a second on this item. Councelor Frank seconder. Councelor Mallister. Thank you. And any speakers on this item? Okay, seeing no speakers on this item, I will Oh, Councelor Frank, go ahead. Thanks. Yes. Uh, I just since it's being pulled, I assume someone's going to vote against it. So, I just want to speak in favor of it. Um, this will be occurring uh throughout some parts of my ward and I think it's incredibly important for us to um continue the progress that we've made on BRT. I think we've had this discussion before at council, but if we start not approving contracts for a project that we have massively undertaken and there's just large gaps and chunks along Wellington where there's no RT infrastructure, I think that is setting ourselves up for failure and I really don't want this council to do that. So, I just hope that we get approval on this so that we can finish this massive construction project that will be beneficial to half a million of Londoners. Thank you. I will look for any other speakers. Councelor Trusso. Um, just to echo what was just said, this does not pass through my ward, but I feel very strongly about the fact that I want to see this project completed because if we throw any more roadblocks into this project by not by not approving contracts that we need to finish it, we're we're really just making matters worse for ourselves. Um, so I'll be voting against this at council if it uh if it passes because I think we need to Well, I'll be voting in favor of this at council if it in any event. Thank you. Thank you. Flip it and reverse it. Okay, councelor Stevenson. Go ahead. Thank you. I just wanted to say I mean the BRT has been well supported by this council but for three years coming up on a little over three years I've been voting no to every project and every vote that comes forward with regarding the BRT. Um, and that's my right to do that as a counselor. And, um, I'm going to continue to vote no on behalf of the residents who are very unhappy with this very expensive project and, uh, the implications particularly in my ward. Thank you. Looking for any other speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't going to say anything on this one. Um, but I I think I I will based on what I heard. Um, I appreciate that people have expressed their opposition to the project. I think it's time though that people start asking themselves what is the cost of not finishing it because that's what we are essentially doing now by voting against individual contracts. Not only are we extending meetings by pulling these things, uh, but honestly, um, there are federal and provincial dollars attached here, um, that we would be violating the contracts that we took with those senior levels of government. Um, and we would have a project that would accomplish nothing because the leg is half finished instead of fully finished. though. Uh, as much as I've had some reservations about BRT and I I did not support the West or the North legs, um, the Wellington Gateway was always the one that I thought had the most value for dollar uh, opportunity for the city of London. And while I appreciate colleagues may uh, not support the BRT project as a whole, I I do think it's time we start asking ourselves uh, what is the consequence of not finishing the project because that's the essence of what we're doing when we're pulling these votes. So, I will be strongly supporting this. I don't dispute for a moment that it's counselor's right to pull those things, but I do ask really if at this point if it's an efficient use of meeting time for people. Thank you. I'll go back to councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I just want to say to that that like I said for 3 years now I've been pulling them voting no and not saying anything. So, it's been other colleagues today who want to reiterate the value in moving forward. As far as I understand, none of these BRT projects have been threatened or impacted in any way by the uh uh 13-2 votes that have been consistently happening for the last 3 years. So, and there's already talk of a north leg of the BRT and are seeking funding requests for that. And the federal portion of the BRT is quite small now in comparison to the municipal contribution to get this project finished. Okay, thank you. Uh looking for any final speakers. Seeing none online, seeing none in chambers. I'll open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 3 to two. Thank you. We are now on item 210, which is the limited tendering cooperative procurement for LTC's purchase of nine new buses. I'll look for a mover and second on this item. Councelor Mallister, Councelor Frank. Uh, looking for any speakers on this item. Okay. Councelor Frank, then councelor Stevenson. Go ahead, Councelor Frank. Thank you. Yes. I just want to reiterate that I think this is an incredibly important uh vote for us to make. If we want there to be buses on the archery infrastructure that we're building, we have to buy them and they take about a year and a half to two years to get. So, um, if we want there to be buses running on those lanes so that leners don't think we've wasted their money, we have to make this investment now. Um, and we can't delay it at all because it takes so long for us to order buses. So, just want to say I'm in full support of this very wise investment. Thank you, Councelor Stevenson. Go ahead. Thank you very much. I have a ton of questions on this one. Um, as was just mentioned, if it takes 1 and a half to two years to get these buses, I'm curious as to why this is only coming to us now when I thought BRT was going to be operational next spring. So, maybe through you to staff, can we get an update on the operations of the BRT and um, you know, the last staff report that's indicated here is October 28th, 2019, so a little over six years ago. Um so I'd love an update on the operation of the BRT, the funding for that and uh the number of buses that are needed which I think maybe uh is it only these or is this a partial order? Thank you. So we are on the portion that's associated with the East London Link corridor uh in the rapid transit network. Um, these purchases that are outlined are outlined in the report for $14 million. I will go to staff on those items associated with the East London Link and the contract, noting that we do use as closely as possible a just in time system so that we're not having infrastructure and and costs associated with our projects sitting unused uh when we don't need it. Go ahead, Miss Stan. Yes. And through the chair. Um, so the overall number of buses required for the Rapid Transit fleet is 14 buses. The first nine are required to operate the East London Link with operations slated to begin in fall of 2027. Uh, Wellington Gateway project is anticipated to follow either in fall of 2028 or possibly the spring later. So, we are ordering the first nine of the 14 buses we need. Um, there is an existing contract and a separate procurement that was done by LTC with New Canada Flyer, New Canada Fly, New Flyer Canada. Anyway, so those buses we're pulling from their standard spec. And so essentially, we're trying to get our bus request into the queue from New Flyer to be able to make sure that we get buses when we need them. They're the similar spec that's used by LTC buses. When they arrive, they will have special localized outfitting to be able to suit our needs for rapid transit. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you. I heard um that it was only the east link, but what I see is 6 uh sorry 4 million of the 16 million for this submission says Wellington Gateway additional vehicle and equipment. So I could I just get clarity there? Thank you, M. Absolutely. And through the chair, the cost of buses has increased since our original environmental assessment estimates. And so we did through the last multi-year budget, the approved budget increase accounted for some of those cost increases, but there have been some additional pressures. So as I mentioned, we need the 14 buses in an overall rapid transit fleet. The way our rapid transit projects and budgets are set up is they are by category, construction, shelters, buses, land. And so what we're doing is we're maxing out our east corridor bus contingent in that account. And we're using some of the cost overages we've seen based on tariffs and other impacts like uh EPA requirements for engines to be able to pull that extra from the Wellington Gateway accounts for their buses. So we're using our overall bus money to be able to purchase the buses we need. Now, what'll happen when it's time to purchase the buses for the south corridor, so the additional five buses. We'll look at the current cost of buses at that time, our available budget within our vehicle amounts, and then we'll also look to our overall RT program and look for savings from other areas to make sure that we're able to stay well within our overall program budget. Counselor, thank you. So, am I reading it right in appendix A where it says there's only 2 and a2 million left for future work? Uh, and we need five more buses at least. Is that am I reading that correct, Miss Stan? Yes, through the chair. So, at this point, um, if we were to try to buy five more buses today, we would have to look at other aspects of our program to draw funding from. And we've got our particular bus funding source. That's the one where we would need to look for other options. And we have some savings in our other construction and other budget areas. At this point, we want to wait until it's time to actually purchase the buses. It is just in time delivery. We may have different tariff impacts. There may be other areas that would adjust the cost of the buses at that time. Councelor, thank you. And are any of these uh electrified buses? Miss Stan? Yes. Through the chair, the buses are all high efficiency diesel. There's a separate pilot program going on through LTC to look at potential electrification of the fleet, but at this point we're sticking with the standard new flyer contract for high efficiency diesel buses. Councelor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. I do have a few more questions. I apologize, but this is a big expenditure. Um, it says under 3.0 that the nine buses are close to 14 million plus an almost another million in ancillary equipment. So, I'm just curious what the ancillary equipment is. Yeah. So through the chair um we have the base bus that's in the standard specification that comes from New Flyier and then with each of those buses once they arrive in London they're outfitted with London spec like specific add-ons that are done by LTC themselves. So that's after the bus is delivered at its base cost. We have additional um at source items that are added to that. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you. And then in 3.0 it it goes on to further say that the pricing above is subject to shifts of between 3 and 15% related to tariffs which will not be known until bus delivery and that there's also the potential for a pricing increase related to the 2027 engine which will be known once the buses are being built. And um so again there's a lot of uh unknown pricing increases there. Are we confident that with the 2.5 million left in the budget that there's enough there to at least cover these potential increases on this order? Miss Stan, uh through the chair, the source of financing attached to this report does include a 10% contingency on top of the 14 million that's noted in the resolution. And that's to address the potential for um fluctuation in the estimated bus costs at the time of delivery. So again, um we will be charged the cost of the bus at the time it's delivered. So if there is a change in the tariffs or if the 2027 uh EPA requirements about the engines have come into effect and change the cost of the engine that we've accounted for that within the source of financing, but the amount in the resolution is the current estimated cost of the buses. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate all this information. Um just some bigger picture questions. Is the operational funding for the use of these buses already worked into our multi-year budget? Like, have we already approved the operation for this? I'll go to Miss Dan. Yes. And through the chair, we have an RT operations budget which was modeled out and included within the assessment growth cases for the multi-year budget. Um, it is designed so that as operations begin, it'll start to account for um operator fuel and other maintenance costs associated with operating the buses. Um, in these early years, we're really just starting to take on some of the early m maintenance costs associated with maintaining the lanes of traffic that we're adding the shelters as we build them. And that uh that model will grow the annual cost to RT operations as we add elements and then as we ultimately add in RT operations. Councelor, thank you. And I think my last question for now, uh, obviously the east link is, you know, really impacts my ward and so there's a ton of questions coming around what will the scheduling be like? Will the buses continue along Dundas Street in addition to King Street? I've had different responses. Where can I and the public access the information on the operations that are coming and that have already been approved through council for funding? Miss Dan. Yes. Through the chair, the future operation for rapid transit and how uh local routes will be adjusted once that operations begin will be set by LTC's with their annual service review. The intention for the RT operations is that on the east link during peak periods the buses would run uh RT buses one bus every 5 minutes and then the idea is that any of those existing buses would then the service could be reallocated to increase the service level of local buses that connect into rapid transit. In the case of Dundas there will be one or two existing local routes that continue along Dundas and so there will be some areas of overlap. for existence. The two will continue to run straight down Dundas whereas the RT operations will pop over to King Street and when they hit Ontario but in in essence you're going to have that core a bus every 5 minutes with the rapid transit along the east corridor and then local service connecting into that and how that local service will be adjusted is done through LTC's service review program. Councelor Stevenson. Okay, thanks. That's helpful. and is is there a link or an op a place where the public can go to get this kind of information and um even how it was budgeted in terms of service like I understand that LTC is going to make some final changes but there are a lot there's a lot of concern about the existing transit service along Dundas Street and um how that might be impacted Dan yes through the chair with respect to service delivery of transit operations I think that's best directed to the LTC and through their website. And again, when we get closer to initiating the operations for rapid transit, there will be a service review for their annual program and they'll be looking at how they'll be making adjustments to the roots and the the public has an opportunity through that process to provide feedback. Okay. Thank you. That's good to hear. Thank you. I'll go to councelor Purple. Thank you, sir. Chair to the staff. I have a question. um regular buses. When I used to be on the commission, we there was a federal and provincial funding it used to be called ICIP. Is this a PTI? Is it the same source of funding, same stream, or is it just different because of regular buses and potentially RT buses? Miss Stan. Yes, through the chair. So, this report is basically transferring funding from our rapid transit budget to LTC so they can order the buses for us through their contract. Um it's part of the overall program which was funded through the uh investing in Canada infrastructure program. So ICIP it is part of that original budget and does have federal and provincial contributions towards it. Councelor okay sorry uh and regular bus says there was two other sources city of London and city of London DC's I didn't see the part of funding of city of London DCs. Is it going to be part of it additionally or not? Miss Dan. Yes. And through the chair, all of our funding sources for rapid transit are coming from a combination of federal provincial contributions as well as a municipal share. And then of the municipal share, a large portion of that is funded through development charges as a growth project. And then you have the tax supported component which is part of that as well, but it's a small portion. Councelor, thank you very much. No more questions. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item? Councelor Trasa. Um, thank you uh through the chair. I don't have any questions for staff. I think all the questions that I would have have been answered in the staff report and uh being being on the LTC commission, um I I do a lot of extra reading beyond what's in our staff packet here uh at council meetings. I want to say um the public is expecting us to deliver improvements in in in the bus system whether it's the conventional lines or the new rapid transit lines. There's a high expectation from members of the public and increased demands for better service. This would be a particularly bad time to say ah we're not going to buy these new buses. Price of these buses is not going to go down. supply chain issues are not going to get better. The availability of these buses is not going to improve. I think that if this council refused to approve uh this this this measure, which by the way has already been accounted for in our budgets, so it's not it's not like LTC is asking us for any new money, is and if I'm wrong about that, please correct me. I think this is very much like the last item and I understand I understand that there is some dissatisfaction in this community with the fact that we're going forward with this project, but I I'll just I'll just say this and I'll and I'll stop. We need these buses and we need them as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had uh one last question on this and uh just to put other colleagues maybe at ease. I I plan to support this because regardless of the infra the problem that I hear from residents is the infrastructure of how we've designed the road, not around expanded transit. So I'll be supporting the purchase of the buses. But um when we say an approved budget of 18.5 million, was that originally supposed to fund the 14 buses? Miss Stan. Yes. So, our adjusted budget for all 14 buses to support the RT fleet was the 18 million amount. So, we are using the available bus money that we have to purchase the vehicles we need right away. And then we'll be looking at our RT budgets to be able to optimize all budget sources within that overall program to make sure we're maximizing our federal and provincial investments and being able to stay within the total budget. Counselor, thank you. Well, that that'll be good to hear because otherwise uh we're going to we're we're projecting to be uh under budget in on this section of the BRT as well. Um is is there any way to know whether we're projecting to be to have underbudgeted the operating as well? Is there a concern that there's going to be or is that that might be outside of this question? But I'm I'm just curious if we're going to be funding the buses, is that then you know we're we're it's also going to have another hit coming in terms of operations to use them. Stan uh through the chair, the operating budget is separate and something that we're monitoring as we roll out um operations and start to take on those costs. So we've made a lot of estimates in terms of and assumptions around what it takes to operate and what it costs to operate a rapid transit system. So we'll be taking our model and then adjusting it and right sizing into our real-time experiences as we start to operate different elements. So that's separate in terms of the overall capital program for the rapid transit project program. As I mentioned, it is broken into those several categories, but in other categories, we are seeing some savings with respect to um item 2.9 that we just had on the rapid transit. You can see that um we had a very competitive price come in on that contract below our engineers estimate. So again, those are the types of opportunities where we can see maybe savings in other areas. It's really important that we optimize our entire budget across the program because for every dollar spent, we get that provincial and federal um matching dollars. So, um, if we leave UND dollars, we could leave funding on the table. So, we want to make sure we're going to use all of our bus money first and then if we need additional money to support buses, we'll look at other elements of the program to be able to make sure we're spending every dollar we can to optimize that program, counselor. Okay. Thank you again. I really appreciate it because there are a lot of questions around the rising costs on this. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Looking for any final speakers on this item. Seeing none, we'll open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 4 to 1. Thank you. That takes us to item 213, which is the update to the council policy, travel and business expenses. I will look for a mover and seconder on this item. Council Frank. Council Mallister. Thank you. Uh any discussion? Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Yes, I asked for this one to be pulled because I was concerned about uh the changes that were made um under the executive summary. It says um that there there was enhanced clarity related to telecommunications usage, strengthened environmental considerations and addition additional guidance on specific expense types. And when I looked at it, I saw things like um you know that when one tra more than one traveler is attending the same event that all attendees must where practical possible coordinate travel arrangements um subject to the uh you know that if you you could do one extra conference subject to the approval of the governing body which for council I believe is the clerk's office and it just seemed very like prior approval to use a taxi or a ride hailing service. And again, this is for elected officials as well. Um my understanding is that these were actually part of the existing policy and haven't been changed. Um, so I'd just like to confirm that and to see if it would be possible between now and council to get um this policy with the changes highlighted so that I can see exactly what I am approving in terms of the changes. Thank you. I will look to Mr. Collins on this item uh through the chair of the committee. As outlined in the executive summary, as the councelor uh pointed out, there were a lot of items considered in our revisions to the travel and expense policy before committee today. Uh a lot of them had to do with ensuring alignment with council strategic plan taking considerations items such as the environment. So when we've addressed some of the items like taxis and ride sharing, we've introduced new definitions for ride sharing and what have you that weren't included as part of the previous policy. One of the items that we looked at in uh aligning our policy uh with council strategic plan was reinforcing the consideration of environmental considerations. So other modes of transportation where there may be other modes of transportation outside of just the default of going with a taxi for example public transit. So that consideration is given while uh an elected official or an employee of the organization is out at a conference or out of town that other means of transportation is considered. We also take a uh a look for all of our policies to ensure that we are responsible and accountable for public funds that we're looking to ensure that we provide the most affordable option when we expend public funds for the most effective uh result. There are a lot of uh provisions within the existing policy that as you identified earlier or you had uh uh questioned earlier were from previous iterations of the policy. Those have not changed. The biggest change in this policy today was a mechanism to update the mileage rate which is in alignment with uh the Canada Revenue Agency's allowable uh mileage rate which is updated on an annual basis. So for uh 2026 that mileage rate is 73 cents. So we want to ensure that our mechanism is informed by a public mechanism that's already out there. So we've had folded that in to our policy before you which was a gap that we had identified that wasn't there before. With respect to providing committee and council a uh previous version of the existing policy with all the changes made that is something that we can uh easily make available uh to both committee and council prior to council. will identify all the modifications and changes should committee uh wish. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, I was not aware that this that the uh travel policy was worded in this way and that it it lumps together elected officials and city employees in a way that really is very uh prescriptive and it it's just not something I can support. Like it even says um it's up to the responsibility of the ERO, which would be the clerk, to determine whether the meal expense should be reimbursed. Um and that when two or more officials or staff are present for a meal in town, the most senior person present must pay for the expenditure. Yes. I I mean like I this feels like a benefit claim. We we have um I I really think we need to separate elected officials from city employees in their process. When I have an expense with a board, I always get approval before I book anything. And I don't do that with my expense account. I report to the electorate. And if they disagree with what I expense, then um they won't vote me back in again. So, I'd like to move a referral that I have here. Um and hopefully I have a seconder And I would just like to have the um the policies separated because they are quite different. Would you like me to read the referral? Thank you very much. that the staff report dated February 23rd, 2026 to amend bylaw number CPOL227479 being a bylaw to revoke and repeal council policy related to travel and business expenses and replace it with a new council policy entitled travel and business expenses to repeal and replace schedule A to the bylaw be referred to civic administration with direction to prepare two separate policies. One, governing travel and business expenses for civic administration and a second governing travel and business expenses for members of council and to report back to the future meeting of the infrastructure and corporate services committee with the proposed policies and through you. We went back and forth on this today and I and I appreciate staff's uh support in trying to get the appropriate wording on here. Um, I I would just like to I'm I'm happy to move this if I have a second or I'd also like to just hear from staff that they're happy with the wording of this as well. Thank you. And I'm happy to second this to get it on the floor and I will uh look to staff uh maybe to Miss Barbone or to Mr. Collins. Miss Barbone, go ahead. Uh thank you. I I don't believe there was a question in there, but perhaps for some clarification that we would be able to um in the past the policy has been separate. Um that's 10 plus years ago, I believe, but it did exist separately. Um in order to separate out the policy, that policy update would not be able to come forward this year. It would take us some time to pull everything out. Um so the current policy would um prevail which still includes the majority of the items excluding the ride sharing and some of the the things that have been added from the environmentally conscious but uh certainly we would look to bring something forward as early as we can but it certainly wouldn't be until 2027 counselor. Yeah. Thank you. I'm I'm happy to just proceed with this. Okay. Thank you. I'll look for other speakers on the referral. Councelor Stevenson. So I I will just say so I want to clarify. So this referral would then allow the necessary updates in regards to pdiums and that kind of thing to go ahead and it would ask staff to come back at a later date with the policy separated. Is that correct? Murbone. Uh thank you for the chair. If this policy update is not approved, the PDMS the changes that have been made do not apply and would not be put into effect. So the prede would stay as per the current policy as are all the current authorizations that are in this policy that currently exists in the council approved policy would stand. So we would work on a new policy but we would not be able to bring that till 2027 and the current policy would apply until then. So um very specifically the PDM update is not included. Okay, thank you. Now, I would imagine that is possible for us to just separately approve uh the simple predium updates and allow this to be referred back if we if we worked with staff between now and council. One moment. I'm just confirming with the clerk. Miss Marbone, did you want to add anything in? Um, thank you for the chair. So the current policy the current policy as approved um refers to the CRA specific um timeline for which the pdiums are tied without this policy update that isn't there. So you'd need to have a policy update to be able to make that effect. You could not pull out a piece of the um change. We would need council direction for any amendment to the policy to be able to bring any change forward. So, um, given that's really the only significant change that's here from what is currently in the existing policy except for the ride sharing element, all of those other items are in there. If council wants the policies to be separated, we can absolutely do that work. um you're you could consider passing this and then refer or directing us to bring forward a policy revision that separates the two as we once had. That would be my recommendation to allow that current piece um to proceed. Otherwise, I would need to confer with the clerk what other potential avenues we would have to bring forward a revision that doesn't take into effect all of the other clarifications that provide um administrative guidance. Councelor Stevenson, thank you. And I believe this was the back and forth that I had with staff this morning. There was an amendment that I was given that added a part C, I believe, that asked for the policies to be um uh to be separated and still moved forward with this policy. So, that that may be the one that we landed on that was meant to be moved right now. Okay. So, what we're looking to do then is defeat the referral and then look to move the amendment. Okay. I will uh look for speakers on the referral. Okay, seeing none on the referral, I'll open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion fails. 05. Thank you. So, we're back to the main motion. Uh, I believe Councelor Stevenson, you had the floor. So, I will give you the floor back on the Okay. Thank you. So, I'd like to move the amendment that was provided by the clerk this morning that uh added I believe a part C. Thank you. Okay. So, I'll read it that the motion be amended to include a new part that reads as follows. The civic administration be directed to prepare two separate policies. one governing travel and business expenses for civic administration, a second governing travel and business expenses for members of council and to report back to a future meeting of the IC with the proposed policies. Is that what you're looking to move? Thank you. I I I imagine though there's going to be some direction required or not. I'd love to know through staff regarding the council policy being different than the policy for staff rather than just make them two separate ones that look the same. Like I said, there's things in there around authorization and approval and preapproval for a taxi. Just doesn't seem appropriate for uh an elected official. And I'm assuming there's no direction needed that staff will will come back with something that then would be uh approved by council a future meeting in 2027. Thank you. Sorry, I still need a seconder on the amendment. Okay, I don't have a seconder. I'm happy to second it just to continue the discussion because I do have some points as well that I will be raising. So, I will second it. Councelor, sorry. On your on the amendment, did sorry, did you finish off with a question? I can't can't remember where we left off. Uh, just a conf Yes. a question to staff to just confirm that we don't need to get specifics right now that we can leave that with them to split it and when it comes forward committee can look at it at that time. Miss Burbone um through the chair certainly whatever we bring forward um council would need to weigh in on that. So it might be easier for us to to take that back and review it. it it might not be so easy as just automatically splitting it because obviously council elected officials may be a little bit different but um we certainly can take that back. it might be easier to to do the work and and then present something and then if there's changes that council wishes at that time, it might be easier to point to those specifically to provide direction unless there are specific direction already um that the council wishes to provide. We're certainly happy to take it, but it that would be my initial sense. I mean, for right now, our basis would be likely similar, but given the context, we'll have to look at the definitions and all of those pieces. It's not quite as simple as just simply mirroring them in in two separate documents, but we do have the the former work that was done previously because this did work once upon a time. So hopefully that may make it a little bit easier to uh separate into two. Councelor, thank you. So just on this amendment, I really dislike the way this policy currently is, but the urgency of trying to fix it is not there. if this is the existing policy, right? So, I think the amendment to just have staff come back and do that at a later date and separate it out would be appropriate. As I said, reading through the details of this policy, much of it just does not seem appropriate for an elected official and to join the two together just really doesn't make any sense to me. So, I'm happy to forgo the referral and just do this amendment, hoping my colleagues uh will support that. And I'll leave it there. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Council Mallister will you take the chair. I have the chair. Go ahead. Council on. Uh thank you and through you. So I did have some concerns as well. Um the ride sharing component of this uh did raise a flag for me even just for the purpose of things like an expense card. Counselors don't have an expense card. Is that something that we're planning to be given a separate expense card? Go ahead, Steph. Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking to see if Mr. Collins has anything to add. I believe that's referring to the procurement um cards that are city credit cards that staff have access to as opposed to a specific um different process for the the elected officials. So, we'll uh we can definitely look at some of the terminology, but there is not any changes that we're anticipating with the way things are currently being done um from that perspective. Okay. Followup counselor Uh Mr. Collins, you have anything to add? Yeah. Uh through the chair of the committee, just to add to uh Miss Barbones's response, uh when you're using ride sharing, there's multiple avenues to uh pay back the ride share either through uh your PC card, if you're a city employee, that you'd use that. Uh if you're an elected official, you could also use your credit card, but you could uh get that reimbured through your expense claim. So there are me many mechanisms for city staff. We would prefer the staff member to use their PC card uh rather than going through the whole reimbursement process. So it doesn't limit the avenue to use a ride sharing uh or ride hailing uh tool or mode of transportation. Followup counselor. Thank you. Um so again under the ride sharing component of it, it does say a corporate purchasing card should be used to pay for any ride sharing expenses. So, thank you for clarifying that, but I do think um because it is a policy, I'd want it further clarified for members of council. Um second, um is it my responsibility to check ahead of time to see whether or not the municipality has uh ride hailing services that are regulated and appropriately insured before I travel to somewhere? and um maybe at some I'm just thinking of some of the times I've traveled where I'm in a location and I can't get transportation easily uh to to a conference um because the conference is running and there's a little bit of a delay and I've had to use ride share. So I would have to then go and look and make sure that it's regulated etc. And then that's how I would make my determination from there whether or not I could use it. Uh, go ahead, Mr. Collins. I'm not sure if that's you or who wants to take that. Bestie, uh, through the chair of the committee. Uh, given the amount of ride sharing, uh, platforms that are out there, I think a lot of them are known. There may be some that are unknown. Uh so the the preference would be to use a lot of the ones that are on the existing rare that are uh throughout the various communities be it uh uh some of the ones that we find in the city of London ourselves uh that they're pretty well known and well established versus uh one that's probably foreign to us. Followup councelor. Uh thank you and through you. Um yeah, there were some other components that again I would really benefit from seeing the the difference between a a markedup version and um the proposed change version. Um so I'm hoping that that can be provided uh between now and council so that we can uh that I can go through that and get a better sense. Um I appreciate that we are updating the policy because I know that's very important. Um, but I just want to make sure that it makes sense to the way that we are traveling. Uh, when we're we're going somewhere. Um, yes, we always look for the most economical way to travel whenever possible. Uh, when we arrive somewhere, if we're arriving at the same time, yes, we are we're not trying to take separate rides anywhere or we're trying to use transit when it's possible uh to do so. Um but also keeping in mind that uh our schedules again appear sometimes to not work out to be able to um meet that commitment that you have. how it it does say that in the policy that unless there's uh um you know circumstances, tight connections, that kind of thing, but how would the ERRO determine whether or not I had a meeting that therefore made for a tight connection and that I had an expense associated with it? Um pass that over to staff if they want to comment uh through the chair of the committee. uh based on our experience with the application of this policy and when it comes to uh its usage and execution used by a number of our employees, sometimes it's good to reinforce some of those considerations that may be out of sight, out of mind for some of the of our newer employees. So, while it doesn't uh necessarily speak to the vast majority of our colleagues, we have found that when we're uh reviewing the expenses that come through, uh sometimes it doesn't hurt to re uh enforce or just rehighlight expectations when it comes to using uh public funds and what items should be considered. Uh they some someone could argue that yes, it's self-explanatory. Uh however, based on our experience, we just want to have something down codified in writing to make sure that those considerations are taken into place when uh uh when our colleagues are traveling for uh municipal purposes. Followup counselor. Thank you. Um and just to clarif clarify for 4.61 61 authorized travel 202 in page 203 um sorry of not the added because of be different page numbers the original agenda um it has this list A and then I I and going into B. Um I'm just wondering in some portions it when it talks about staff versus uh officials um in this policy. So, A says officials are entitled to receive reimbursements for the expenses while attending. And then it has the list. Um, and it says annual conferences of municipal associations of which the governing body is a member. And then it says things like one conference in addition to those mentioned. Could I just get more clarity on that? Um, how that's intended to be interpreted? U go ahead staff. So through the chair of the committee uh earlier on in this conversation uh Miss Barbone mentioned that a number of years ago there were two separate policies separating the uh elected officials and uh civic administration. As part of that consolidation, there was clear delineation between what was expected at the time from counselors when it came to uh section 4.6.1 as well as from civic administration. So over the years that reflects what it was back then. So at the time uh from the council's lens it may have been expected that there was only one conference and that's why we carried on that uh language within the current policy that has been consolidated. So expect to see as part of uh committee's uh consideration about separating out these two policies that you'd probably see two different 4.6s sixes and we probably deviated based on what was outlined for officials and what was outlined for staff. So that would be one difference between the two policies that you would uh see come forward should committee direct. Thanks followup councelor. Uh thank you. Sorry. So in 4.6.1 where it says officials are entitled to receive reimbursements for expenses while attending the following and then it says our annual conferences. Part V says one conference in addition to those mentioned. So I'm just wondering how that will be defined. I'm just trying to get a sense of what that might look like in terms of the policy. So could you give us some realistic or just looking at some of our our recent expenses for instance um you know if we go to FCM and we go to AMO for instance and then we go to one it looks like we can only go to one additional conference but I just need to understand what the parameters of that is or we get invited to a lot of local conferences for instance where in some cases there may be a time where an expense is incurred not usually likely but could be or let's say southwestern Ontario conferences. I'm just wondering how this is going to be interpreted a little bit more from the one perspective. Okay. Uh back to staff if you can pro provide some further clarity please. Through the chair uh to committee uh based on the uh concerns being expressed as part of our exercise as Mr. Perone said should committee decide to uh delineate both policies, we will take that away and work with city clerks to to identify what have been some of the challenges based on this existing language to date to see how we can further clarify within uh counselor's expense travel and expense policy. what that means given that we're hearing that uh further clarification is needed and which is uh consistent with how we've clarified some of the other language in this policy before you. So uh the items that you've raised is well noted and we'll certainly take that away. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that. Okay, I will hand the chair back to you. Thank you. So I have the chair. We're on the amendment to the motion. Any further speakers? Council Mallister. Uh, thank you. And through you. I'll try to be as quick as possible with this. Um, I'm just wondering, could some of these changes just not be made within the existing policy? Like, we've had this conversation today. I'm just wondering if staff could comment. Is there not just an ability to clarify some of these things within the existing framework. I don't want to necessarily throw the whole thing out if we can make some of these minor changes. I don't think that they're mountains. The they look to be quite small, but I just want to see what staff think if that's possible. Mr. Colin. Oh, Miss Barbone. Thank you through the chair. So, exactly what you're looking at and what we just reviewed is within the existing approved council policy. So, as we go and and look at um trying to separate the two, this is where we can bring in a little bit more clarity with respect to the um council expense account policies and the other directions that have occurred um over and above this policy with respect to travel related to counselor expense accounts. So, um, that will give us an opportunity as we look to bring these policies apart to look at the existing policies and how those all relate to provide a little bit more clarity in terms of how everything is there because those other policies and the travel and expense accounts are still other things that are approved by council specifically that complement what is here. So, this wording hasn't changed. It's still within the existing policy, but as we look to strip them out, it gives us an opportunity to uh make some changes to look at how it will better inform um decisions going forward in terms of payment for travel. Counselor, uh thank you. And predates my time. Uh but I'm just wondering in terms of when they were separate now, uh having this debate about bring them or doing it again, I guess. Um what was the rationale? Like I'm just wondering like was there efficiencies like what what did we find in terms of having one unified policy was it better like I just I don't I wasn't around curious uh just in terms of my decision-m today I'd like to know um what what works better the rationale for one or two missbone uh thank you through the change missain has some of that history so um essentially efficiency because it was one policy that coordinated everything and it was done at the same time with the introduction of pdeiums and a lot of these other pieces that were common amongst staff as well as elected officials. So um certainly they can be brought separately. There will be some things that'll be very much consistent between the two and then other things that I think there's some opportunity to have quite reflective of maybe perhaps the different realities that uh will come forward through other council policies that govern elected officials. councelor. Uh thank you and through the chair. Um and I know this came up just with the item we were just dealing with in terms of the referral, but um to split these out, is that going to have any impact in terms of the changes? I know you had said in terms of the PDM that was an issue with the referral. Um but will there be any impact um to approve a change like that? So I'm just curious um if that would change. Miss Burbone. Uh thank you through the chair. So if I understand what is intended is that there would be uh council would look to approve this current policy which would update the pdiums and in the meantime while this new updated policy is available to update the the language staff would work to develop two policies that would separate elected officials between um civic administration. And then that would take us a little bit of time to do and we would bring that forward in 2027 so that instead of having one policy there would be two separate policies that would be coming forward for approval to be implemented at that time. Councelor. Okay. Thank you. Looking for any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none, we'll open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 3 to two. Okay. Thank you. That takes care of Oh, now we're on as amended. Sorry. Okay. I will look for a mover and seconder on the as amended motion for 2.13. Councelor Stevenson. I'm happy to. We're looking to open the vote on the or sorry any discussion on the as amended motion. Seeing none, we'll open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Sorry, that concludes our uh additional business items. We are uh just looking to Sorry, that was our other business. Sorry, looking for any additional business if anyone has any items. Okay, thank you. Hearing seeing none. Uh that takes us to our confidential matters. Uh we have two items by which we are going camera and those items are outlined in the agenda. Looking for a mover and a seconder. Councelor Stevenson, Councelor Frank. Thank you. We'll open the vote in a moment. Closing the vote. Motion carries 5 to zero. Thank you. I'll ask Council Mallister to report out from in camera. Uh reporting that uh committee went into close session that progress was made on all items for which we went into camera. Thank you. With that, I'll look for a motion to adjourn. Councelor Stevenson, Councelor Frank, thank you. All those in favor by hand. Motion carries. Thanks, everyone.

Full Transcript