Okay, thank you. Please be seated. Okay, welcome to the 15th meeting of municipal council October 14th, 2026. I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Hodnoson, Len Paywok, and Adawandrron peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area. The two row wampen belt treaty of the hodnon confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds of the hodnon nanfan treaty of 1701. The McKe treaty of 1790. The London township treaty of 1796. The heran track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnabek and Honachoni. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipua of the Temp's First Nation, Onida Nation of the Temps, and the Muny Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda atlondon.ca CA or 519-6612489 extension 2425. Okay. Uh Willie Erststeid Ariststeed is a Franco Ontarian artist and educator who has been established in the city of London for the past 12 years. He actively participated in the launch of the city's anti-hate campaign through the composition of the song No to Hate. During the same year, he received he received the I am London I am London 2024 award in recognition of his contributions to our community. Please rise and join me in welcoming Willie who will now perform the French version of Canada's national anthem, O Canada. Okay. Mercy. Oh, there no you don't for a s The flow of glor Glor. Do no for no Oh, please. There we go. Okay. Um, that was amazing. Uh, thank you very much for that. Uh, we're turn to disclosures of pecunary interest. I'll look for any colleagues who have a pecunary interest. Okay. Seeing none, uh, we have a couple of recognitions. Uh, I'm going to start with the first one and then I know a couple of colleagues are going to share in the second one. Um, so I'll begin. Uh, I rise today in recognition of a former member of city council um, who passed away recently. Uh, Gourd Hume. Gourd came to London from Saskatoon in 1980 to work in radio. And in a sense, he never went off the air. Londoners elected him four times. First as Ward 7 counselor in 1997 and three times citywide to the board of control. He helped bring our central library to the old Bay store in Dundas. He served on the councils behind the new Coven Garden Market and the arena in the heart of the downtown. Those were big bets once and they're simply today how London works. When he left council, he didn't slow down. He wrote a shelf of books on how cities succeed, carried London stories to audiences across Canada and around the world, but kept a close candid eye on the councils that came after him. I was proud to personally know Gourd and call him a friend. I always appreciated his guidance and support over the years and he shaped my approach to being an elected official. On behalf of the city council and the people of Lenin, I want to extend my deepest condolences to his sisters Lorraine and Valerie, uh to Carol Stevenson and everybody who loved Gourd. Now, normally I would say let's pause for a moment of silence, but um the second recognition is also about someone passing. And so I'll allow that recognition to happen and then we'll have an extended moment of silence uh after we hear both. So I'll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to start the next recognition. Thank you worship and I'm going to invite uh Councelor Pelosa and Councelor McAllister to stand and join me and we'll start with Councelor McAllister. Um, thank you. And, uh, I rise today, uh, in recognition and remembrance of Irene Mat. Um, longtime, uh, MP and previously to that an MPPP. I'm going to do my best not to to cry through this. Honestly, it was a tough couple days. Um, and Irene meant a lot to myself and I know many around the horseshoe. Um, I first, um, heard about Irene. Uh my father worked for the provincial government in the 90s and uh he had one day brought up uh Irene's name and he said uh you know I'm never going to forget this MPP because she uh was affectionately known as the bag lady but she always had a lot of bags and she was always so dedicated came to all of her meetings so prepared and really a champion for the people she represented. uh when she left provincial politics and came back to London, uh she actually taught my uh my sister English at uh Banting Secondary School. And when I finished uh university, uh studied politics and I still very much wanted to be involved and my dad suggested, you know, you should look up Irene. I know, you know, from my experience, you know, she was a great person and you should get to know her more. And so I went to the constituency office and actually that's how I met uh Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh and really it became like a second family for me. Uh they were such kind and compassionate people. Um uh in her last campaign um I did a lot of canvasing with uh with Irene and uh she would always toss me her keys and said, "You're driving." And she had this beast of a Buick and uh it was a nightmare to drive and even worse to park. Uh but she uh she she loved that car and she was so dedicated uh uh door knocking till you drop. Like she she would you know wanted to talk to everyone, hear their concerns and she really cared. Always an open door. They had the best Christmas parties I've ever been to. Uh you're never going to leave without a full stomach and probably leftovers because Irene always cooked too much. Um but I think for me uh a lasting memory for me will be on election night four years ago which is almost a few days from now. She uh gave me a big hug and said I'm so proud and just go out there and do some good. and I've really tried to live by that. Uh she was such a wonderful woman and a great leader and she will be sorely missed by all Londoners. So I just want to say thank you for your years of service. I know you'll be missed by your family, but you had such a lasting impact on uh people. And so uh I'll leave it there, but uh yeah, you will be remembered. Thank you. Thank you. Um, as part of board 12 is served by London Fanshaw and Irene was such a powerhouse. So much packed into such a compact body like you just don't see her coming. The tenacity and the dedication she had when she was serving her residents and have known Irene for the in the family for almost 20 years. And what always struck me was it was people over party and politics that when there was an issue to be done, what however it need to get done is who she's going to work with. Um our boundaries are just imaginary lines and she was always there to serve with such dedication. She was known for that she gave generously and graciously when residents needed her office. She was there. No wrong door was ever the right or the wrong one. She fought for human rights, the rights of women and veterans for 30 years throughout my time. And you you served together and thinking of Keith at this difficult time that he was an excellent purse holder as we get to events and Irene's busy cutting ribbons and talking to people and shaking hands. He was the quiet rock in the corner waiting to support her. And for Lindsay, uh our thoughts are with her, too. And what some people don't realize is when the seat for London Vanshaw changed from Irene to Lindsay, that was actually a first in Canadian politics in Allah, Canada for a daughter succeeding her mother. So, deepest condolences to the family at this time. There's a lot of work left to be done that she started and we will carry on. >> Irene was born in East London and her heart never left East London. She was a tenacious fighter for the people that she served. She was a tenacious teacher for the students that she taught for many years at Clark Road Secondary School. Councelor Mallister uh mentioned her her nickname as the bag lady in provincial parliament. Well, before that, uh, as she paid her way through university, uh, she was also the two scoops girl cuz she worked the midnight shift at Kelloggs, putting raisins in the raisin brand and then would come home, change, and go to school to get her degree. Uh, that's the kind of work ethic that Irene had, and it's the kind of work ethic uh, that she brought to her role as both an MPP and later an MP. I met Irene in 2003. Uh, and I have always said I joined uh, the party for Jack Leighton, but I stayed for Irene Mat. Uh, we went through six campaigns together. Uh, the first two weren't successful. The the third one though was for the NDP what you call a landslide cuz we won by almost 700 votes. Uh, and that was a long winter campaign that went that started in November, went through the Christmas holiday, and wrapped up in January. Poor Keith was hammering signs in the ground that had been frozen for 6 or 8 weeks. Uh, and we would be out there until 11:30, 12:00 at night doing that. Irene would come home from the doorsteps, absolutely frozen solid. Uh, but she worked right through that. And there were some memorable doorsteps. She certainly had a favorite one about a fellow on Eastmanav who came to the door in a leopard print bikini. Uh she didn't stay very long at that door, she said. Um however, she finished canvasing the rest of the street because she really really enjoyed talking to people and hearing their concerns and working for them. And for 12 years, I had the privilege of working in her constituency office. And through her leadership, we were able to help literally thousands and thousands of Londoners with EI problems, with Canada revenue problems, with citizenship and immigration problems. Certainly, one of the areas that I worked with her closely on was veterans affairs problems and solving things for our veterans in this community. And that's something that she brought to me that I will carry with me for the rest of my life. My love and appreciation for the veterans uh who have served this country. She served as critic of veterans affairs and she was very proud to fight for our veterans. She was small in stature but she was a giant in this community. She touched literally thousands of lives as an MP, thousands more as a teacher. And she never really stopped being a teacher at heart. I still fondly remember getting draft press releases back marked up in red ink just like a teacher. But more important than that was the lessons that she imparted on me and councelor McAllister and councelor Ploa and many of us uh and others too. Uh I I think of the great friendship she had with Gina Barber uh who served in this chamber as well. But the lesson was simple. It's about the people. At the end of the day, put down the party colors, put down the differences, try and find a way forward for the people that you're there to represent. We had a really special time uh in one of the minority governments where we had Ed Holder in London West, we had Glenn Pearson in North Center, and we had Irene in London Fanshaw. We had MPs representing all three parties. And yes, they sparred and did battle in question period in the House of Commons, but when they came back to London, it was about London first. And it wasn't just the MPs. Their constituency offices lived and breathed that. And I remember coming to this building along with Heidi Mack from Ed's office and a team member from Glenn's office and sitting with Mayor Deco Best and the three of us working out infrastructure projects for money that the feds were going to send to London and making sure it was shared between all three ridings. The partisanship was set aside to make sure that everyone in the city was looked after. That is the kind of spirit that Irene brought to her work. And more importantly for me will be the friendship. Because for all I learned, as much as she was a mentor, what I will remember most about Irene is that she was my friend. And it was a privilege and an honor to call her that. She will be sorely missed. My condolences go out to Keith and Lindsay and the extended family and all the people across this country that she had such a profound and lasting impact on. You'll be remembered, Irene. You've touched many, many lives, and we are grateful that London is the place where you started, where you finished, and where you fought the hardest for the people that you called your friends and family. Regardless of whether she had known you for 5 minutes or for 50 years, every Londoner to her was a part of her family. She was truly one of our best and she will be missed. Thanks. I'm going to ask everybody to rise and uh join in a moment of silence for both Gourd Hume and Irene Mat. Thank you. Please be seated. >> Any other recognitions? Councelor Poza. >> Thank you, your worship. I just want to take a moment to rise for those in South London who've had the opportunity. There is a Thanksgiving lunch put on free of charge at the South London Community Center every every year for 30 years now. Welcoming anyone who would like to come and share a meal, making sure everyone has a place for that holiday. And just want to recognize Pastor Dave and his wife Grace and their volunteers for having put this on for so many years, 30 years making place, sometimes feeding hundreds up to 500 um rotating through that gym to make sure that they had a place to break bread together and just want to recognize them after decades of their gift to the community as well. >> Thank you. Anything further? >> Okay, seeing none, that completes recognitions. Uh we're on to review of conference matters to be considered in public. We have none. Uh, so we're on to council in close session. We have uh six items to go into close session for. Uh, I'm going to look for a motion to move into close session. Councelor Cuddy, seconded by Councelor Hillier. Uh, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. Okay. And we'll be moving to committee room 5. So, uh, for members of the public, we will return as soon as we're done our close session. Okay, thank you. Please be seated. All right, that concludes our close session. We'll have any reporting out later in the meeting on that and we're on to confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have the 14th meeting which was held on September 22nd. I'll look for a removal of those minutes. Councelor Vamir and seconded by councelor Hillier. Any discussion or changes to the minutes? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Councelor Ferrer. No marking. Councelor Ferrer as absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. >> Um uh and councelor Fer indicated he will be returning. He had a just a thing a short thing to do at uh around 2:00. He'll be returning shortly. Uh we're on to communications of petitions. We're going to deal with 6.1 and 6.2 first. These are uh expropriation um uh items which we've done a number of times and this is where we essentially will move to sit as the approving authority. Uh we will consider an expropriation matter, make a recommendation to council, return to sitting as you know essentially the um decision-m authority uh and then making the decision. So there's a few steps on this uh and uh we'll we'll we'll just work through them. So uh the first thing is uh uh and this is related to the expropriation of lands at Western Road and Sarnia Road Philip Aziz uh Avenue corridor and intersection improvements both phase one and phase 2 uh report two. Uh so the first step is for us to uh move to sit as the uh and convene as the approving authority under the expropriations act. Uh so I'll look for a mover for the following motion. The council convene as the approving authority pursuant to the provisions of the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 as amended for the purpose of considering communication number two from the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with respect to the expropriation of lands as may be required for the project known as Western Road and Philip Road. Philip Aziz Avenue corridor and intersection improvements phase 1 and two. I'll look for a mover for that. Councelor Hillier, seconded by councelor Van Mirburgen. Uh and so again, this is to convene as the approval authority. So we'll open that as a vote. >> Closing vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. Okay. And now we're sitting as the approving authority and I'm going to read the recommendation before us into the public record and then I'll look for a mover in a seconder for this. Then on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with concurrence of the director of the transportation uh and mobility on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the expropriation of lands as may required for the western road and philip uh insia road philipiz corridor and intersection improvements phase one and two the following actions be taken. A that the council of the corporation of the city of London uh as approving authority pursuant to the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 as amended hereby approves the proposed expropriation of lands described in schedule A attached here 2 in the city of London County of Middle Sex. It being noted that the reasons for making this decision are as follows. I subject lands are required by the corporation of the city of London uh for the western road and snee road Philip Aiz corridor uh and intersection improvements phase one and two I I the design of the project will address transportation needs along the corridor and provide improvements for transit automobiles pedestrians and cyclists I I I the design in accordance with the municipal cla design is in accordance with the municipal class environmental assessment study recommendations for western road and Philip uh western road Sarnia road Philip Aiz corridor and intersection uh completed by the city in 2023 and B subject to the approval of a a certificate b a certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in the prescribed form. Who's willing to move that? Councelor Tro will move. Councelor Hillier will second. Any discussion on the motion before us? Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. I'll >> now look for a motion to adjurnn uh as the approving authority. Councelor Verberen, seconded by councelor Cuddy. Um and that's just us adjourning back to council convening in its regular session. We'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. And now municipal council has a recommendation from the approving authority to consider an expropriation. Uh that recommendation reads uh as follow that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager environment and infrastructure with concurrence of the director of transportation mobility on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the expropriation of lands that may be required for the western road sneiz corridor and intersection improvements both phase one and two that the following actions be taken. A the proposed bylaw attached to schedule A being a bylaw to expropriate lands in the city of London in the county of Middle Sex for the Western Road Sarnia Road Philip Aziz uh corridor and intersection improvements phase 1 and two be introduced at the municipal council meeting held on October 13th 2026b the civic administration be directed to undertake directed to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan or plans showing the appropriated lands and to register such plans or plans in the appropriate registry uh or land title office pursuant to the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 within 3 months of the approving authority granting approval for said exprop expropriation. C the mayor and the clerk be authorized to sign on behalf of the expropriating authority the plan or plans as signed by an Ontario land surveyor showing the expropriated lands. and D. City clerk be authorized and directed to execute and serve the notices of expropriation required under the expropriations act RSO 1990 CE26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain possession of the expropriated lands. I need a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by councelor Cuddy, seconded by councelor McAllister. Any debate or discussion on that? Oh, except one mistake. I said October 13th in my notes. It should be 14th. It's meant to be today and it's reflected in the actual vote on your screen. >> Okay. Any discussion? >> Okay. We'll open that up for voting. Closing vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. And now for items 6.3 through 6.10. We have a motion that refers all of those to the various components of the agenda. I'll look for someone to move that. Councelor PL is seconded by councelor Hopkins. Any discussion on that? Okay, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. Mo motions to which notice is given. We have none. So we're on to the report section of the agenda. We'll start with 8.1 which is the ninth report of SPC. I'll turn it over to Deputy Mayor Lewis to present the SPC report. >> Thank you your worship. I have not been made aware of any items which colleagues wish to be pulled to be dealt with separately. So unless there are any, I am prepared to move the full report. >> Okay. I'll look for anybody who'd like something dealt with separately. Okay. Then you'll move the motion. >> Then I will move a motion to receive the and approve the entire report. >> Okay. The entire report uh all of 8.1 is on the floor. Any discussion? >> Yes. Councelor Privile. >> Thank you, Mayor. I just I would like to make a couple of comments. 2.1 municipal accommodation tax as every time this is in front of us. I'm uh on behalf of the entire council very thankful to the hotelers who collect these amounts for us. Ontario restaurant hotel association Toronto leading by Tony Lennis and Tourism London. Those are some great initiatives that are included there and uh again thankful to the hotel industry in London to help us being able to accomplish and introduce these new initiatives and actions. Thank you. >> Any other speakers to anything in these reports? Okay, seeing none, we'll open them for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay. And now we have the first of two planning and environment reports. Um we'll start with 8.2 and I'll turn it over to chair and councelor Layman. >> Thank you, Mayor. I'm pleased to present the 14th report. Planning Environment Committee. I've had a request for two items to be pulled. Number seven and number nine. >> Okay. Seven and nine. Is there anything else anybody would like dealt with separately from this? >> Okay, I'll let you make a motion, counselor. >> Okay, I'll move uh 1 through 6, 8, 10, and 11. >> Okay, those items are on the floor. I'll look for any discussion for those items. >> Seeing none, we'll open those items for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Okay, go ahead, councelor. >> Thank you. I'd like to put number seven on the floor. This is regarding 307 Colonel Talbot Road. Councelor Hopkins requested this be pulled. Okay, this is uh now on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Go ahead, councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you your worship. I asked for this to be pulled as I will not be supporting uh the planning and environment uh recommendation which is not to designate it and only to receive it for information. I am supportive of staff's recommendation. I understand the dascese may not want its build buildings designated, but this church is historically linked to the cemetery that surrounds the building. I want to thank the Westminister Township Historical Society for reminding me the significant landmark that this church holds in the Lambeath community. A number of years ago, the Labbeth Community undertook a community improvement plan. It's historical culture. It's very important to the community and uh we do not have very many historical places left to acknowledge and that's why this recommendation to designate is important. So I will not be supporting it. >> Any other speakers to this? Go ahead. Councelor Troile. I just want to uh briefly um thank councelor Hopkins for doing some background work and looking at this and bringing it forward to our attention. I'll be supporting the councelor. I will not be supporting this recommendation. I too believe that this property should be um designated. So um I'll be voting no on this on on the committee recommendation. Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers? All right. Then it's the committee's recommendation on the floor. So we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 9-6. >> Okay. Uh, go ahead, Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'd like to put number nine um regarding 1875 Richmond Street on the floor. This was requested to be pulled by councelor Cuddy. >> Okay. This is on the floor. I'll look for any discussion. Councelor Cuddy, go ahead. >> Thank you, your worship. Thank you, your worship. And through you, um I asked that this be pulled. I was contacted last week, your worship, by a member of the family um suggesting that they had been away. Uh were not able to submit a letter to uh heritage committee um referencing this property. Um I think our planning and heritage department did their did their due diligence, did their work. However, I think in um in good consciousness, I think we should uh uh allow the family to submit a letter um with their opposition to uh designating this a heritage property. I I do I would have supported this your your worship. Um but I think in all fairness to the family, I think we need to uh to allow them to submit a letter. So, um, I would, uh, I'd like to recommend that we, uh, uh, we have the family submit a letter to the Heritage Department of Planning and to, uh, to, uh, uh, make their opposition clear in a letter form. Thank you. Okay. So, councelor C, you're asking for a referral of this item until discuss, which is where I think one of the other ones was referred to. >> It would be I think it would be a referral. >> Yes. Okay. Referral. My apologies. Thought it was a deferral, but >> okay. >> That's all right. >> Recommended to the next to the next council. >> Okay. >> That's that's a deferral, isn't it? >> Okay. So the next planning and environment committee is December 1st. That's where you could refer to. So that's where you want to refer to. It can be referred to. >> Yes, sure. >> Okay. I'll look for any seconder for that. Councelor Hillier is willing to second. Okay. So now we're going to have a discussion on the referral of this matter to the December 1st meeting of planning and environment committee. I'll look for any speakers on the referral. Go ahead, councelor Pelosa. Thank you. Uh three you to staff just on this one with the deferral realizing um it's referencing the Ontario Heritage Act. Um just looking to see if there's any timelines that we may need to be mindful of before we get into the discussion. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you through your worship. Uh there still would meet the timelines that we need uh if we bring it back for December 1st. Thank you. >> That's it. >> Okay. Any other speakers? Go ahead. Councelor Troau and then councelor Ramen. >> Just a question to staff. Was um could you could you describe how the notice was um prepared and delivered for this matter? >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you. Through your worship, the notice would have gone to the property owner through the property tax role. We have had conversations with the the um property owner as part of uh an ongoing planning act application and uh as part of um it is on the agenda um with their the letter requesting more conversation and uh we certainly can have that dialogue um in preparation of December 1st. But as a matter of uh the technical sufficiency of the notice, I need to have assurance that there were no issues regarding the technical sufficiency of the notice that was uh duly served pertuance pursuant to statute. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you through your worship. Yes, we've adhered to the proper notice protocols. Councelor Chos, >> is it is it a typical procedure for people who are interested in a development application either way to be able to come back and say, "Oh, gee, I didn't get to notice. I'd like I'd like uh more time so I could submit my uh position on this." Is that something we usually do? >> I'm not sure I remember how many times if this has been done before. If our staff can answer that, they can give that a try for the counselor. >> Thank you through your worship. It does happen from time to time, but it's not a very common practice. >> Councelor Chos, >> in your view, and again, I'm asking for your opinion here. Was there anything unusual or unoured about unoured about the circumstances of this serving of notice on the property owners that um should rise to the level of raising concerns about substantial justice? >> Go ahead. Thank you for your worship. It's my understanding the uh property owner would just like to have further conversation with staff. Um, but from that perspective, uh, um, it's something that we can still continue to have the conversation with them. >> Well, I I'm going to vote against the deferral if if I if I may state my opinion on this. It's it's always nice to get another kick at the can. And I can think of many development applications that went through where it would be nice to come back and say, you know, I didn't like that decision that's on the table. I'd like to have further conversation about this. So, can you please uh not deal with this uh what's what's on your agenda? I don't see any I I have not heard an argument in terms of anything that would justify not proceeding with this. The notice was was given pursuant to the statutory requirements. And other than the fact that uh the the the applicant might not like not the applicant, the uh the the property owner might not like this result, I see no reason to delay this and throw it over to the next council. We're quite capable of dealing with this tonight. Thank you, >> Councelor Ramen. >> Uh thank you and through you. So my understanding of process right now is the applicant or sorry the real estate holding company has submitted a letter on behalf of themselves and the family uh to request that we delay the decision today which actually it doesn't spell out very clearly in the letter either. um that we delayed the decision to allow for them to consult more. But in the actual motion that we're dealing with today, there is an appeal mechanism built in. So we could actually continue our proceedings with what came out of committee, vote to move that forward and still be giving the applicant time to come back and appeal that decision. And the appealing of that decision, as far as I understand, sends this matter right back to planning, which would be the December planning meeting. So can somebody please explain to me what the difference is between what we're doing Maybe I it sounds to me like that's a confirmation of whether that's the process and whether there's a difference between referring it or approving the process between a referral or an appeal. But if you could confirm that as councelor Ramen articulated that that is uh the process for appeal. >> Thank you through your worship. Yes, that's correct. uh it would be the same same end state. Uh recognizing that all this is at this stage is to make a um a decision to move forward with continuing to have that those conversations and uh then there's a notice uh of that decision that then uh we can there's the 30-day uh process that is triggered through that and then there's the um opportunity for appeal to the OOLT. What we're trying to do today is to bring this forward um have a decision from council whether to proceed with a designation before the January first date. That's the critical timeline that we're trying to achieve here. >> Council Ramen. >> Thank you. So if this is let's say the same, let's say we were to approve it today and move forward, we'd start the 30-day clock for a decision. uh that 30-day clock. My understanding is if there was no appeal, it would go to a further future council meeting, but if there is an appeal, it would go to the next planning meeting. Can I just get confirmation on that? Is that okay? >> Go ahead. >> Uh the appeal is at the end of the process, but there is through the notice of decision, we would be bringing it back to council um for a further uh decision and uh and then there's the opportunity for appeal after that. Go ahead. >> Thank you. So, if we were to refer this matter, it would then at this point not start the 30-day clock. So, if council were then to approve this on December 15th, the clock now extends past January 1st. So, we actually would lose the protection on the building if we don't act now. Yes. Could you articulate whether the January 1st deadline is we have to have made the decision and started the clock or we have to we have to complete the 30-day clock by then >> through your worship the decision to start the clock. So we will make the timeline whether it's today or December 1st for the December 15th. Um again that's prior to the January 1 and then it's the notice uh that would go out that's the the trigger for the 30 days and then after that it's the OLT but it can continue through after January 1. It's just the the decision to give us direction to designate. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. So um I appreciate all that clarification and I'm appreciative that we have time past the December 15th period to deal with this matter. But I also want to um I also want to make sure that my colleagues understand this is a community conversation around the designation of this building. This conversation is enveloped around a school property that was uh part part and parcel of this property at one point and was severed. And so this property sits outside of a severed property for a new school. During this whole conversation, uh the building has also been part of of a conversation around designation. And if you can imagine, we're about to do something dramatic to a neighborhood to put a 2,000 pupil place school there. We had communication from the family that said, "Let's designate this property. Let's move forward with this designation." And you can see how the two conversations became interlin. And as they became interlin, the community started imagining is wouldn't it be great to have a historic building in front of this new high school that we can share the history of London at this particular place in time and point. I mean it it is something that the community needed to be aware of that this is now a change in direction or something else is happening because the last thing we knew was that it went to PEC committee had made a decision and then we received notice from the family saying even though this meets four of the nine criteria now we we we want to put it on pause while we continue discussion about a development on this project that the community is not aware of where any of that is because it's not it's not a public information. So I do think that it's important at this time that we move forward with the process by which the public saw and that is that planning dealt with the designation planning recommended the designation. We the applicant still has the opportunity to come back with an appeal. I think we move forward. Thank you. >> Other speakers. Okay. So, this is on the referral. Uh, so councelor Cuy's referral motion. We're going to open up the referral for voting. Closing the vote. Referral fails. 5 to 10. >> Okay. So, that returns us to the main uh committee recommendation. Um, I'll look for speakers, other speakers on the main committee recommendation. >> Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13-2. Council Layman. >> Thank you. That concludes the 14th report. >> Great. Do you want to do the next one, too? >> Okay. >> All right. Let's move right into the 15th report. Flighting Environment Committee. I've had requests to have three items pulled. Uh number five, number seven, and number eight. Okay, we're doing five, seven, eight, and 10 so far. Um, councelor Stevenson, which one? >> Yes, I'd like to pull six, please. >> Six. Okay, so 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10. Anything else? Okay, Councelor Layman, I'll let you make a motion. >> Okay, I'll move uh items 1 through 4, 9, and 11 through 17. >> Okay, those items are all on the floor. Any discussion on the items that councelor Layman just just moved? >> We're just preparing the vote on that. Okay, I see no discussion on those. We're going to open that for voting. >> Councelor Trusso. Councelor Trusso. Uh Trusso votes yes noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. >> Thank you. Um I'll put number five on the floor. This is regarding 2457 Main Street. Councelor Hopkins requested this poll. >> Okay, this one is on the floor. I'll look for speakers. Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you uh Yora. This is a heritage designation again in the Lambeath area. I first of all want to start off with thanking the owner. I met with the owner to discuss her concerns about the designation of the building and I completely understand her concerns from a business perspective, the costs uh to her and I want to also thank her for her commitment to the Lambeath community throughout the many years. I am not supporting uh will I will not be supporting the planning and environment recommendation to receive and to take no further action. Again, the Westminister Township Historical Society, I want to thank them for their letter and I agree completely with their response. There are too few houses and other buildings remaining that reflect Lambbeath's history. When a building is designated to be a cultural herit of cultural heritage value, it is a benefit to the community. Again, going back to the community improvement plan that we did a number of years ago, cultural heritage matters to this community. Uh, and again, I uh just want to reiterate the importance of seeing buildings that do matter in the community have significant value. And again, we'll not be supporting the um recommendation coming out of committee. >> Other speakers to this. >> Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to five. >> Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'm moving on to number six. This is regarding 11 Wellington Crescent. I believe councelor Stevenson requested this poll. >> Okay, this one is on the floor. I'll look for speakers. Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. >> Thank you. Yes, I'd like to move a referral to December 1st. Okay, I'll look for a second or further referral to the summer first. Councelor Cuy's willing to second. So, we'll start on the referral. You can go ahead with your rationale. >> Yeah, thank you. Um, I wasn't at the planning committee, but I've been in uh conversation with the owners. Consistent with the other designations that have come forward where the owner has pleaded and given reasons uh for us not to designate. Um, I'd like to move a referral to give them and a committee a chance to uh look at this further on December 1st. So, the homeowner has said that um uh they're in their 80s, living on fixed incomes, even the possibility of additional repair costs um are uh affect their financial security and their ability to make decisions about their own home as circumstances change. They respectfully ask council to consider whether imposing these additional obligations on them is proportionate to the public benefit that would result from designating this particular private re residence after living there for many years, maintaining the property and contributing to their community. They hope that they will be permitted to continue owning and eventually selling this home without the additional financial uncertainty and restrictions associated with an individual heritage designation. For these reasons, they respectfully ask us to vote against the proposed heritage designation. And in this case, I'm just asking for a referral to be supported. Um, they thanked us for the time to consider their circumstances and the very real effect this decision could have on them personally. Um, they also mentioned that this is right on the bus rapid transit and they're already dealing with the impacts of that on their property value. So, I'm just looking for council's support in giving this uh some further uh discussion in at the December 1st meeting. >> Okay, other speakers to this. Go ahead, councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Worship. And through and like councelor Stevenson, I've also spoken with the owners and u as councelor Steven mentioned, they're in their they're in their 80s. They've lived in the home, I believe, for 45 years. >> 12, >> sorry, >> 12. >> 12. and they have um they've invested a great deal into this. They are on a fixed income. Um they take good care of their property. I happen to drive by it and see it. And uh um all they're asking for is an opportunity to continue living out the remainder of their lives in uh in this property without any changes. Thank you. >> Okay. Other speakers to this council Troau. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Um I'm trying to understand what would be gained by a deferral to the next meeting. It seems as if the issues in this uh in this situation have have been have been pretty much pretty much defined and we we have a recommendation in front of us. the the statute the statute does not say that should the um property owner be over a certain age or perhaps they live on a transit route or this could uh cause additional expenses for them then that can visiate all of the other things that are in the uh heritage uh heritage act. So I'm trying to understand what is going to be different with a with with a with with a referral to the next meeting. uh typically I think with a proper referral motion there is some additional issue that warrants uh investigation uh that that that could uncover perhaps a different result and I'm not seeing that here. What I'm hearing is that the property owners are opposed to this and of course they have the right to file an appeal if they have grounds but uh the fact that they don't want this designated when the criteria are there is is is not a proper grounds for appeal. But again, they can file an appeal they want. So I guess my question is what what would come out of the referral that we don't already have on the table right now. Councelor, I know I don't know if anybody can speculate what would come out of the referral. Um I don't think our staff would have that piece of information. That would be very speculative. It sounds like the counselor is asking it to be referred to allow for a continued discussion and perhaps a further submission by the residents, but I don't think we can speculate on exactly what that would say unless staff have more information than than I'm understanding is available right now. You can go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship, what it would do is give them an opportunity to speak at the planning committee. So I don't think we can predict what they might say or what their details are but that would be that would be the impact of the referral. >> Once again uh were they given notice of the public participation meeting at the planning committee? >> Go ahead. >> Uh through your worship. Yes, that's correct. >> Do we have an understanding as to whether or not there was any particular good causes to why they did not attend that meeting and make a submission? Uh, go ahead if you have that information. >> Uh, through your worship. I don't have that information. >> Can anyone provide that information, including the person making the motion for the deferral? >> Uh, councelor Stevenson's willing to answer the question. She's not obligated to, but if you have some additional information, you can go ahead with it. Yeah, I'll just say that there's a couple in their 80s that didn't understand the full process here or the implications and they're they're just asking for a a second chance to talk to committee. It won't obstruct anything from going forward. Just give them the courtesy of being able to speak. Councelor Tro. >> Um, again, and this may sound harsh, but following the statutory procedure, I believe that the statutory procedure was followed here. And one of the obligations of being a homeowner is that you know, or you should know that you could be getting notices in the mail with respect to your rights and obligations concerning the property. This is nothing new. There are no special circumstances here. Ye, yes, they're they're in their 80s and yes, they're on a transit route, but it just seems to me as if we're getting into this persistent attempt to uh put off decisions that this council needs to be making because the uh owner of the property doesn't like the result. And I just don't I don't feel as if that is adequate ground to to disturb this proceeding. And once again, this is all without prejudice to the ability uh of the uh property owner to um appeal. That That's correct, isn't it? The property owner could still appeal in which case it would come back. Is that correct? >> Go ahead. Through your worship. Yes, that's correct. >> Yeah. So, I do not see cause for this uh referral and I'll be voting no on it. >> Okay. Any other speakers to the referral? >> A point of order. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. >> I just want to confirm that it doesn't it's not an OOLT appeal. It would actually come back to planning or I just want to be really sure about that. >> Yeah, I think that was touched on the last one. If you can just clarify when you say appeal, where does the appeal actually land? If we were to make the committee's decision today, they were to appeal, if you could just say what that process looks like and where the appeal is heard. >> Thank you. Through your worship, it would come back through committee and then it could go to an appeal and the appeals to the OOLT, the Ontario Land Tribunal. >> Can you just articulate why would it come back to committee and what decision is there? or is it the decision uh to listen to them or proceed with our intent to designate like and then at that point they can appeal like if you just outline that piece of the process just so it's clear for everyone >> through your worship. It's uh this is this stage of the process is to just get direction from council if you want to proceed with a designation. The next stage is then to confirm and to establish the designation uh that through notice notice of intent to designate. That's the formal process. And then from there then they have the right of appeal. >> Go ahead. I just want to make sure your point of order was >> Yeah, that's good. And I I just got a a note from the owner saying that they were sick. So I I thought it was just age, but there was actually illness. >> Okay. Um, other speakers on the referral. Okay, seeing none. So, we're going to vote on the referral. Uh, we'll open that for voting. Councelor Lewis just weighing my vote. Just ask colleagues for minutes patience. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to 4. >> Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'll move on to number seven. This is regarding 100 Stanley Street. This was request to be pulled by councelor Hopkins. >> Okay. Um this is on the floor. Councelor Hopkins. Do you want to speak to it? >> Uh yes. I did uh attend the uh planning and environment committee and heard the discussion. I am not supporting the recommendation coming out of uh planning to uh have a demolition on the property. It's been interesting just listening to uh the past applications where we discussed design heritage designation and this is a property that is designated but nothing stops it from being demolished and I think uh we need to have a better understanding what a designation means and what it can and can't do but with this property I've been around number of councils where we've had this conversation these lengthy conversations. I do believe that there is an opportunity to save this building. We don't need to rush into making decisions right now. I think we can go through a process uh to look at the building and how it works. I am not in favor of any kind of uh a a commemoration when there is an opportunity to save the building. So, uh, just wanted to share those thoughts with my colleagues and will not be supporting the demolition request. >> Other speakers, go ahead, councelor Ferrer. >> Uh, thank you. Um, so I spoke at this at Pek as well. Thanks. Um, and you know, I obviously agree with um, councelor Hopkins on her remarks and I would also kind of add to that like commemoration is something when something is already lost. This house is not lost. Um so you know making a decision to demolish and then commemorate after the fact I feel uh is not appropriate especially when we could potentially save this place. Um I do have some questions. I did ask him some of these questions at committee but I just wanted to know like there is a potential financial argument that could potentially save the city some money if we were to retain the house. I just wanted to know do we know to staff how much the cost of demolition will be? That's including um the take down of the house and removing everything and putting them into the landfill or wherever that goes. Do we know what that cost is? Go ahead. Thank you. And through you your worship. I don't have a detailed estimate on the demolition because we have not gone through a demolition design process at this time. I do believe in my experience in heavy construction that the costs of salvaging the home will far ex will be far exceeded by the additional cost, risk and complexity of attempting to retain it during construction. >> Thank you for that. Do we know so do we know what the total cost is then of retaining uh the house? >> Go ahead. uh through your worship, it is difficult to ascertain the cost of retaining the house because there are a number of methodologies that could be used to attempt to retain it. We do not believe many of those methodologies or any of them are likely viable to result in a a structure that will be reliable and safe for future use. While we could spend a great deal of money doing so and exploring that, the only way to find out is to go to a tender process, see what is proposed by a contractor, and then make a decision. At that point, uh, we're going to be substantially down the road with respect to investing costs into a design. >> Go ahead. Sorry. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. And I I also kind of asked um, you know, how much would the house be be valued right now if we were to resell it? Like we do have housing uh, that is available right there. It's already built. It is a heritage property. There is a big uh, community um, ask to retain the house. We don't know how much the cost of demolition is. We don't know how much the cost of retaining the house is. We also don't have all the money funded in the budget to do the work yet. So, we don't necessarily need to be making a decision like this and I feel like we do have a little bit of run where we where we could potentially go in and find out there. You know, I understand that we don't know, but I think it would be prudent for us to look and to see what the information really is. I think we should look into how much the cost of demolition would be um compared to how much the cost would be to retain the house and potentially um with those costs um countering each other out or especially with respect to how much we could potentially sell the house for in the end. You know, we may be at uh a neutral amount. It potentially could be zero. We could potentially be we could have maybe make some money or we could potentially be spending some money. But right now if a cost of demolition will be a cost. So I think the real look should be is how much will the balance be between retaining the house with a sale compared to the cost of demolition. And I feel like if we find that those values are close, we could potentially save this place. So I think we should be looking into that. Um I was just, you know, just a thought and because we don't have the money right now budgeted at the moment, we have some time. We have some runways as well. So I would like to move a motion uh looking into those things. Basically I would like to move a motion on how much the total cost of demolition will be, how much the cost would be to retain the house and the estimated proceeds on the potential sale and to see if we can um and just to see what those numbers are before we move forward. and we can make it as a referral back. >> Okay, that's better. Um because the other one was going to be contrary. I was going to say you have to defeat this, but anything can be referred. So, just give me a sec. Okay. So, you want to refer it. Our understanding from what you said, although I need you to confirm because it's your motion, you want to refer it so that staff can bring information about the potential or possible cost of deferral and the possible cost of retention. >> Go ahead. >> I'm specifically seeking information on the cost of demolition, the total cost of retaining the house, then the estimated proceeds of how much we could uh potentially sell the house for. And then I would like to see the difference between um the total cost of demolition compared to the difference between retaining the house and the sale. So I want to know because I from my as I understand it that there's going to be a cost of demolition no matter what. >> I don't I don't need you to debate right now. I just I'm just trying to word a motion to see if there's a seconder. But let me just work on that piece. Okay. Hopefully that makes sense. Okay, let me just read this counselor and make sure you're okay with it. It's not on the screen because we're that the matter uh I can't see that far. Um that the matter of the request for demolition of the heritage uh designated property 100 Stanley Street be referred to a future meeting of the planning environment committee to allow staff to advise the cost related to demolition versus the cost of retention and sale of the property. >> That's close. Um, if I just wanted to go to staff and see if that motion is if that motion is understood and what I'm truly seeking. Uh, because I I specifically am looking at the cost of demolition compared to how much the cost of retention and sale would be. So, I see retention would be a cost, but sale would be proceeds and I want the difference there compared to demolition. >> That's what we have written. I mean, I'll ask Miss Sher if she can comment. Um you any details you want to provide on this and on what you see from here? >> Uh thank you your worship. Certainly the cost of demolition will be far less than the cost of retention including I suspect with the sale the house is not currently habitable and would require significant reinvestment to be sold as a habitable property. Uh if it is sold then you may also be facing that a new owner does not wish to use that property for residential purposes as well. So it's difficult to predict the investment to bring it up to a habitable standard and the value that may have on the market. However, if that is the direction of council to bring back that information, uh then we will endeavor to bring that back. Um we we do strongly believe though that the only truly viable course of action at this time is demolition. >> Okay. So I think your motion is worded in a way that's going to get you the information. So are you okay with it? Okay. A seconder for this. You're willing to second. Council Tro is willing to second. Okay. I got to let the counselor make continue the the disp. So now we have your referral on the floor. So now you're speaking to your referral. >> Okay. Can I speak to the referral? >> Yeah, you're going to speak to it right now if you like. So um I got I guess I got a question with respect to the house being habitable. uh the agreement originally with the former owner had um a salvage clause in that and some of those items within that salvage clause I would assume would be to keep the house habitable. So, I just wanted to know what happened between the sale of the property and and now and are those items um because the house may not be habitable still salvageable as because I know the previous owner as of right has a right to salvage those items. So now that you're on the referral, you got to link this to the referral because you're kind of asking questions that might be part of the analysis, but I see Miss Sh saying she has an answer, but I need you to keep all the all the debate to the referral now. >> Okay. For reason of the referral, I guess I would uh for information for that, I do believe that's still relevant to the referral. >> I'm going to I'm going to assume you want to know if that's included. That similar information is included in the referral. It may not be available today. So go ahead. >> Uh thank you, your worship. Some salvage work has occurred in accordance with the sale agreement that was with the previous owner. Other salvage work for items that were not required by by that owner have happened as well. Uh there are items obviously that are integral to the envelope of the structure that have not been salvaged and those would also be subject to any previous legal agreements that were in place. So we would have to evaluate what is in the house. It has been boarded up for some time which does impact its livability. It has not been maintained as a livable property. uh and we have been in compliance with our agreements with previous owners and with the requirements of our existing approvals. >> Councelor Farah on the referral. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Um not being maintained as a livable property like we are discussing potentially uh before this referral came through a demolition of the property. Um but it seems as though some of the um I guess retention aspects or how we were keeping the property upkept was kind of leading to that demolition. So, I just I'm a little concerned on that. Like, as far as I know, we didn't make a direction to demolish, but we did buy the property and we were kind of holding it to see what would happen. Uh, so I do have a little bit of concerns on um the state of the property if that's the case. However, I still want to look into this information with the referral. Uh, because we don't know the exact extent of of how habitable the property may or may not be. >> Okay. Other speakers to the referral. Councilor Troau, go ahead. I think uh I feel very strongly that if we uh are going to pass a referral motion, it should be on this. There is absolutely strong strong and compelling grounds to say we need more information before we're able to make uh a fully informed decision on on on this. And I think that the um the referral motion was uh is very specific and uh go goes to questions that I think this council in in its due diligence has an obligation to be asking these questions. So, I think it would be um in my opinion, it would be pretty unusual and reprehensible to allow a demolition to go forward when questions when compelling questions like this have been put on the table. And just to reiterate my main point here, I want to remind everybody that a demolition approved by a city council, it's like the death penalty. There's no phone call from the governor or the premier. We don't have that in Canada. >> Council, I'm going to start to caution you on your comparisons here. I >> All right. All right. But but let's face it, >> let's not do that. >> I won't do that. I won't do that. However, if we approve this demolition, the property is going to be demolished. And these questions, which I think are very legitimate questions for members of the public to be asking, will forever go unanswered. It will be a mystery. It will be the mystery of 100 Stanley Street. And it will be the mystery of why did this council feel that in its closing hours it had to approve the demolition of this historically significant property in light of substantial evidence on the record that there are reasons not to demolish this property. Now, if this goes to the main motion and not the deferral, just roll me out of order and I'll get to it later if we get to that. But have any efforts been made to consult with the various different heritage uh groups uh that exist in London um many many who of whose representatives have made uh uh submissions on this issue. Has any effort been made to talk to uh uh a non not for-profit uh uh uh entities about whether they might have some type of proposal or plan? >> So, I'm going to say on the referral, not really relevant on the main motion because there was a request to designate and demolition. Yes. But right now, we're on the referral. So, >> and if the referral succeeds, lots of opportunities to ask that. If the referral fails, still an opportunity to ask that, but not on the referral. >> Okay. Well, I think I'll just wrap it up now. Please support this referral. I think it's essential that we do that. Thank you, >> Deputy Mayor Lewis, on the referral. >> Thank you, Worship. Colleagues, defeat this referral. Pure and simple. It's time to move forward. First of all, this property is not the only Queen Anstyle piece of architecture in the city. We have other designated properties already. There is nothing unique and specific to this property that warrants this level of work that we're asking staff to undertake at a cost. By the way, and we heard Miss Sher say already, and she has experience in these things, the cost of preservation is going to far exceed the cost of demolition. As far as resale, anyone can do the back of napkin math. We're going to shorten the property and we're going to have a home that after we spend thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars to make habitable and tens of thousands, let's be honest, and because it's heritage, might as well call it hundreds of thousands to make habitable. Beside a railway line and a major thoroughare that we're widening, you're not going to get more than 500,000 550,000. And all you have to do is take a look at the real estate sales in the city today. You are not going to see any proceeds from this that are going to offset the cost of the demolition or of the uh restoration uh and then the work on it, let alone the purchase price of the property in the first place for us to move ahead and do this work. We have a major transportation bottleneck here. We have been waiting to move forward on this. We had to work with CN. CN has a deal with us now. they we have an acceptable process to move forward. It is time to move forward. It's not a mystery of what happened to 100 Stanley Street. It is the city is growing and we need to move a major transportation bottleneck out of the way to keep people going. So, defeat this referral, please, and let's get on with the business of getting people moving and getting this project moving forward. It's a key one. This does not meet a heritage standard considering the other heritage assets in our community to warrant a referral to kick the can down the road further on the goal of the demolition which is to get people moving in our city. This was already decided actually by by the previous council and then it sat and because CN altered the terms of the agreement >> on the referral >> we had to come back with another report. This is the second heritage report we've had. It is the second demolition report we've had. We don't need a referral for a third. What we need is to make a decision and move this project forward. So, please defeat this referral. Let's get on with this. >> Councelor Hopkins and then councelor Poza. >> Yeah, thank you your worship and maybe the deputy mayor may be correct. But I think we owe it to the community to give them the information. I think that's what's important. There's a lot of misinformation out there. I do not see there is a timeline here. We have time and again we owe it to the community to have that information so we can make the right decision. So I'll be supporting the referral. >> Councelor PLA. >> Thank you. Uh through you to staff is this one um I would say as a full discussion. It's the first time this council's touched it. We certainly count touched it uh multiple times uh during the 2018 term. through you to staff um as it relates to the referral and a timeline uh for this is there a start date for the CN work on that uh bridge section as we've been waiting for quite some time. >> Uh thank you and through thank you and through your worship. The impetus around time related to this project is to ensure that it is prepared and ready to proceed with any potential funding advancements that may occur from higher levels of government in the future. So while we do not have a requirement to start with CN at a given date, we do have a requirement in our sense to be shovel ready. So we're able to take advantage of those funding opportunities. And while staff can report back as requested should this pass, I must reiterate that our consultants and our staff have concluded there is no safe and reliable way to retain this house during the work that needs to proceed for the underpass upgrades to occur. >> Councelor Pla, >> thank you. Um, with no disrespect intended, I've been hearing that since about 2018 that we need to be prepared and ready for a start date that could come at any time and we're still here with the House. Um, I would like to highlight that it was a split vote of the past councils. Uh, just for our information as we move forward through you to staff. um realizing staff opinions in different departments can differ based on the heritage lens versus the engineering lens of this is work that needs to be done and how it needs to be get done uh efficiently and safely. Has the city's realy team been part of this conversation because if not um on the referral I would look to potentially make an amendment that the real team be asked and just check the committee that maybe we're not interested in making it habitable and safe on site. Maybe someone else would like to buy this home now and do something with this uh either site or the property that maybe it's not us that has to make it habitable that someone's just an enduser who is interested. Go ahead. >> Uh thank you your worship. Yes, the city's realy team has been involved in this process from day one. There were a number of properties acquired along this corridor, many of which have already experienced demolition. Realy also manages um these holdings on behalf of the city. So yes, realy has been involved in this process. >> Thank you. I'm aware of realy being involved in expropriation as we've done the Wellington gateway specifically on the street. Sometimes people come behind the scenes who do have an interest in heritage homes or properties like this before we potentially tear it down or spend time with the referral. Is staff aware of anyone behind the scenes who have shown an interest in this property or would we have to do a a call to the as realy does for sales? Go ahead. >> Uh through your worship, despite a fair bit of publicity related to this property in the community, no, we have not had any unsolicited uh proposals offering to purchase the property from realy having conferred with the city treasurer. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Thank you. Um not looking to belabor this conversation about a referral. Um but that's where my thoughts are at. So I can leave my comments there. Um and if anyone's interested uh in the property encouraging community to come forward. >> Okay. Other speakers to the referral. Go ahead. Council appl. >> Thank you mayor. I will not be supporting this referral either. Uh there were additional information we received from the staff during the pack meeting and if I look at kind what we need is we keep hearing traffic from Londoners. We keep hearing that we finally as we heard before CN uh we have agreement with CN we can move forward and if you look at London yes we do have traffic issues but Warcliffe and west of Warcliffe it's no doubt probably the worst and I didn't hear anything else besides for this building or for this house to be sold for residential purposes if I look at this house and uh even though I heard 550 I don't know who would want to live unless someone has a sentimental value. South have the railway and right beside them having the road which is going to be very heavy on traffic. So I will not be supporting it. I keep hearing from Londoners that we need to work on the traffic. I don't keep hearing them that we need to some uh salvage uh to save one heritage building but again not as unique as we heard. It's not either. So I will ask uh I will not be supporting it. I hope we make the decision and the next council can move on, make traffic flow better and uh take advantage of four half a million of Londoners than instead of one house. Thank you. Even though it's very sentimental to some people, I totally understand. But again, we got to look at for future for half a million of Londoners. Thank you. >> Okay. Point of personal privilege, which is specific thing. Councelor Troau, go ahead. I'm not raising my objections because I have some sort of sentimental value to this uh property and I and I think it really um understates the substantial issues that I've been trying to raise for it to be characterized as some petty uh sentimental attachment. Okay. >> I really I would like that withdrawn. >> So I got to rule first, counselor. Um, so let me just be clear. I didn't hear councelor Pribble actually I don't in my understanding I didn't think he was actually talking about you counselor. I I think he was talking in general terms about the sentimental value that that might be associated with certain buildings in the city. I wasn't sure I certainly appreciate that from a point of personal privilege standpoint you interpreted that way. That wasn't my understanding on how I heard it at all. Councilor Pribble, like if that was your intent, I'd certainly have to ask you to withdraw, but that's not what I heard. >> Councelor Troel, your mic. >> No, thank you. Actually, I'm glad you asked this because I would like to clarify. I know the previous owner of this building who lived there for many, many years is here currently and it was actually a sentimental value in terms of in her eyes because I follow this a lot when she was going through this and there were difficult times. Bottom line is sentimental value. I was addressing her because I do understand she would like to have it said >> perfect from a point of personal privilege standpoint. Appreciate the clarification. Uh counselor, it wasn't about you or the way that you spoke or the issues you raised. So I'm going to deal I'm going to suggest that the point is dealt with. Thank you. Sorry, Councelor Hopkins, you're >> Yeah, I did have a point of order. I think >> order. Okay, sure. >> Yes. Uh if you could speak to the referral. I'm getting a little bit conf confused here. >> Yes, >> if the comments were to the referral or to the main motion. >> Yes, councelor Pri was speaking against the referral. He was speaking to that. The point of personal privilege is kind of dealt with separate from the referral because of the language used, but we are for sure on the referral and I'll keep people to that. So on the referral, anyone else who hasn't spoken yet? Councelor Ramen, go ahead. Uh thank you and through you just on the referral um I'm hearing that there really isn't uh at this point any significant time delays with us referring the matter to get more information. It's more that at some point if we were to move forward with the demolition that that action needs to be taken so that we are fully prepared if if uh we are moving forward in that direction. Um, I'm just wondering on this referral what the timeline is to get a report back. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you, your wish. We would have to expand the scope of our existing consulting agreement to define a variety of retention methodologies on site and then cost out those which will all require some level of partial design. I'm guessing it's a minimum of eight months. >> Council Roman. >> Thank you. uh and through you is there any key learnings from the Philip Aziz property and the retention wall that has been done that's referenced in the report and this the uh methods of securing the home from vibration that potentially allows us to take some of those key learnings and apply them here or is that still outside of the scope of what uh what we're talking about? >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you your worship. These are structurally different elements. the retention wall at Philippizes versus the foundation of a two-story brick home. Um, our consultant has gone through and does believe that it is impossible to safely, reliably retain this structure on the site. We can however introduce a great deal of complexity and risk through construction. We still believe the outcome is likely that this structure cannot be preserved on site. If you wish us to report back in more detail as to why not, we can do that if that is the will of council. But we do not believe that there's another outcome here or that there's a construction methodology that will allow this to proceed and have the home retained in safe condition. >> Councelor Almond, >> thank you. I appreciate the information and I do appreciate the clarity by which uh the city engineer is speaking on this matter. It does help to understand and solidify some of the perspectives. I think part of the challenge on on the referral is that um even though we received a memo that was associated with this project, we received this report through planning environment uh for consideration from the perspective of the the heritage building and how to preserve that building. But in my opinion, the report didn't have enough uh information on those retention elements to really uh speak to how we might address this in any other way. However, I'm hearing from our city engineer that if we were to go about getting that information, the process is quite lengthy. I'm wondering if we have an estimate of cost as well. >> Go ahead. If you can estimate >> uh through you, your worship. No, I'm afraid I don't have an estimate on cost is not insubstantial. It certainly would require an amendment to our existing contract and additional funding for the consultant, but I I don't have an estimate on cost as this was not a path that we were pursuing. Council Ron, >> thank you. I'll leave my questions there for now and listen to the rest of the debate. >> Thank you. Um others on the referral. Okay, see none. Sounds like we're ready to vote on the referral. Uh, so we're going to open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Referral fails. 5 to 10. Okay, that returns us to the main committee recommendation. in the middle of Okay, just to be consistent with how I've done this in the past, um I just councelor Ferrer, you moved the referral. It failed. I just need to make sure you're done speaking on this matter because when we move on, we're not coming back to you. Good. Okay. All right. Other speakers to the main motion. I believe councelor Hopkins and Ferrer have spoken. This is the committee's recommendation on demolition. Oh, go ahead, Councelor Pelosa. >> Thank you. Um, just recognizing uh we had, as Council Roman pointed out, different different things, different reports at different times and some people were saying refusal and and now we're at uh a demolition. Um my question is as it relates to the first page we discussed the 2024 2027 uh multi-year budget. Um I'm trying to remember back this might be a question for you to Miss Barbone and her team that when we were doing the background studies uh during the my did the rail underpass money placeholder stay in there or was it removed? So and I recognize it might take a few minutes. Look it up cuz that was 3 years ago. >> Go ahead. >> Um through through your worship, I can have Mr. Murray look that up just to confirm. I pretty sure I know the answer, but I don't want to say that without having a chance to verify it first. So, if you can give us a couple minutes, we can take a look at that and get back to you. Sure. >> Yeah. I got other questions that aren't for her team, so uh go on to others. Um through the the conversation either at committee, in the public, and through the reports, um if the property goes through with demolition, um there seems to be a mix of maybe saving part of it for a plaque or part of the foundation. Uh personally, I'm not interested in either of those two things. looking to see what the conversation would be of looking to or another pocket park for parks to maintain that what would the process look like or has staff considered it of just selling that potentially vacant corner to a neighboring uh property for they could take it over maintain it and move that into part of the neighborhood and upkeep it >> go ahead >> uh thank you your worship at this point we had identified commemoration of this location as the outcome as because that is considered a viable heritage strategy under the legislation that pertains to these matters. Uh that said, we haven't explored a sale to a neighboring property, although nor have we been approached. The access to the site would likely make it extremely challenging for anything other than basically municipal retention or potentially uh appending it to a neighboring property because the driveway location to this site unfortunately is no longer viable with the widening of the road. Um, we can look at those options as this proceeds should demolition be approved. >> Go ahead. >> Would staff direction would council need to give staff direction to look at those other options or would it be in the process now? Just do I need to make an amendment or a direction to staff that they consider these options or they would just consider them? >> Go ahead. >> Uh, your bishop, I don't believe we need an amendment to to uh do that work. We do have some requirements under the municipal class EA and as well as any of the heritage legislation to follow what the recommendations are related to the heritage demolition permit. That said, if there is residual property that isn't required, then that would be something that we would look through with our colleagues in realy as a matter of course. >> Councelor Pla, >> thank you. Uh I'm I would say I I don't like doing motions if we don't have to uh as an amendments. It takes a while. Um but also mindful that this has gone through multiple iterations of council. Um, but I'm I'm personally satisfied with Miss Shar and her her word is good enough for me on this one. Um, through you to staff, if commemoration is the path forward uh and not the sale of the property, what is the financial budget aotment for this commemoration? >> Go ahead. >> Uh, thank you your worship. The cost for commemoration relative to demolition and site restoration after any construction project is usually quite minimal. So we do have to do some sort of restoration after this site is constructed. Um at least 50% of it is disturbed by the construction that has to happen. So it's not ex extensive relative to the need to re reinstate that site afterwards. Um it would depend I guess on the the level of sort of art and architecture that was involved in that design and that would be something we would work with our colleagues in heritage as well as parks planning should that be the ultimate path. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. um even minimal investment uh to some degree is still a concern for me. As we all know, it's the ongoing upkeep uh of these properties and uh when things start going sideways on them of um different activities happening on them. Uh mindful of that as well. Um looking through you to see if Miss Barbone's team is I could find some more questions, but I just don't and it's council so coming back to me might not be an option. I can make some general comments then. Um, >> yeah, you're not. >> Oh, we are ready, >> Mr. Murray. >> Perfect. Thank you. >> Thank you. And through you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I can confirm that there is uh approximately uh $51 million that remains in the capital budget and capital plan through 2028 for the Warcliff grade separation project. Uh however, we do know and uh Mishir can certainly uh speak to it further that that uh is likely to be uh insufficient to complete the project uh at this point. Uh but that money does still remain in the capital budget and capital plan uh available for the future uh construction works. Go ahead. >> Thank you. And three. Um, as per Mr. Murray, uh, would miss share have a generalish, if it's not the 51, uh, I'll give her a moment, uh, to flip through that. Just realizing that I know this will come back from future budget deliberations and discussions, but just as we're mindful that we think we might be solving one problem, it still leaves other factors to be addressed. the monetary value of this going forward. >> I I wasn't quite clear on the question. Oh. Oh, no. Okay, perfect. Doesn't matter if I'm clear as long as M sure has it. So, >> uh, thank you, your worship, and thank you, counselor. The estimate for this budget was set well in advance of CO. So, of course, it is subject to those big escalations we did see through the pandemic and have unfortunately become the new normal post pandemic. We think uh currently the estimate that's in the DC studies is $99 million. >> Go ahead. >> And how much time do I have left the speaker time? >> About 2 minutes. >> Wow. Um thank you. Overall, I'd say this this parcel and this property has been a a lightning round for conversations throughout the terms of council. Um I know we looked at retaining it and moving it and it was a consideration of the cost. We were worried about timelines I know CN um federal jurisdiction over the rail line. So municipalities are at their purview of of changes. This one had large delegations for it, participation meetings, a large community impact at the time. And I can reiterate that Victoria Public School is near this site. my kids uh had attended that school and kids would be out front in the kindergarten yard watching car accidents out front because there was such a bottleneck in traffic to get to this site. And that was one of the reasons I supported um ideally the building being relocated at the time to make sure that after transportation be part of this project, the work can go forward and the kids in that schoolyard would be a little bit safer um with a better road design and aotments. Disappointed of the house condition degrading, but things were also uh taken from it and it hasn't been habited. So, >> 30 seconds, council. >> Yeah, just that we're here and it's been a long conversation for the community and those who have been impacted by it most. Um, and thank you for still being here with us as we have this conversation. My preference is still if someone wanted to take ownership and move it, uh after that it would be salvaging original construction material for other heritage properties to make sure that they could be reused and repurposed. That's the museum conservator and me uh looking for that preservation. Thank you. >> And perfect on timing. Thank you. U any other speakers to the committee's recommendation? Go ahead, councelor Troau. Uh thank you uh through the chair. I'd like to return to some of the issues that I tried that I would have raised um during the uh referral motion because I might have another amendment I want to put on the table. Before I do that, I need to ask a foundational question and that is has there been an inventory of the uh contents the entire contents of the building for purposes of what would be um salvageable. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you your worship. Yes, the building would have been inventoried as part of the pre the acquisition and property transfers. Councelor Tro, >> has this council been provided or has the public been provided with the list of what's in that inventory? >> Go ahead. >> Your worship, that would generally not be practice to provide that for a decision at council. >> Go ahead, councelor Troa. >> Is there anything in the legislation that precludes this information being shared with council, notwithstanding the fact that it's not normally the practice to share this information with council? Go ahead. >> Uh, thank you your worship. Without a review of all potential legislation might impact it, I don't believe there's a legislative prohibition. Um, we do acquire properties regularly. Those properties have salvageable assets in them and we have not generally brought those forward for council to consider how to dispose of or retain individual assets within those properties. Councelor Fos, >> I am not satisfied that we are taking adequate steps even if we were going to demolish this property and put up some type of commemoration or do something else later on. I'm not satisfied that we're we're taking the steps to preserve the uh the elements that could be relevant to a commemoration. And furthermore, I'm not satisfied that we're taking steps And I'm I'm not suggesting any misconduct here, but I'm not satisfied that we've uh taken adequate steps to preserve the evidence of what is in this building so it is not destroyed during a demolition. Because typically, unless there's a special order to save certain things, and correct me if I'm wrong, a demolition is a demolition and it's done as expeditiously as possible. Um, I would therefore like to make a motion that this matter be referred back to city staff for the purposes of making uh making the uh making the inventory of the contents of the property including photographs available to council and the public so we can further proceed with the issue of what to do after the demolition in the event of a demolition? That's a motion. I'm looking for a second. >> Okay, give me a second. >> Really? Why are they seconding it? houses. Okay. So this referral is substantially different than the previous referral. So it's allowed to stand. The previous one was a comparative cost analysis. This one is about um uh inventorying the salvageable contents of the property. So, I'm going to read it and I need to know if there's a seconder. Uh, that the matter for the request of the demolition of the heritage designated property 100 Stanley be referred to a future of planning and environment committee uh to direct civic administration to provide an inventory of salvageable contents of the property at 100 Stanley Street. Does that sound like what you want to do, council? >> Exactly. >> Okay. Is there >> Oh, I need I'm looking for a second council for a second. Okay. We'll put it up on the screen so everybody can see it. >> Go ahead. Point of order. Perfect. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Sorry. In the report in section 4.6, is there not an itemized list of items to be salvaged that has been approved already in 2022 reaffirmed at a cost the city already deci decided? Let me just to be able to deal with the point I need to get some information from staff. So go ahead. >> Correct. So that information is provided in the report from planning to the committee and council uh in section 4.6. I do not have an inventory beyond that. There's no additional inventory of the entire every valued piece of the property. Those are the believed to be the heritage assets and that has been provided to council. Yes. >> Okay. Give me a sec. No, I just need a sec. So your point of order is this is not substantially different from the heritage inventory uh that was already done by the heritage staff when they were talking about designation and that it's duplicative to um to do this again. Is that I just want to understand the point of order. >> Thank you. Do we have a contractual obligation already stated in this document that shows that we have a list of itemized uh things that are going to be salvaged? >> Yes. >> And that therefore is already a decided matter. I don't understand why we'd be >> reitigating as well. This also stands on the original agreement from 2020 as well. >> So I don't disagree with that and is fact. This is the conversation I just had with the clerk. Our interpretation and I'm going to ask councelor Troau to to clarify is he's looking for a more sign significant inventory of salvageable items that may or may not be related to heritage within the building um that may be used and if that's the case it's different and if that's not the case then we already have that. So counselor I just need to know the scope of your because I'm interpreting it one way but maybe I'm not interpreting it right. Go ahead. Yes, my attention is the broader of is the broader of the two because once the demolition is undertaken, it's just all of these items are going to just be intermixed into trash and disposed of. >> Okay. So, not all the items are because there are contractual obligated items to be salvaged that we have to, but you're looking for an inventory broader than that that you that's the nature of your referral because you've already got that list. >> Yes. >> You don't need to do that again. >> Okay. then that my interpretation in talking with the clerks is that is a different motion. I know we've never done that before. There's nothing precluding us from actually doing it. So I mean you can look at the copper and the walls and all sorts of things he wants to salvage. He can make that referral and ask for that broader list but it won't preclude the list that we already have to do under the contractual obligations. M sure you look like you need to share information. Go ahead. >> If I may, thank you your worship. It is our practice in the demolition of any property we acquire to salvage, recycle, and repurpose all materials that can be diverted from landfill. That may be built into the contract with the salvage company, which reduces the price we pay them, thus saving money for the taxpayers in DC's p proceeding with this project. But we do not um as a rule take anything to the landfill from a demolition unless it has no home in a secondary market. Whether that is reselling heritage brick, whether that's salvaging copper wiring, those things are all diverted wherever possible as part of our general salvage contracts, what is listed in the report from heritage is specific to the salvage for the heritage assets for which there's a contractual right of first refusal from the former occupant. Um, so we don't need direction to divert as much as possible with respect to the demolition and we do not believe there are other heritage assets that are not listed in the report. So, I don't disagree with you, but the counselor's motion is to bring that actually to planning committee for us to see, which is different from your normal practice. So, let me just say a couple things. We could do this for a long time. Um, and that's okay, but my understanding is the counselor just wants a wider list and he actually wants that wider list that you normally do to be brought to planning committee. He has every right to make that motion. People can vote for it. They can vote against it. We don't have to do that, but at some point we will conclude this debate, decide that. But that does not preclude, just so we're clear, the contractual obligations for the heritage related salvageable assets that are already in the agreement from before. That is happening no matter what way we vote. Councelor Tro simply saying all that stuff that the city engineer just said, the deputy city manager just said would be brought to committee for committee to see with the referral. So, okay. >> Yes. And I think uh I think that's all I have to say on uh on the referral. >> Okay. Thank you. Then any other council, you want to speak to the referral. Go ahead. >> I do. Thank you. Sorry. And I do have to obviously conclude this debate eventually because I I'm late for a meeting about 39 minutes ago. Um, the reason I seconded this motion, the way I read it here is, um, from what I understand, the property has not necessarily habitable. It has not necessarily been secured. I understand in the original agreement, there are a list of salvageable items that are supposed to go to the previous owner. I supported this motion cuz I want to know if those items are still in the house, and that's what I'm worried about. >> Okay, that's not what this motion is related to. there's already an agreement that we have to salvage the items that are under the agreement. I think you can find out that information. >> So that's that's why I seconded the motion to see if those items still exist. >> So >> Mr. Chair, that's already happening. Is it not with the current obligations that we have under the contract? Correct. >> Through your worship, that is correct. >> So this motion does not do that. That's going to happen anyways. This motion is a broader salvaging of items in the building and bring that list back as M. Sher decided they try to keep as much as they can um through the demolition of a building to you know not put things in the landfill. The council wants to bring that whole list through a referral to planning environment committee to see. But if you vote against this you're that process that you're asking for is still going to happen because Mure has a contractual obligation to make that happen. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Maybe I can just ask the question here then uh to beat us the time. Is there a risk that some of the items that are on the salvageable list that are supposed to be going to the previous owner? Are do can we confirm that they are in the property still and they haven't been necessarily unsecured at some point throughout the time that we took the property over till the time that we eventually sadly demolish it? >> Okay, I'll let you answer that, but I need you to keep it to the referral. Go ahead. Uh thank you your worship. I'm trying to ascertain from my my team in realy whether or not there has been an inspection recently that anything has been illegally removed from the property. It is not my understanding that that is the case. When we talk about that there's been changes to the property that challenges habit habitability. It is things like turning off natural gas to ensure that there it isn't a fire risk. So the requirement is that there's the opportunity for the previous owner to remove the items on the list prior to or during demolition relative to what's the best time to do that. Uh some things could potentially come out sooner, some would have to come down as part of the demolition process. So we will follow the obligations of the contract. I cannot speak to whether or not there's been um any recent illegal removals at this time, but it's not my understanding that that was the case previously. Councelor Verah, >> thank you. That's my hope because uh we originally had um a direction to move the property that changed. There was also a promise uh with an agreement to the previous owner >> on the referral counselor >> for salvageable items that were on that actual agreement. I would like to fulfill that promise. I do hear that the windows are boarded up. It wasn't secured. I I worry if we are going to break that promise to under the agreement. So, I don't know if I can support this referral cuz it's not asking what I was looking for. >> Um, but I I really think we should be looking into that information. >> Okay. So, we can vote on the referral as soon as people are done speaking. So, any other speakers to the referral? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. No. Okay. Anyone else? All right. We're going to open the vote on Councelor Troau's referral. which is the broader salvaging of items being brought back to planning and environment committee in the future. We'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion fails 2 to 13. >> Okay. Other speakers to the main motion. >> Go ahead, councelor Prible. Thank you, mayor. The suggestions that were made here during the last, I don't know, 20 minutes, half an hour when we talked about it, if the residents still live there, I would honestly try to explore other opportunities even though that could be potentially more costly in terms of the time. The resident is not living there anymore. She has moved. We have an issue, big issue in city of London, the growing city. We need to address the traffic issues. to be honest with you when we talked about and when we heard from our staff in terms of the foundation distance retaining wall potentially and as we all know and staff knows as well look at all the constructions we do the things are actually taking more space more areas I would be surprised even if this house does come down that the retaining wall still need to be there for additional house let's make a decision let's move on as I said what I said before if the residents still live there I would look at other opportunities absolutely the resident is not there anymore. We have an obligation to half a million of Londoners. Look at when you are door knocking, how far how far up is traffic? Thank you. Okay. Any other speakers to the main committee recommendation? Uh seeing none, we're going to open that for >> Yes, you did, counselor. Then he spoke >> he spoke for 226 to the main motion then moved a referral. That's right. >> After that and then he spoke to that referral. >> What point? >> Yes. I I believe that my comments during that two 2 minutes and 26 seconds and we can read back the transcript were were uh preparatory to the uh referral motion and did not go to the uh main motion councelor, I I already moved on to another speaker, so I'm going to say no to you speaking again. And you can you can challenge the chair if you like, but I'm otherwise I'm going to get into a pattern of everybody making the same claim. I'm not saying you're wrong. I can't I don't recall exactly what you said, but I know you spoke for a length of time, made a referral, so you can challenge me, but I'm going to say you've already spoken. Well, I do remember what I said, but I I can see where this is going, so I won't take people's time with it, but uh I think it's too bad that I don't get to speak to the final motion. >> Okay. Any >> and I'll do so later. >> Any other speakers? >> Okay, we will vote on the committee recommendation. Councelor Van Mirburg. >> Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 12 to three. Okay, let's see if we can finish the planning report before any sort of entertainment of a break. Go ahead, councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'll go to number eight. This is regarding 3680 3700 Colonel Chalbert Road. Councelor Hopkins requested this be pulled. >> Okay, that's uh on the floor by the chair. Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. uh your worship and again I was at the planning and environment committee and I understand uh from the um the consultant for the applicant that um they will uh not appeal uh the decision. There was a referral made at the planning and environment committee to have this referred back and um to have further conversations with the applicant and it was uh a concern of mine that this application can be appealed and I am supportive of staff's recommendation and it's only a partial refusal and it mainly deals with the commercial uh area that the applicant is requesting. testing which is 2,500 m. The applicant already has 1,000 square m. What is allowed in this subdivision is 200. I have concerns that uh the extent of the uh commercial space, that's why I'm supporting staff's recommendation is too much. It's that simple. And if uh as much as the applicant said he would not be appealing, I think it is really important for us to understand that this can be appealed and I will not be supporting uh the referral back to have further conversations with this application. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other speakers to this item? >> Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. >> Uh thank you worship. by this planning committee uh from staff. And so I'm just going to uh point out uh in no instances during this term of council where an applicant has provided written communication to us indicating that they would wave their right to appeal for a non-decision. Have they then gone ahead and appealed? So we can say, oh, they can still appeal. There's no record of any application being appealed under these circumstances. So, uh, you know, I respectfully firmly disagree with councelor Hopkins concern that it's going to be appealed. Um, this is a reputable local developer who has, uh, had similar referrals uh, on non-decisions and has not appealed them. Uh, and so we have no reason to believe that is the case here. Uh there's actually a little bit it's a little bit more complicated than councelor Hopkins uh made it seem. Uh there is a current existing thousand square meters of commercial um that the applicant wants to be considered wants to have considered in total because they want to concentrate all the commercial in one block of the development. That's the conversation to be had. Um they're not asking for lots of extra commercial. They're asking for the retention to count as part of their uh overall limit and consolidate that into one block of the development. So uh committee heard we received the communication it was on the agenda public agenda that they would not appeal for a non-decision. I encourage colleagues to support the referral sorry the committee recommendation which was a referral. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this one? Go ahead, Council Roman. >> Uh, thank you and through you. So, I'm going to speak to this only because uh I'm supportive of the committee's work on this and moving this to a referral at this time because I actually think we're closer in discussion and potentially have the ability to work through this matter uh through these discussions and so I can see value in moving that forward through a referral. Um and that's what I have to say on this one. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this? Uh seeing none, then this is the committee's recommendation on the floor and we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12-2. Go ahead, councelor. >> Uh, be happy to put number 10 on the floor. This is regarding 954 Gainesboro Road. Um, believe councelor Robin request was pulled. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Go ahead, councelor Ramen. >> Thank you. Uh, and just to juxtapose from the last uh, referral. Um my reason for not supporting the referral and pulling this item is because uh you'll see in the recommendation the refusal and the length at which staff went to define the refusal uh the that included the request amend requested amendments not being consistent with the London plan not satisfying the criteria for reviewing planning and development applications representing overuse and intensification of the site and that the request and amendments would enable development that is neither appropriate nor compatible with the existing and planned land use surrounding the subject lands. So the reason why this matters is you can see that we are not close to having the ability to fix this through a discussion because there's so many elements of this particular uh plan that uh it is not uh is in contradiction to what we're trying to achieve for housing in this area. And it's I think worthy to note in this case that this is part a of a much larger parcel uh and that much larger parcel also includes other lands owned by uh the same applicant and that there is also a desire to expand on that footprint as well. So, I do think that uh at this time it's better to move forward with the refusal as was presented by staff and recommended by staff uh versus referring it back for further discussion. It I think sets the tone that there is more to be discussed, but I do believe that in order for those discussions to happen, there needs to be some room for a negotiated settlement. in here. There's just too many elements that are just uh out of out of uh step with our planning process. Okay. Any other speakers to this one? >> All right. Seeing none, we're going to open this for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 8 to six. >> Council Layman. >> Uh thank you, mayor. That concludes the 15th report of the planning and environment committee. >> Okay. We uh thank you for that. I really appreciate it. Uh we're we've got two more reports to do. I think at this time there there is some sandwiches and wraps available. Um maybe we could do a 15minute break. Uh councelor Hillier moves that seconded by councelor Van Mirburgen. Do that by hand. All those in favor and any opposed? Motion carries. All right. Okay, let's be seated and continue on with the meeting. We're on the 15th report of infrastructure and corporate services committee. I'm going to have the chair present that report. Go ahead, councelor McAllister. Just one thing before you start, just a reminder that if we want to make the end of the meeting super efficient, if you have bylaws that you want voted on separately, if you could just let the clerk know, those can start to be prepared as we go. So, go ahead, councelor McAllister. >> Okay. Um, pleased to present the 15th report of infrastructure and corporate services. I have had a request to pull item seven. Um, so I will move 1 through 6 and 8 through 11 unless there are any other poll requests. Okay. Anybody else want anything separate besides number seven? No. Okay. Seeing none, then you're putting all those on the floor. >> Uh, yes. So, one through six and >> Okay. And I'll look for any speakers to any of the items that are on the floor. All right, seeing none, then we can vote. We'll open that up for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Council Mallister. >> Okay. And I will put item seven on the floor. >> Okay. Item seven is on the floor. I'll look to any speakers on item seven. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Yeah, I pulled this one and I'm just going to be voting against it given uh the points that I've made around I think there needs to be more oversight and transparency around the delegated delegation of authority and that was already passed in SPC was the review of that. So, I don't think that just counting the number of times it was used and the level uh and the way that it's spread out is very good. So, I'll just be voting against it today. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this matter? All right, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1. >> Uh, thank you. And as it was my last report, I did just again want to thank committee members and the visiting counselors and staff for the the pre meetings and the meeting uh support. So, thank you. >> Great. Thank you, counselor. and 14th report of community and protective services committee. Turn it over to Chair Ramen to present that report. >> Thank you. Uh I will gladly present the 14th report of the Community and Protective Services Committee. Uh I've been asked to pull items five and six. Otherwise, I will put the full report on the floor. >> Okay. Anything else anybody wants dealt with separately besides five and six? Okay, seeing none, then we will Oh, I'll let you make a motion. Sorry, council. Go ahead. >> Thank you. I will put items 1 through 4 and then items seven and eight on the floor. >> Okay, those are on the floor. I'll look for any comments on those items. >> Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Go ahead, Council Ron. >> Thank you. I will put item five, the municipally funded rental rent supplement agreement template on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any speakers to that. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Yes. Again, I just pulled this one to vote against B, the delegated authority that uh allows uh additional amendments to the standard agreement in consultation with uh everybody but council. Thanks. So, council, just so I'm clear so we can get this right, do you want just be separate and you want to vote on the rest or you want to just >> I just want to vote against B. >> Just B. Okay. Let us separate that end then so that you can vote just against that part. Okay, we're going to start with B. So, we'll do that part first and we will open B for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1 and then we will open the balance for voting. So everything else. Councelor Van Mirburgen. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Go ahead, councelor Ramen. >> Thank you. I will look to put item six which was the report back on the housing stability services procurement and delivery framework of services and unsheltered homelessness and encampment initiative on the floor. >> Okay, that is on the floor. I'll look to any speakers to this. Go ahead, councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. Yes, I did have some questions on um the details. So in I the 100,000 to 519 pursuit 65,000 to London Cares and 130,000 to Arcade. I saw the details of the services but not the length of time. It looks like Salvation Army is for 6 months but I just want to confirm what the time period is. >> Go ahead. uh through you, your worship, uh all of those projects are tied to March 31st uh 2027 in uh in accordance with the UHI. >> Councelor Stevenson. >> Yes. And thank you. And um can I just ask why the outreach and community engagement team and dropins or or I shouldn't say drop in but the the outreach for London Cares and the engage sorry the outreach for 519 pursuit and the engagement team for London Cares. Uh my understanding is that was prioritized over extending the hours of service at 602 Queens. Is that correct? And if so just like to understand why. Mr. Dickens through you worship. Um in our quick turnaround of the uh uh expression of interest, we received over $2 million worth of ideas that were submitted. So really trying to prioritize um uh services that were meeting what um we were hearing in terms of uh the ability to deliver uh immediately. So not awarding something that would take four months to ramp up or 3 months to hire just to then wind down. Um London Cares when we look at expansion of ours this council has actually already agreed to do that. uh this council has agreed to fund London Cares for extended and expanded hours for the cold weather response which will start December f uh first as well. So we have uh we've seen lots of submissions come in. Some were uh creating um services that we didn't think would have a direct uh impact on uh the populations to serve or the immediate concerns of uh the neighborhoods that we were hearing. Uh and so we were able to prioritize that list down to what's before you today. Go ahead. Sorry. >> Uh no, it's okay. The the other question through you was around the Monday to Friday. So again, uh the 100,000 to 519 pursuit and the 65,000 to Lenning Cares are Monday to Friday daytime uh operations when we know that there's need in the evening and on weekends too. Was there any ability to provide weekend service? Go ahead through your worship. Um yes, you know, we've highlighted in our report that there's significant budget pressures across the entire system well beyond the $350,000 that have been allocated. Um as Mr. Dickens had mentioned, we received over $2 million worth of funding requests. We've been articulating through council through various reports that um services do need to be extended. We need much more than $350,000 to be able to make those things happen. And so civic administration through our call for applications decided um and brought these recommendations forward to um the best way to use the $350,000. We would agree that services would need to increase, but that costs more than the 350,000 that we are considering. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. I just want to be clear. And I'm going to be voting against AI, I IV um because I I don't support using money to be providing outreach or the uh drop-in services for ARCA on the main street of a BIA. given the problems that we're seeing there and the 65,000 to London cares for an engagement team. I mean, if we have 65,000 to help the neighborhood, they could use help with their insurance deductibles and uh security gates and cameras and all the things that uh the BIA is needing because of some of the uh implications of providing these services, the way that we're providing them through city policy in that area. So I I do feel that uh the public wants council to have more of a say and be looking after their interests, which would be direct support rather than uh an engagement for somebody to listen to the concerns. And although I value the work that 519 Pursuit does, they were a volunteer organization and now all of a sudden it's costing taxpayers money to provide what was done through volunteers. The same with Arcade. It used to be a volunteer charity organization and now these organizations are becoming taxpayer funded contracts at a time when people need shelter beds. They need a space to sleep at night. Um the other stuff the public can and is willing to do through charity. >> Other speakers. I'm going to speak so I'll hand the chair over to councelor Layman. >> Please go ahead Mark. >> Yes on this matter I just wanted to again u thank the federal government through um this initiative. Uh as colleagues recall um this was a significant advocacy campaign and again I'll give credit where credit is due. The mayor of Montreal uh was quite aggressive um in uh leading some of the advocacy on this. Remember this was funding that the federal government put forward. uh then decided not to renew despite the fact that there was still a continuing need. Um there was an advocacy campaign to renew it that came forward. There was some delay in flowing the money but ultimately um it flowed in time to be deployed not just uh in uh in an effort to uh to create a robust winter response but also with some of the additional money as we directed to come back and support a number of organizations providing really critical services in the community. And I will say some of these outreach services are are are really important to ensuring that we are continue to do case work out there on the front lines to identify what the individual's needs are to get them into the proper supports or the proper housing or the proper shelter uh to start to define them along a pathway from leaving the streets and going into housing. So you know all of this uh happens because we have a federal partner who decided that they would continue to fund this. Uh these are very difficult things to fund in the long term uh with municipal uh property taxpayers dollars and I wanted to extend my thanks to our our local representatives as well as all those in the advocacy efforts to ensure that this federal funding continues uh to flow and be used effectively in cities across the country. >> I'll return the chair to you. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this? first. >> Okay. Then what we're Okay. So, councelor Stevenson, we're going to do the ones that you wanted separate first. So, we'll do that first. Um, so it'll be a I IV as the first vote. Okay. We'll open that for voting now. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1. >> And now we will vote on the rest of the items. Uh, one call for councelor Van Mirburgen, otherwise marking as absent. Marking the counselor is absent. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 12-0. >> Councelor Ramen. >> Thank you. That concludes my report and I just wanted to say ditto to what councelor Mallister said. Thanks to everyone for a great caps year. Great. So that brings us to the conclusion of reports. Added reports. Uh there's one added report out of council in close session. Now I will say since this is the last meeting of the term I have stuck councelor McAllister for many times reading out these reports. So instead I'm going to turn the chair over to him and I will read the lengthy report for you. So you can chair the meeting and you want to go to me. I'll present the close session report. I have the chair and I look forward to hearing the report. Go right ahead. >> It's not going to be super exciting. Okay. Your council in close session report lease extension and amending agreement for city plaza 355 Wellington Street suite 248 that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of financial supports on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the lease extension by way of the lease extension and amending agreement with city plaza inc. the landlord as schedule A to bylaw for the beginning of term April 1st, 2027 until March 31st, 2032 for office space at 355 Wellington Street, uh being suite 248. The following actions be taken. A the extension of the city's current lease at 355 Wellington Street Suite 248 for a further term of 5 years beginning April 1st, 2027 and expiring March 31st, 2032 be approved in accordance with the lease extension and amending agreement as schedule A uh to the bylaw. B. The mayor and the city clerk be authorized to execute the lease extension and amending agreement. C. Civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative steps in connection to this lease agreement. Item two, office offer to purchase industrial land pharma line incnovation park phase 4 that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of financial supports with the concurrence of the director of municipal housing and development housing and community growth and on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the city-owned industrial land situated in innovation park phase 4 in the city of London in the county of Middle Sex containing approximately 5.14 acres more or less being and being composed of block part five on plan M 33M 609 designated as part two on plan 33R 20917 located in the city of London in the county of Middle Sex the subject property and further shown outlined in red in appendix A the agreement of purchase and sale the agreement as schedule A in the bylaw submitted by Pharma link Pharmine Inc. the purchaser to purchase four 5.4 14 acres of the subject property from the city at a purchase price of $1,542,000 be accepted and be subject to the conditions and terms set out in the agreement. And the final item, item three, property acquisition and temporary easement 735 Southdale Road, Southdale Road improvements project, Colonel Talbert Road to Boswick Road. that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager of financial supports with the concurrence of the director of transportation and mobility on the advice of the director of realy services with respect to the property known as 735 Southdale Road in the city of London further described as part 78 designated parts 12733r 4239 subject to 281766 UW39059 city of London County of Middle Sex being all of pin 0820900006 as shown on the location map in appendex A. The following actions be taken. A the offer submitted by 2749283 Ontario Inc. to sell the subject parcel to the city for the sum of 741,000 and the temporary easement for the sum of 104,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement schedule A to the bylaw and B. the financing for this uh acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report uh hereto as appendix B and that progress was made with respect to items 4.1 4.5 and 4.6 six as noted on the public agenda, councelor. Now we'll have to do a vote on that. >> Okay. Um we'll open the vote on that >> after discussion of course. >> Okay. Any discussion on that? No. And thank you again for doing it. And yes, we'll open the vote on that. closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> And I hand the chair back to you. >> Thank you, counselor, and thank you for doing that many, many times uh this past year. Uh there's no other additional reports, deferred matters. I have none inquiries. Councelor Hopkins has one. Go ahead. >> Thank you. Your worship. It's not over yet. The Ministry of Transportation Interchange Rebuild at Highway 401 and Colonel Talberta Road has detoured additional traffic on Wonderland Road and Glennworth Road. How are city staff responding to mitigate the impacts to drivers on city roads through you? >> Go ahead, Miss Sher. Uh thank you your worship and thank you for the inquiry councelor Hopkins. We have been monitoring this location for some time as it approached the need for a technical intervention either a roundabout or a fully channelized intersection with signals. It was below that threshold but the closure by the ministry has unfortunately detoutored a great deal of traffic there. This also coincides with Harvest in a rural location. So we are not just moving more vehicles. We're moving vehicles that don't turn as well, that are slower, um that are harder to navigate in a busy location. My ability to do anything immediately is unfortunately somewhat limited by the nature of the road and the ability I have under my legislation to do things like change speed limits. So, we are working with the Ministry of Transportation and they have made changes to the detour signing to provide alternate um route information for folks who do not have business in the immediate area either for work, farming or home. Uh we have done some work to improve the shoulder and will continue to do so until Colonel Talbat interchange reopens next month. Uh and we will be advancing subject to council approval the project to ultimately improve this location in a permanent way. uh that is going to be a little bit lengthier because there is a need to acquire property but subject to a budget approval. Our intention is to bring that process forward to accommodate a growing rural area. Uh the other piece is that we've heard loud and clear from residents and users of this location. So we will be arranging an on-site meeting with senior staff from my team next week and uh reaching out to our colleagues at LPS to assist with things like speed enforcement as well. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, counselor. Any other inquiries? Seeing none, uh we have no emergent motions. Uh so we're on to bylaws. And if you give me a second, I will just articulate how we're going to divide these up. Okay. So, what we what what's been received is bill number 352 dealt with separately and we'll deal with that one first. That was the uh item that was forwarded to this council from the last on the appointment of deputy mayor and budget chair policy with the changes that were directed made within the policy. Then we're going to go to uh bill 343 um which is the bylaw to delegate authority um to staff. Um and then it looks like everything else can go together unless anybody has anything they want separate. Yes. Is there anybody willing to do the same mover and seconder of all of that stuff? Councelor Hillier. Okay. Uh and councelor Cuddy. Okay. Then we'll start with first reading of bill 352. Uh and and then we'll open first reading for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. >> Okay. In second reading, I'll look for any discussion on second reading. >> Go ahead, councelor Troa. Um th this question is really um just to confirm that the new council can change this as quickly as they want to. Is that is that correct? >> Uh yes. There's no uh no reconsideration reconsideration during a for a 12-month period during a term of council requires a two-thirds vote to overturn. But once an election comes, it's just a majority uh vote that can that can change a direction on any matter. So the kind of election barrier makes it just simple majority for uh all items again. >> Okay. So I just wanted to flag that I'll be voting against this. Um I I think that this this piece of legislation needs a little bit more work and there's nothing stopping the new council beginning at their next at our next meeting from changing this. So, I really do not see the point of enacting this at this point. Um, I think it's superolous and um I'm just going to be v voting no on on on that basis. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers to this? Go ahead, councelor Robin. >> Uh, thank you and so I agree with councelor Traso. I think that there are um changes that are needed. Uh, I would say I'm also staying consistent on my vote. Um it's important to note that we have tied these positions to salaries uh and sorry to um to renumeration and with that um in this particular policy now we're defining the roles more clearly uh yet that's not been a big discussion by governance working committee nor do I think um it's uh clearly delineated based on the renumeration what those roles should be and how they should be weighted. So I do think that on the issue of the role moving forward, I think we need way more discussion and we need to discuss what kind of leadership structure we want in this city as we move forward. >> Okay. Any other speakers on second reading? >> Go ahead, Councelor Hopkins. Yeah, just to um clarify my my vote to be consistent, I will be uh voting no just because I would I do think we need a broader conversation, a little bit more clarity on on on the um roles and responsibilities and again just being consistent with my vote, I'll be voting no. >> Okay. Any others on second reading for discussion? >> Okay, seeing none, there will open second reading for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to four. >> Okay. And same move over and a second for a third and final reading. closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to4. >> Okay. The next bylaw we're going to deal with is bill 343, uh, which is the bylaw to delegate authority to bind the corporation in the city of London. um in various instances. Uh so we'll open first reading of that bylaw. >> Apologies. Which one is this? >> This is the delegated authority one. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Okay. Second reading of this same mover and secretary. Any discussion on second reading? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1. >> And third and final read of this bill. We'll open that for voting. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Okay. And now is everything else including the uh necessary added bill from the in camera report out. Okay. Same move and secondary. We'll open first reading. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero >> and second reading. I'll look for any speakers. >> Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. Motion carries 130 and third and final reading. We'll open that for voting. >> Motion carries 130. >> Okay. And before we adjourn, if you'll indulge me, um this is the final council meeting of this term of council. And although there are many people around this table running in elections, which I we won't talk about here, there are two colleagues uh who have served the last four years who have decided uh not to seek re-election uh in councelor Hillier and councelor Pribble. Um, let me say on behalf of the members of council and and the citizens of London, um, you know, thank you for your contributions over the course of this term, uh, thank you for representing your constituents, um, with, uh, class and vigor. Uh, thank you for, um, serving in public office. Uh, there's a lot of sacrifices that go along with that, uh, as we all know. Uh, and although who knows which of the rest of us will return, we know that you're not. And I wanted to take a moment to uh to to recognize both of you for your contributions to public service uh in the city of London. Um although not really within the council procedure bylaw. If either of you would like to say a couple words, I would I would endeavor to allow you to do that. Certainly not necessary, but you're welcome to. Councilor Prible, you you never say no to uh >> No. Do you know what I was looking at my senior colleague there if you wanted to? No. Do you >> I'm still going to time you. No, I'm just kidding. No, I will be really brief. Uh truly last four years truly amazing experience. Uh I will miss it uh greatly. I really will. Uh I really think the um the com we all have different opinions but I really think that not all all but most of the issues we came together and we really delivered under the challenging circumstances the best possible for half a million of Londoners. There are a lot of things that I would like Londoners and I don't like excuse list. I really don't. But the understanding that there are certain issues that truly go beyond the decisions in this room, the counselors, the mayor, the staff, and it goes to the higher levels of government. I don't want to use it as an excuse, but it is there are certain things we can only afford from the municipal taxes. for the next four years. What I hope as a as a resident that everyone around this horseshoe and when we talked about it will truly be giving 100% I truly believe and 100% has been given and we all care about London tremendously and our heart minds are 100% into it. Having said that, now with the changes we made, even with the stipent that it really is going to be for all 15 people truly full-time job because Londoners do deserve it. They do need it. And even though I said not everything is in control of the municipal government, there are a lot of things that can be influenced by municipal government with lobbying etc etc. But bottom line is thank you to all of you. Thank you to the staff. Uh I really uh we have a lot of expertise here. There is one thing that and I do say to people as well we have tremendous expertise in this building. We really do. If there is one thing that I always try to bring more into our DNA, one thing we have a great advantage of. It's not easy to divide the $1.4 billion a year, but we have one great advantage. We don't have to worry about revenues. And we need to realize on everyday basis that 99.9% corporations outside this world they do need to and the decisions we need to make has to we always have to realize that how it influences the businesses the individuals and that's the ask that sometimes I ask you know and jokingly but I mean it seriously do we have enough money for payroll this week and the reason why I'm saying it is that every decision we make it doesn't influence us we will always have the money for payroll but the other ones businesses they might not the individuals paying property taxes they might not but I'll tell you right now last four years have been an amazing experience I have I honestly I uh from everyone I received a great respect my uh constituents were very very tough on me very good questions but they were always tremendously fair and that's why I really don't have one negative experience during the last four years. Thank you all and looking forward to enjoying uh the next next council without me. >> There's lots of room in the gallery and you can come anytime. Uh councelor Hillier, go ahead. >> Thank you very much. Colleagues, staff, it's been eight years. I'm going to get emotional. Uh, I know I've surprised many of you with voting ways you didn't expect. And that was fun. I got to be honest with you. I know. I know. Right here. She's I had a few votes with you and you know for a fact you did not expect it. Vote with your heart. Vote for your ward and vote to keep moving London forward. I have seen everything from the seat. I have seen backstabbing and I have seen support. We are a family and like all families, we don't always get along. But the one thing we do is we talk. We make sure we talk. When the lines of communication seem to be closed, we don't. We go behind the scenes and we chat. And that's what we need to do. And I want London to realize that this group at works together. Whether or not we seem to agree, we do work together. The staff in front of us, they are the experts. When you get elected to this seat, you didn't become an expert instantly. These are the people we hire so people understand that's where you go for your opinions. You can ask your neighbor and I love her. She knows I do but she's not an expert in planning. Uh as I close I just like to say some of you we are very close as you know and some of you are not but I think I've had conversations with all of you and I've had inroads with all of you and I'm hoping whoever gets a seat after me keeps moving keeps moving Ward 14 forward and gets Bradley expanded. I just like to say thank you everybody. It's been an honor. All right. Now, both of you can fight over who gets to move and uh second adjournment. Um moved by councelor Hillier, seconded by councelor Pribble. Do this by hand. All those in favor of adjournment. >> Motion carries. >> All right. Thank you. We'rejourned. 452 and we're out of here. >> Look at you go saying that The real question