21ST REPORT OF THE
Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee
meeting held on August
31, 2015, commencing at 4:03 PM, in the Council Chambers, Second Floor, London
City Hall.
PRESENT: Deputy Mayor P. Hubert (Acting
Chair); and Councillors M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih, J. Helmer, M.
Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley, S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T.
Park and J. Zaifman and L. Rowe (Secretary).
ABSENT: Mayor M. Brown.
ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P.
Barber, J. Braam, K. Graham, G. Kotsifas, L. Livingstone, V. McAlea Major, D.
O’Brien, K. Pawelec, M. Ribera and C. Saunders.
|
That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Helmer
disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 3 of this Report, having to do with
the Canada Post Community Mailbox Program, by indicating that his spouse is
employed by Canada Post.
|
|
That, on the recommendation of the City
Manager, the staff report dated August 31, 2015 regarding the City of London
2015 Annual Community Survey BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that
the Director, Community and Economic Innovation gave a brief overview of the
survey findings.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
J. Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V.
Ridley, S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (14)
|
None.
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to Canada Post’s Community Mailbox Program:
a)
the
City Solicitor BE DIRECTED to report back to the Strategic Priorities and
Policy Committee (SPPC) on the legal actions being undertaken by the City of
Hamilton with respect to Canada Post's Community Mailbox Program and on what
legal remedies the City of London might have available to it in order to
address concerns within the City of London's jurisdiction;
b)
the
Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer
BE DIRECTED to:
i)
bring
forward the draft proposed agreement with Canada Post, as directed by the
Municipal Council on July 28, 2015, to the SPPC at its meeting on September
14, 2015; and
ii)
liaise
with Canada Post to obtain a clear, easy-to-understand list of proposed
Community Mailbox locations, and to make that list available to the public,
including the various concerns raised by the City of London in relation to
specific locations;
c)
the
following communications BE RECEIVED:
i)
a
communication dated August 17, 2015, from the Deputy City Clerk, advising of
the receipt of a petition in support of keeping door-to-door postal service;
ii)
a
communication dated August 6, 2015, from S. Margles, Vice President,
Government Relations and Policy, Canada Post, providing information regarding
Canada Post’s Community Mailbox Program;
iii)
a
communication from A. Paterson, Canada Post, providing information regarding
Canada Post’s community outreach and customer interaction activities in 2015
for London;
iv)
a
communication dated August 17, 2015 from H. Rabb, Special Projects
Coordinator, Councillor Terry Whitehead’s Office, City of Hamilton,
requesting delegation status for Councillor T. Whitehead;
v)
a
communication from Samuel E. Trosow requesting delegation status;
vi)
a
communication from Wendy Goldsmith requesting delegation status;
vii)
a
communication from David Heap, representing himself and the Kensington
Village Association, requesting delegation status; and
d)
the
attached delegation record summarizing the oral submissions BE
RECEIVED.
|
Voting
Record:
|
Motion to hear delegations from S.E. Trosow,
W. Goldsmith and D. Heap.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley, S.
Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
Motion to hear a delegation from Councillor
Terry Whitehead.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley, S. Turner, H.L.
Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (12)
NAYS: M. Cassidy (1)
|
|
Motion to receive the communications and
delegations.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley, S.
Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
Motion to have the City Solicitor report
back on the legal actions being undertaken by the City of Hamilton with
respect to Canada Post's Community Mailbox Program and what legal remedies
the City of London might have available to it in order to address concerns
within the City of London's jurisdiction.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, V. Ridley, S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park,
J. Zaifman (11)
NAYS: P. Hubert, A. Hopkins (2)
|
|
Motion to direct the Managing Director,
Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer to:
a)
bring
forward the draft proposed agreement with Canada Post, as directed by the
Municipal Council on July 28, 2015, to the SPPC at its meeting on September 14,
2015; and
b) liaise
with Canada Post to obtain a clear, easy-to-understand list of proposed
Community Mailbox locations, and to make that list available to the public,
including the various concerns raised by the City of London in relation to
specific locations.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, M. Salih,
M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley, S.
Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
That the following actions be taken with
respect to the 5th Report of the Governance Working Group, from its meeting
held on July 29, 2015:
a) the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to amend section (d) of Council Policy 5(1)
“Appointment of Deputy Mayor” to provide for the use of a ranked voting
process with respect to the selection and appointment of the Deputy Mayor
selected by Municipal Council;
b) the
City Clerk BE REQUESTED to amend Council Policy 5(34) “Appointment of Council
Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and
Commissions” to reflect the current Standing Committee structure and
appointment process;
c) the
Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to undertake the following actions with
respect to the recruitment process for Advisory Committees, Boards,
Commissions and Striking Committee Terms of Reference:
i) the
City Solicitor’s Office BE REQUESTED to review and report back to the
Governance Working Group (GWG) regarding the recommendation from the Striking
Committee that applicants be requested to voluntarily disclose information
pertaining to diversity;
ii) the
City Clerk and the City Solicitor’s Office BE REQUESTED to review and report
back to the Governance Working Group (GWG) regarding the processes undertaken
by other municipalities with respect to Council appointments to Advisory
Committees, Boards and Commissions and provide a recommendation regarding
best practices that could be considered to ensure a transparent, streamlined
and fair process for appointments; it being noted that the review is to
consider, but not be limited to, the following matters:
A) staggered
term appointments to provide for appointments to be made at the beginning and
middle of each term of Council so that the process is not onerous;
B) membership
of the Striking Committee;
C) provisions
that restrict Striking Committee members from being appointed to Advisory
Committees, Boards or Commissions;
D) possible
creation of a different type of committee structure for appointments;
E) a
process that provides for the short listing of applicants;
F) an
interview process for applicants;
G) an
improved communications and recruitment process;
H) clear
and plain language descriptions of the role of the Advisory Committees,
Boards and Commissions; and,
I) clearer
guidelines with respect to the disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
by appointed Advisory Committee members;
d) the
Governance Working Group (GWG) Terms of Reference BE AMENDED to extend the
term to December 31, 2015, in order to provide additional time for the GWG to
complete its work; and
e)
clauses
1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 BE RECEIVED.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, J.
Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley,
S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
That the following individuals BE APPOINTED
to the Old East Village Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the
term ending November 30, 2018:
Maria Drangova - Representative
Ken Keane - Business Owner/Property Owner
Michelle DeVeau - Business Owner
Henry Eastabrook - Outreach/Advocate Worker
Dave Chandler - Property/Business Owner
Jeff Pastorius - Business Owner
Dave Thuss - Business Owner
Aaron Chandler - Business Owner
Victor Wagner - Business/ Property Owner
Maryse Leitch - Representative
Clark Bryan - Business/ Property Owner
Michelle Navackas - Representative
Heather Blackwell - Corporate Affairs
Manager
it being noted that the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 14,
2015, from J. Pastorius, Old East Village Business Improvement Area Manager,
with respect to the above appointments.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, J.
Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley,
S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
That the following individuals BE APPOINTED
to the Argyle Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the term
ending November 30, 2018:
Lee
Bryar, GoodLife Fitness General Manager
Drew Gardener - Co-Operators Insurance
it being noted that the Strategic
Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated August 10, 2015
regarding a vacancy in accordance with section 4.4 of By-law No. A.-6873-292.
|
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, J.
Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley,
S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
None.
|
Motion Passed
YEAS: M. van Holst, B. Armstrong, J.
Helmer, M. Cassidy, P. Squire, J. Morgan, P. Hubert, A. Hopkins, V. Ridley,
S. Turner, H.L. Usher, T. Park, J. Zaifman (13)
|
|
The meeting adjourned at 6:15 PM.
|
DELEGATION RECORD
|
3.
|
Canada Post Community Mailbox Program
|
·
Samuel
E Trosow – indicating that the delegations have been here a few times on Canada
Post’s Community Mailbox Program; encouraging the City of London to take a
proactive position regarding placement of the mailboxes; noting there are a
number of safety considerations regarding placement such as access by seniors
and disabled persons, liability, snow removal, graffiti, vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, slip and falls, as well as fiscal considerations for the
City of London; noting that London City Council has taken a “hands off”
position, where other municipalities have been more proactive, such as the
cities of Hamilton and Montreal, and other municipalities have been less
proactive than London; stating that any attempt to reason with Canada Post is
futile as they have decided what they are going to do and they are doing it;
encouraging the City of London to ask Canada Post to stop until after the end
of October when the City of London will have more clarity regarding the
Program; suggesting that the City Engineer would not have let some of the boxes
go up in certain locations had he known where those locations were going to be;
noting that many boxes are close to intersections; encouraging the City of
London to call for a moratorium until after the implementation date of October
19, 2015 and indicating that his recommending a moratorium to a particular date
is not politically motivated; also encouraging the City of London to give
serious consideration to joining with the City of Hamilton; noting that the
City of Hamilton lost the first round in the Courts, but will very likely be
back in the Courts; emphasizing it is extremely important for municipalities to
protect their general rights; noting that the City of Hamilton has been active
in trying to get assistance and he would not guess what assistance the City of
London should give; suggesting that the Municipal Council should get a more
technical report from their legal staff; asking that the Municipal Council
please offer their colleagues in Hamilton some assistance and if they have not
read Hamilton’s documentation on this matter, encouraging the Members to do so;
re-emphasizing that this is about municipal issues including safety and cost;
and asking the Municipal Council to make an affirmative statement that the City
wants Canada Post to stop implementation, at least for now, and also asking that
the Municipal Council consider a potential role in helping the City of
Hamilton.
·
Wendy
Goldsmith – indicating she is a social worker and was encouraged to hear from a
number of Council Members about the importance of the needs of citizens, though
on the other hand some other Members are saying they don’t want to hear or
learn from other municipalities that have more experience; expressing that she
expects more from City Council; noting she is also speaking as someone
concerned for the economy of the community; indicating that she is speaking for
a local business owner who is deeply concerned about the placement of community
mailboxes in front of the business he is still running as an octogenarian;
noting that the gentleman was advised to contact Canada Post about his concerns
and Canada Post told him to speak with London City Council because Canada Post
did not have a role in his concerns; stating that the latter is a contradiction
and Canada Post just passed this off and alleging that Canada Post is deliberately
trying to decline to speak to Council, seniors and other people who care in the
community; indicating that people had asked to speak at a prior date and asking
the Committee to invite more delegations than those who have sent in a written
request on today’s agenda since the matter is very important to more people;
stressing that unlike the Community Survey, this issue is more than a “snapshot
in time’ and it is important for Council to take a look at all concerns and
deal with them in a way that supports the community it serves.
·
David
Heap, Kensington Village Association – providing the attached
presentation; noting Kensington Village Association is the newest Association;
indicating that the Association requested a meeting with Canada Post in May,
but Canada Post refused to come as the Association did not have an “Executive”;
expressing thanks to Councillor T. Park in assisting with the meeting
arrangements; stating that Canada Post refused to place a community mailbox on
a dead end, though it appears that sometimes it is OK to place a community
mailbox on a dead end and sometimes it is not; noting that a particular
location was very unsafe from a traffic and parking perspective and that is why
they wanted it moved to a safer location; indicating that one resident felt
unsafe with the location of a community mailbox near their property and another
resident was fine with that mailbox being relocated to their property, but
Canada Post refused to move the mailbox; pointing out some placements have resulted
in damage to tree roots; suggesting that location criteria are not serious and
are based more on a whim, without proper consultation; indicating that the
information Canada Post provided for mailbox locations was strictly a “data
dump” and not very useful; asking for location information that is more
comprehensive; and encouraging the City of London to call for a moratorium on
the installation of the community mailboxes.
·
Councillor
Terry Whitehead, City of Hamilton – emphasizing he is not here to provide
advice; outlining his lengthy experience and thanking Councillor Ridley for
inviting him to come and speak to the Committee; indicating the importance of
municipalities ensuring they are better informed; advising that Canada Post
came to Hamilton with a desire to transform mail delivery in that community,
one in which two-thirds of the community received home delivery; indicating
that implementation began in the Mountain area of Hamilton; pointing out that
while Canada Post talks about pre-existing mailboxes, what they don’t say is
that the mailboxes already in place went through a planning process; providing
the attached information outlining some of the difficulties they have
encountered in Hamilton with mailbox placement and a communication dated June 16,
2015 from I. Binnie, providing a legal opinion with respect to Hamilton ats
Canada Post Corporation; emphasizing that there are many considerations for
ensuring competing needs for such things as telecommunications roads, sewers,
driveways, etc. are dealt with safely; stating that there is a need for planned
community mailboxes versus unplanned community mailboxes in areas where cars
have to stop in an active lane, or where there is a reduction in lanes, or
there is a high incident of accidents; noting they have asked Canada Post to
move the mailbox locations from unsafe locations and they will not do so;
pointing out that Hamilton’s by-law is to ensure that there is the highest
standard of safety while allowing Canada Post to proceed; and stating that Hamilton
City Council believes it should be the highest decision body to have final say
on safety considerations; and asking London to join Hamilton’s fight.