<A>

 

Council

MINUTES

2ND MEETING

 

 

December 17, 2013

 

The Council meets in Regular Session in the Council Chambers this day at 4:07 PM.

 

PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, and Councillors B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White and C. Saunders (City Clerk).

 

ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P. Barber, J. Braam, B. Coxhead, S. Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, A. Hagan, M. Hayward, G.T. Hopcroft, O. Katolyk, G. Kotsifas, L. Livingstone, V. McAlea Major, D. Mounteer, D. O’Brien, R. Paynter, M. Ribera, L. Rowe, M. Turner, B. Warner and B. Westlake-Power.

 

At the beginning of the Meeting all Members are present.

 

I

DISCLOSURES OF PECUNIARY INTEREST

 

Councillor J.B. Swan discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 5 of the 1st Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee, having to do with a mixed-use development, including a Performing Arts Centre, by indicating that his employer, Orchestra London, is a proponent.

 

Councillor M. Brown discloses a pecuniary interest in clause 13 of the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with Sherwood Forest Public School, by indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) is his employer.  Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause C-3 of the Confidential Appendix to the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with a matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition, by indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) is his employer.  Councillor M. Brown further discloses a pecuniary interest in clause C-1 of the Confidential Appendix to the 3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee, having to do with a matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition, by indicating that the Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) is his employer.

 

V

RECOGNITIONS

 

1.

His Worship the Mayor welcomes Glen Pearson and Jane Roy, representing the London and Area Food Bank, to accept donations for the Food Bank from Members of Council and the City of London staff.

 

2.

His Worship the Mayor introduces Bill Coxhead, who presents a cheque to Andrew Lockie of the United Way.

 

II

REVIEW OF CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED IN PUBLIC

 

                         None.

 

III

ADDED REPORTS

 

1.

3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

 

2.

2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

 

IV

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, IN CAMERA

 

MOTION FOR IN CAMERA SESSION

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve that the Council rise and go into Committee of the Whole, in camera, for the purpose of considering the following:

 

a)

A matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition of land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed acquisition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition. (C-2/2/CSC)

 

b)

A matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a lease amendment; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed lease amendment; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed lease amendment, the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed lease amendment whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed lease amendment whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed lease amendment. (C-1/2/CSC)

 

c)

A matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition. (C-3/2/CSC)

 

d)

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and advice with respect to potential litigation with respect to RFP-12-28 Animal Welfare Services. (C-1/2/CPSC)

 

e)

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, and advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose. (C-4/2/CSC)

 

f)

A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, and advice with respect to litigation with respect to various personal injury and property damage claims against the City. (C-6/2/CSC)

 

g)

A matter pertaining to personal matters, including information regarding identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to employment related matters, labour relations and employee negotiations, and advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (C-5/2/CSC)

 

h)

A matter pertaining to employee negotiations; personal matters, including information regarding identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to employment related matters, including advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation. (C-1/1/AC)

 

i)

A matter pertaining to employee negotiations; personal matters, including information regarding identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to employment related matters, including advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation, including communications necessary for that purpose and for the purpose of providing instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation; advise subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. (C-2/1/AC)

 

j)

(ADDED) A matter pertaining to instructions and directions to officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; reports or advice or recommendations of officers and employees of the Corporation pertaining to a proposed acquisition and/or disposition of land; commercial and financial information supplied in confidence pertaining to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition the disclosure of which  could reasonably be expected to, prejudice significantly the competitive position or interfere significantly with the contractual or other negotiations of the Corporation, result in similar information no longer being supplied to the Corporation where it is in the public interest that similar information continue to be so supplied, and result in undue loss or gain to any person, group, committee or financial institution or agency; commercial, information relating to the proposed acquisition and/or disposition that belongs to the Corporation that has monetary value or potential monetary value;  information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the economic interests of the  Corporation or its competitive position; information concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition whose disclosure could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the financial interests of the Corporation; and instructions to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the Corporation concerning the proposed acquisition and/or disposition. (C-1/3/CSC)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

The Council rises and goes into Committee of the Whole, in camera, at 4:26 PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present, except Councillor M. Brown.

 

At 4:52 PM Councillor M. Brown enters the meeting.

 

The Committee of the Whole rises at 5:05 PM and Council resumes in regular session at 5:11 PM, with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present, except Councillor S.E. White.

 

VI

CONFIRMATION AND SIGNING OF THE MINUTES OF THE FIRST MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 3, 2013

 

Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve the Minutes of the 1st Meeting held on December 3, 2013.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (14)

 

 

 

VII

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

 

Motion made by Councillor D. Brown and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve referral of the following communications, as noted:

 

 

1.

Urban Growth Boundary Inclusion Requests (O-7938) (Refer to the Planning and Environment Committee stage for consideration with clause 11 of the 1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee.)

 

a)

S. & H. Wagner, 1478 Westdel Bourne; and

 

b)

T. Perry Ambrogio, Ambrogio & Ambrogio Barristers and Solicitors

 

2.

Declare Surplus City-Owned Land (Refer to the Corporate Services Committee stage for consideration with clauses 6 and 7 of the 2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee.)

 

a)

D. Wake, 597 Kildare Road;

 

b)

C. Richardson, P.O. Box 3321;

 

c)

C. Agocs, 1454 Sprucedale Avenue;

 

d)

K. Auzins, Nature London;

 

e)

J. Cushing, 25 Elmwood Avenue East; and

 

f)

(ADDED) D. Crockett, By E-mail

 

3.

(ADDED) J. Foster, Executive Director, London Humane Society - Animal Welfare Services - Pet Sales (Refer to the Community and Protective Services Committee stage for consideration with clause 8 of the 2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee.)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (14)

 

VIII

MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE IS GIVEN

 

            None.

 

At 5:14 PM Councillor S.E. White enters the meeting.

 

IX

REPORTS

 

 

1st Report of the Civic Works Committee

                        Councillor H.L. Usher presents.

           

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher to Approve clauses 1 to 10, inclusive.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

2.

Election of Vice-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014

 

That it BE NOTED that the Civic Works Committee elected P. Van Meerbergen as its Vice-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

Hamilton Road and Clarke Road Intersection Improvements Construction Contract Amendment - Emergency Situation

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the staff report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to the contract for the Hamilton Road and Clarke Road intersection improvements, BE RECEIVED for information. (2013-L04)

 

4.

Amendments to the Traffic and Parking By-law

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 9, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013 for the purpose of amending the Traffic and Parking By-law (P.S. 111). (2013-C01)

 

5.

Irregular Bid-Supply of High Performance Cold Mix Asphalt (Tender T13-104)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, the following actions be taken with respect to the Supply of High Performance Cold Mix Asphalt:

 

a)         the tender submitted by Coco Paving Inc., 1865 Clarke Road, London, Ontario N5X 3Z6 at their contract price of $47,950.00, (HST extra) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that Coco Paving Inc. was the only bid received and meets the City’s terms, conditions and specifications;

 

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

 

c)         approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval.  (2013-F18)

 

6.

2014 Infrastructure Renewal Projects - Trees

 

That, on the recommendation of Director, Water and Wastewater the following actions be taken with respect to the 2014 Infrastructure Renewal Projects - Trees:

 

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to post the Tree Inspection Report assessments on line for public information;

 

b)         the November 2008 Environmental and Engineering Services Department (EESD) Construction Impact Tree Strategy BE REVIEWED to ensure it remains valid;

 

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to complete ground truthing for trees 50 years or older;

 

d)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to communicate and give notice of tree removals at least 4 to 6 weeks prior to construction and in advance of removal and to post signage on affected trees; 

 

e)         the staff report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to tree removal, mitigation and communication as part of the 2014 Infrastructure Renewal Projects, BE RECEIVED.  (2013-E04)

 

7.

Ministry of the Environments Inspection Report for the City of London Water Distribution System - 2013

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Water and Wastewater, the 2013 Ministry of the Environment Inspection Report for the City of London Water Distribution System BE RECEIVED for information.(2013-E08)

 

 

 

 

 

8.

Community Energy Action Plan - Final Draft for Community Engagement

 

That on the recommendation of the Director, Environment, Fleet and Solid Waste the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Energy Action Plan - Final Draft for Community Engagement:

 

a)         the final draft of the Community Energy Action Plan BE APPROVED for release for community engagement, which will include outreach through traditional media, social media, the City’s website and at community events between December 17, 2013 and February 28, 2014; it being noted that the final draft includes the following three companion documents:

 

i)          Understanding the Data;

 

ii)          Learning from People; and,

 

iii)         Reporting on Progress;

 

b)         the staff report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED;

 

it being noted that the Civic Works Committee heard the attached presentation from the Director, Environment, Fleet and Solid Waste with respect to this matter.  (2013-E19)

 

9.

Intersection Improvements - Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to intersection improvements at Richmond Street and Fanshawe Park Road:

 

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take immediate steps to undertake an Environmental Assessment;

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore other opportunities for traffic flow improvements;

 

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek opportunities for  expediting the project; and,

 

d)         the communication dated November 25, 2013, from Councillor M. Brown, BE RECEIVED.  (2013-T06)

 

10.

1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 03, 2013:

 

a)         clause 1 of the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee BE REFERRED to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting to be held December 16, 2013; and,

 

b)         clauses 2 to 13 of the 1st Report of the Transportation Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on December 3, 2013, BE RECEIVED.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

 

1st Report of the Planning and Environment Committee

                        Councillor J.L. Baechler presents.

           

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve clause 14.

 

14.

Property located at 275 Thames Street

 

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at 275 Thames Street:

 

a)         $50,000 BE ALLOCATED for the foundation with a basement from the Capital Budget; and,

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to waive the associated development and building application fees and charges.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Amend clause 14 by deleting the clause in its entirety and by replacing it with the following new clause:

 

“That, $60,000 BE ALLOCATED for the provision of a foundation with a basement and the associated development and building permit application fees with respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at 275 Thames Street; it being noted that the funding will be provided from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.”

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 14, as amended.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)

 

Clause 14, as amended, reads as follows:

 

That, $60,000 BE ALLOCATED for the provision of a foundation with a basement and the associated development and building permit application fees with respect to the Fugitive Slave Chapel, located at 275 Thames Street; it being noted that the funding will be provided from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve clauses 1 to 9, inclusive, clause 12 and clause 13.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

2.

Election of Vice-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014

 

That Councillor B. Polhill BE ELECTED Vice-Chair of the Planning and Environment Committee for the term ending November 30, 2014.

 

3.

10th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment

 

That the 10th Report of the Advisory Committee on the Environment, from its meeting held on November 6, 2013, BE RECEIVED.

 

4.

11th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee

 

That the 11th Report of the Environmental and Ecological Planning Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 21, 2013, BE RECEIVED.

 

5.

Woodhull Subdivision (39T-03511)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Services, the following actions be taken with respect to entering into a subdivision agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Farhi Holdings Corporation, for the subdivision of land over Part of Lot C, Gore Concession, (Geographic Township of Delaware), City of London, County of Middlesex, situated on the east side of Woodhull Road, north of Gideon Drive, municipally known as 1820 Woodhull Road:

 

a)         the Special Provisions, appended as Schedule “C” to the associated staff report dated December 10, 2013, to be contained in a Subdivision Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Farhi Holdings Corporation for the  Woodhull Subdivision, (39T-03511) BE APPROVED;

 

b)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the "Related Costs and Revenues" appended as Schedule "B" to the associated staff report, dated December 10, 2013; and,

 

c)         the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute this Agreement, any amending agreements and all documents required to fulfill its conditions.   (2013-D12)

 

6.

Property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North (Z-8284)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, relating to the application by the City of London, for the property located at 1103 Adelaide Street North, the  proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013, to add a new regulation to the existing Holding Neighbourhood Shopping Area Special Provision (h-5*h-11*h-64*h-95*NSA1(8)) Zone which indicates that: “The lot line which abuts an arterial street shall be interpreted as the front lot line regardless of whether or not it is the longer lot line.”;

 

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter.  (2013-D14A)

 

7.

Non-Industrial Uses in Industrial Areas (OZ-8219)

 

That the application of the City of London, relating to a Zoning By-law and an Official Plan Amendment to introduce non-industrial uses in industrial areas, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to incorporate the properties located at 457 Southdale Road West, 1920 and 1930 Blue Heron Drive and to report back at a future meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     Carol Weibe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, on behalf of the Muslim Association of Canada, relating to the property located at 457 Southdale Road West – indicating that she has been working with her client on this matter for just over one year; advising that her client purchased this land for two reasons; advising that one of the reasons is to develop the land for a community recreation centre; indicating that the other reason is to develop a mosque that would be connected to the community recreation centre; indicating that this site is currently zoned Commercial Recreation (CR-1); reiterating staff’s comments relating to the purpose of the by-law amendment, as it deals with commercial recreation uses and assembly halls in Industrial areas and any potential conflicts that may occur when you have non-Industrial uses or sensitive land uses in close proximity to Industrial lands; indicating that what has inadvertently happened, specifically relating to this property, is that by changing the definition of “assembly hall” to remove religious activities, it has now prevented her client from proceeding to construct the mosque on that site; indicating that the timing is somewhat ironic and coincidental in that her client has just completed the materials required for their pre-consultation for their site plan; advising that because the property is zoned, they met with Development Services staff in May, 2013, to get confirmation on the list of permitted uses, as they have received confirmation that a mosque would fall under the  definition of “assembly hall” because it does allow religious activity; indicating that, on that basis, her clients engaged the services of an architect and they have been working over the last number of months to refine the architectural plans and have also engaged the services of an engineer; advising that her clients are making a submission this week; indicating that she became aware of these changes, and they are of great concern to her clients because they have permissions, today, that would allow them to proceed with the mosque; noting that the commercial recreation centre is not an issue; advising that she has two recommendations to present to the Planning and Environment Committee; advising that the first recommendation is for consideration for a site specific exemption; (see attached proposed by-law wording); noting that they have recently found out about the proposed by-law change and have had to work quickly; advising that what she is requesting is that, notwithstanding the changes to the definition to remove religious uses from an assembly hall, a site specific exemption be permitted for the property located at 457 Southdale Road West; indicating that they may be able to work with staff to refine the proposed by-law wording between tonight’s meeting and Council; failing that, the second recommendation would be to possibly defer this matter and refer it back to staff as this may not be the only property that may get caught inadvertently in some of these changes; noting that there may be other churches or places of worship that are now going to find out that their legal status has now changed to legal non-conforming; indicating that, on this property, right now, with the current zoning, her clients did receive confirmation that they could proceed; advising that they are literally ready to submit an application; and, advising that time is critical for them at this point.

·                     Mike Inglis, 147 West River Trace Walk – indicating that he and his wife have owned and operated Gymworld Gymnastics for the last 12 years in northwest London; advising that Gymworld Inc. currently has a completed and accepted application for the rezoning of the properties located at 1920 and 1930 Blue Heron Drive to add Commercial Recreation to the permitted uses in the Hyde Park Industrial subdivision; noting that the Planning and Environment Committee will be receiving an application relating to these properties shortly; advising that their vision of putting together a multi-sport training centre began many years ago when they purchased the property and they have been waiting for servicing in the area; noting that servicing is to begin next year; indicating that, prior to the introduction of this application, they had their pre-consultation meeting with the Planning Department, about their application, in the summer; indicating that because their application is being reviewed using current by-laws, they do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this application expressing a desire to convey their opinion on how it will be more difficult, in the future, for organizations, such as themselves, clubs, community organizations and places of worship, to locate a business in London for commercial recreational purposes; expressing support for the argument stated in the staff report relating to non-Industrial or sensitive uses and their placement away from general and heavy Industrial uses; expressing disagreement with the staff report relating to the restrictions on secondary uses, and their locations, having to do with Light Industrial areas; understanding that, by definition, a Light Industrial location has few off-site impacts and it should not be necessary to restrict the placement of secondary uses within a Light Industrial area; indicating that the transportation movements and the efficiency issues that have been referenced in the staff report are more relevant in the heavier general industrial or heavy industry areas; noting that LI-3, LI-4 and LI-5 uses may have location issues locating if they are trying to locate on primary collectors or arterial roads within Light Industrial areas; advising that the staff report references compliance with Provincial Policy Statements; noting that the Provincial Policy Statements also reference healthy communities; indicating that, when dealing with commercial recreation activities, there are not a lot of areas in the City zoned for commercial recreation; advising that, activities such as running a gymnastics gym, running a karate studio or a dance studio, you are basically destined for a Light Industrial area somewhere in a quiet little area where it is affordable to offer affordable programming to the citizens of London; and, indicating that, in his understanding of the staff report and moving forward for the next generation, to have to put a facility out on an arterial road somewhere is not feasible.

·                     Derek McBurney, 4-466 South Street – expressing appreciation to the staff for their well-thought out report; expressing concern with the previous definition of churches and places of worship and the secondary uses that are in areas that are really inappropriate; expressing disagreement with the previous speaker; advising that there are a lot of places in the city for recreational uses; indicating that you have to do business in the reality of today; and, indicating a desire to see the proposed revised by-law for the mosque.   (2013-D14A)

 

8.

Property located at 2320 Auto Mall Avenue (OZ-8276)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the City of London, relating to amendments to the City’s Official Plan and Zoning By-law, for the property located at 2320 Auto Mall Avenue:

 

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013 to amend Schedule C, “Transportation Corridors”, of the Official Plan to remove a “Proposed Secondary Collector” road in this location that was added to Schedule C, “Transportation Corridors”, of the Official Plan, and to amend “Proposed Secondary Collector” road to “Secondary Collector” road for Driver Lane from Dundas Street to Auto Mall Avenue to implement the accepted Veterans Memorial Parkway Environmental Study Report (ESR); and,

 

b)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013, to amend Section 4.21 (Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads) of Zoning By-law Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan, as amended in part a), above), to delete and amend various streets in Section 4.21 “Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads” of the Z.-1 Zoning By-law;

 

it being pointed out that there were no oral submissions made at the public  participation meeting associated with this matter. (2013-D14A)

 

9.

Properties located at 860-874 Southdale Road West (39T-13503/OZ-8223)

 

That, on the recommendation of the Senior Planner, Development Planning the following actions be taken with respect to the application of Norquay Developments, relating to the properties located from 860 to 874 Southdale Road West:

 

a)         the Approval Authority BE REQUESTED to approve the draft plan of residential subdivision, as submitted by Norquay Developments, (File No. 39T-13503), prepared by Robert D. Sterling O.L.S., (Drawing No. DP1, dated July 3, 2013), which shows 55 single detached dwelling lots, 11 single detached dwelling part lots, the extension of Cranbrook Road, the extension of Thornley Street, and a westerly extension of Collins Drive, SUBJECT TO the conditions contained in Appendix "39T-13503", as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013;

 

b)         the Approval Authority BE ADVISED that there were no issues raised at the public participation meeting of the Planning and Environment Committee with respect to the application for draft plan of subdivision of  Norquay Developments relating to the property located at 860 to 874 Southdale Road West;

 

c)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013, to amend Zoning By-law No. Z.-1, (in conformity with the Official Plan), to:

 

i)          change the zoning of the subject property from an Urban Reserve (UR1) Zone TO a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h.R1-6(4)) Zone and a Holding Residential R1 Special Provision (h.h-108.R1-6(4)) Zone, to permit the development of single detached dwellings on lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and a minimum lot area of 450m2 and to allow for 1.2 metre side yard setbacks for two story single detached dwellings; and,

 

ii)         amend Section 4.21 of “Road Allowance Requirements – Specific Roads” of the Z.-1 By-law to add Street “A” (Cranbrook Road) as a Secondary Collector Road; and,

 

d)         the financing for this project BE APPROVED in accordance with the "Related Costs and Revenues" appended as Schedule "B" to the associated staff report, dated December 10, 2013; 

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:

 

Craig Linton, Norquay Developments – expressing appreciation for the promptness that the application was dealt with; advising of potential concerns that may be raised by the public during construction; indicating that the concerns are related to Condition 60, relating to construction access and Condition 62, relating to construction access for new subdivisions; indicating that they will have to block off and barricade Thornley Avenue in two locations, with another barricade on Collins Drive; understanding that there are concerns about construction traffic while house construction is going on through other areas; noting that there could also be concerns raised by local residents during the approximately two year period of construction, about the area residents not having enough mobility through the area; and, indicating that it is at the Engineers discretion and hoping that that discretion is used when the time comes.    (2013-D14A)

 

12.

9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 27, 2013:

 

a)         the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to explore the opportunity to implement a reserve fund that members of the public could contribute to for the specific purpose of planting trees in the community;

 

it being noted that the Trees and Forests Advisory Committee (TFAC) reviewed and received a report dated October 29, 2013, and heard a verbal report from J. M. Fleming, Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, with respect to the Emerald Ash Borer business plan; and,

 

b)         that clauses 2 to 8, inclusive, BE RECEIVED.

 

13.

Candidate Approval for the Urban Design Peer Review Panel

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following candidates BE APPROVED for available positions on the Urban Design Peer Review Panel:

 

a)         Brad Smith – Position of Landscape Architect;

 

b)         John Nicholson – Position of Architect; and,

 

c)         Steve Ries – Position of Architect.  (2013-C04)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler to Approve clause 10.

 

10.

Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Background Study

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Planning and City Planner, the following actions regarding the draft Blackfriars/Petersville Background Study BE TAKEN:

 

a)         the proposed Heritage Conservation District boundary, as appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013 as Figure 2, BE ENDORSED and that a Heritage Conservation District Plan and Guidelines be prepared for the area;

 

b)         the  draft Background Study BE RECEIVED, and circulated to the public, landowners, agencies, the Blackfriars/Petersville HCD Steering Committee and the London Advisory Committee on Heritage for review and comment; and,

 

c)         prior to final approval of the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Plan, a public information meeting BE HELD with the community to solicit input on the draft Plan and Conservation Guidelines;

 

it being noted that a review of the current Residential R2 zone variation applied to properties within the study area is underway to address issues related to intensification within areas that are susceptible to flood events;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     Paul Warden, 199 Lorraine Avenue – see attached presentation.

·                     John Clement, Chair, Steering Committee – advising that there was an incursion of proposed development in the “pink” area as per the area map on display at the meeting; advising that a group of local residents expressed their concern and developed the Steering Committee; noting that the Steering Committee invited members to join; advising that they did not put together the map that was provided at the meeting; indicating that they have not told the Consultants how to make their decisions; expressing support on behalf of the Association Steering Committee of the current division; indicating that they did not intend to exclude communities; encouraging people to form their own Community Association; expressing appreciation to the members of the Planning and Environment Committee and the Municipal Council for finding a way to maintain and honour the history of the Blackfriars area as we build together towards our future; expressing support for the work prepared by the Heritage Consultants; expressing hope that the Planning and Environment Committee and the Municipal Council will endorse this project as well; indicating that they feel strongly that their neighbourhoods role in the history of the development and growth of London needs to be evident and clear in the appearance of our community on the ground and in our streets as we in the community continue to develop and grow in the future in a way that is harmonious for local community and future growth.

·                     Angela Goulet, 13 Lesley Street – advising that they purchased their house because they were interested in living Downtown and near the Thames River; expressing support for the staff recommendation; expressing appreciation to the staff for making the Blackfriars area a priority for heritage designations; indicating that what started as a strategy to protect Blackfriars from inappropriate development has grown into a real celebration of the history of our city; indicating that a tremendous amount of work went into the draft Report on the Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Study; advising that designating the Blackfriars/Petersville area as a Heritage Conservation District allows for a process of change management within the area and is proof of the community’s commitment to care for and enhance the area; indicating that they are seeing examples of this in their neighbourhood all the time; providing the example that 12 Lesley Street, which was one of the houses slated to be demolished, is now owned by someone who is taking great care to repair the house; indicating that the correlation has not been lost, this has historically been a working neighbourhood; advising that Blackfriars is becoming a place for first-time homeowners, young families and people who work Downtown and want to own property at a reasonable price; indicating that the pride and love for this area will only increase with the designation; indicating that there are a lot of children growing up in an urban pedestrian style area; advising that their participation in municipal activities and their involvement with the activities going on in the core is what breeds an interest in the city and a connection to the city; advising that she understands that the Planners are dealing with infill situations as opposed to urban sprawl; advising that it is critical to maintain urban niche neighbourhoods like Blackfriars; and, noting that if a city loses those character rich areas, which often tend to be the historical areas, it loses a lot of its personality and a lot of that appeal.

·                     Susan Spindler, 81 Wilson Avenue – expressing appreciation for all of the work that has been completed on the draft Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Study; advising that she does not believe that infill intensification and urban sprawl are mutually exclusive; indicating that they do not want enormous intensification in their neighbourhood which would change the structure of what they consider to be a fairly small community; and, reiterating that the Steering Committee was not responsible for the division of the potential designation of the heritage conservation district.

·                     Wes Kinghorn, Chair, London Advisory Committee on Heritage – expressing support for the draft Blackfriars/Petersville Heritage Conservation District Study.    (2013-R01)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 11.

 

11.

Urban Growth Boundary Inclusion Requests (O-7938)

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the urban growth boundary inclusion requests:

 

a)            the questions that were raised at the Public Participation meeting held at the Planning and Environment Committee on December 10, 2013, BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to answer and to continue discussions with the development community; and,

 

b)         a Task Force BE ESTABLISHED with a membership similar to the Development Charges Working Group, with L. Townsend as Chair, to review the submissions received at the December 10, 2013 Planning and Environment Committee Public Participation meeting and to report back  to the Planning and Environment Committee in three months;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated December 5, 2013, from P.V. Hinde, Manager, Land Development, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating to this matter;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     William Hill, 2168 Bradley Avenue, on behalf of the property owners on Bradley Avenue from Innovation Park to the current Urban Growth Boundary – advising that there are 13 landowners; noting that 12 of the landowners formed their own group; indicating that he reviewed a staff report on the November 18, 2013, Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Agenda which indicated that the City needs more industrial land, in terms of size, location and quantity; indicating that they have potential industrial land in this group of properties along Highway 401; advising that their lands are deemed inappropriate as they cannot be serviced by existing or planned infrastructure; expressing disagreement with this because roads, sewers and water were mentioned as being expensive to build; advising that, a few years ago, the City rebuilt Bradley Avenue and brought water and hydro to Innovation Park; noting that they have always had gas service along Bradley Avenue; advising that when he looks at what has been done and the fact that Innovation Park is at the east portion of the lands and the Summerside residential development is at the west end of the lands, it should be possible to service these lands at a reasonable cost; advising that, for the people he is representing, they are all original owners; noting that he has lived there for 25 years and he is the newest resident; indicating that there are people in the group that he represents that are in their fourth generation of living on the land; indicating that they have no land developers or land bankers; advising that they need some change so that they can do something with the land; noting that these are small lands, originally they were 50 acres and five acres were removed to accommodate Highway 401; indicating that they are no longer viable as farm land; noting that only one person is still farming and he has a secondary job off the farm; further noting that it is cash crop, the dairy farms that used to be on Bradley Avenue disappeared a long time ago; indicating that they are surrounded by development; pointing out that they have Highway 401 on one side, Innovation Park on another side, residential development along Jackson Road; noting that there are a lot of “change of use” signs along Jackson Road and Commissioners Road and Sifton has just started a development along Hamilton Road, near Commissioners Road; advising that they feel isolated and helpless because they do not have any zoning to allow them to do anything effective with their lands; indicating that, despite everything that he has heard about the fact that lands cannot be added unless lands are taken out, which will not be a popular idea; indicating that the residents of Bradley Avenue are requesting that the lands on the south and north sides of Bradley Avenue be included in the urban growth area; recommending the south side of Bradley Avenue should be industrial; suggesting that the north side of Bradley Avenue should be residential; advising that the land is suitable, as there are approximately 2.5 kilometers of land along the Highway 401 corridor, which is highly visible and reasonably flat; noting that it would not require the amount of grading and excavating that went into Innovation Park, there is great access to the city core; and, further noting that there is no need for a ring road in the area as they have Highway 401, the Veterans Memorial Parkway and two interchanges servicing Bradley Avenue .

·                     Alan R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates – see attached communication, dated December 10, 2013, from M. Campbell, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

·                     Doug Brown,on behalf of the West Talbot Landowners Association – indicating that these lands are located south of Southdale Road, west of Colonel Talbot Road and north of Pack Road; advising that they have been seeking inclusion into the urban growth boundary for over 20 years; advising that they have spoken to the Municipal Council several times outlining some of the problems and challenges that they face as landowners being surrounded on three sides by encroaching development and city growth; noting that these problems include trespassing, land erosion, difficulty in economically farming the lands, inability to procure insurance and other difficulties; advising that they would like to focus on three key areas, those being conceptual design for the development of the lands, compliance with the City criteria and requirements for land development and the economic feasibility to look at developing these parcels of land; advising that they hired IBI Group to explore how the lands could be developed and what the community might look like; noting that there could be a bike path to connect old London with new London, there could be a recreational area which would include a community centre that would provide sports and entertainment and other activities to the area residents and the plan could provide an opportunity for approximately 1,500 single family homes along with multi-family and high density development, community commercial school sites and recreational facilities; also noting that it provides for the extension of Boler Road, which is already planned by the City, linking Southdale Road to Colonel Talbot Road; advising that the West Talbot lands would provide the City with control over one of the largest natural heritage features in southwest London, as the back boundary is Dingman Creek; indicating that in October, 2013, they were provided with an outline of the City’s criteria that they would have to meet to be considered for development of these lands; noting that these included environmental, social, agricultural and economic requirements; advising that from the social standpoint, the inclusion of these lands will allow for the development of the Talbot community to reach its full potential as a vibrant residential and commercial community, it will enhance the entire Talbot community and allow the area to reach its full potential as a sustainable community; advising that the single biggest negative impact on agricultural land is to do nothing; advising that the subject lands are an agricultural island isolated by urban development on three sides and a large natural heritage area on the fourth side; advising that, with the appropriate development buffers and management practices, these lands can be environmentally protected and maintained as sustainable, ecological features; indicating that the study also indicated that they can meet the necessary infrastructure requirements and intensification and density targets; advising that the West Talbot land represents some of the most economical opportunities in the City of London, an opportunity to bring in one of the largest tracts of land at little additional servicing costs beyond what is already in the planning stages; advising that development studies by IBI Group clearly indicate that the lands can be attracted to service and developed considering the costs involved; noting that actual indications are that these lands could be more economically developed than other areas already included in the urban growth boundary; advising that development of the area could create jobs for local citizens, provide the street expansion to meet traffic needs and reduce present congestion at rush hours; advising that their group has worked very hard to make sure that these areas have not been left out of planning of future infrastructure as the City looks forward as to how the southwest area is to be serviced.  (See attached presentation).

·                     Dave Schmidt, Corlon Properties - (See attached presentation).

·                     Bob Stratford, RWS Consulting – advising that he participated in three of the requests by landowners for urban growth boundary alterations; indicating that he will be speaking in general terms, not in terms of specific applications, looking at the costs and engineering analysis that appears to have gone into the final suggestions that staff have made as to what should go in and what should stay out of the urban growth boundary; having attended prior meetings on this topic, and Mr. Schmidt talked about some of the older meetings, his understanding was that we wanted to investigate where there were opportunities to bring lands in, where there was little to no added cost burdens on the City of London; advising that he thought that it was fairly straight forward; noting that there is infrastructure in the ground with land near it that you do not have to spend any more money from a development charges perspective; recommending that these lands be capitalized on, bring in the land, earn the development charges revenues and carry on; noting that there are some sites where this could happen; believing that they were going to look at obvious and logical areas; understanding that there are a lot of requests and a lot of land area, but it was their hope that it would be kept simple and you would find the low-hanging fruit and try to take advantage of it, generate some development charge revenues where you already have infrastructure sunk and paid for in the ground and where there is no new added significant costs; advising that when he looks at the staff report and the special consideration lands, he does not see the logic; indicating that, with regard to two of the properties, where there is consideration for inclusion, one of them is for NW-1, on Sunningdale Road, bounded by Fanshawe Park Road and the City limit, staff is suggesting that there is no big impediment to this, but he advises that there are 1,600 metres of sanitary sewer required to get to that piece of land from where the sewer exists today; indicating that the sewer needs to go through private property, an Auburn development; noting that it is going to take 10 to 15 years for that sewer to get there if they go by the rates at which adjacent development has progressed; advising that the point is that that is not something that they need to worry about capitalizing on today; noting that there is another Official Plan review in five years; further noting that you could probably wait until the one after that; indicating that it is the notion that they should be going after the easy kills, if you will; indicating that we know that it needs a stormwater management facility, which is planned in the GMIS for 2016, but when you go north, there is another sewer through private lands, ultimately through plan of subdivision, that need to be brought up to area NW-1, so this piece of property is years and years away; indicating that he did not think that it was something that the Committee was looking towards in terms of advancing development, generating revenues and jobs and getting people active again; advising that the second property, W-1, is something that staff suggests should be considered for inclusion;  noting that, again, you need to build a sanitary sewer; advising that the sanitary sewer is approximately 800 metres long to get to an existing sewer; noting that the sewer would have to go through private property and is not going to happen; advising that the W-1 area is within the Tributary C watershed and is outside of the recently completed and approved environmentally significant area study for Tributary C so it is really not going anywhere fast; reiterating that it missed the point that we were looking for solid examples that could happen now; indicating that the two examples that he pointed out are heavily encumbered in terms of their servicing routes and other infrastructure; advising that he is not sure how we can say that those are ready and ripe to go; indicating that, in when we talk about having to go through other property developments, he recalls being in meetings about the GMIS and Committees and Council making strategies that said that they do not want other private developers in between growth, that the Committees and Council did not want to see a leap frog, but you hate to see a developer holding up some other opportunity; reiterating that these are two properties that were recommended to be brought into the urban growth boundary; advising that, in comparison, they could look at two of the requests that were Tier 2 or Tier 3; noting that he did not work for the property owners; advising that he is talking about Corlon Properties at the northwest corner of Wonderland Road North and Sunningdale Road; advising that there is a sanitary sewer and a watermain at Sunningdale Road; noting that the services are right there; advising that the City has most likely already paid the pipe subsidies out of the GMIS; noting that you have already paid the developer to oversize the pipes, so you could bring the land on; noting that it does need a stormwater management facility, so the City would have that extra expense; noting that the facility in the EA that is approved is $1,700,000, the site generates $12,000,000 in development charges revenues, which, in his opinion, is easy pickings, which is where he thought we were headed on this project; advising that another one would be out in the Wickerson area, which he did work on for Sifton Properties Limited and the other landowner group out there; advising that they looked at the servicing and costs as a whole of the servicing of the areas outlined in red on the map presented at the meeting; indicating that they also prepared a subset of calculations for the lands located on the east side of Wickerson Road; noting that this land was not considered a Tier 1 or preferred property but there has been heavy infrastructure investment through the development charges out in this area; arguing that the lands on the east side of Wickerson Road and the lands fronting Wickerson Road can be serviced; noting that there are no impediments, there are servicing requirements, but there are no added development charges costs; indicating that, in his opinion, this is the low-hanging fruit that the intention was to go after to recover costs on prior investments; indicating that, on the lands on the east side of Wickerson Road, there is the pond at the south limit of it, that the City of London is currently going out for a tender to build that pond, but they will not bring in the lands, which does not make any sense to him; advising that there are probably other obvious and logical places where we could look to gain an advantage and gain those opportunities that they were looking for; indicating that Riverbend South is one of the lands that were looked at for removal; advising that there are large sewers at the edge of the property, with a $5,000,000 pumping station in Riverbend that City Operations staff complain does not get enough flow yet as it is not developing quickly enough; noting that it is operating in a manner that was not intended because development is not happening fast enough; reiterating that staff would like to see more flows to that facility; indicating that the Tributary C Environmental Assessment took five years; noting that the Ministry has now approved it; further noting that the Minister rejected a Part 2 Order request; advising that all the works that go to this are scheduled in the GMIS today and, to his understanding, the lots apply to this end of the city, so it would make no great logical sense that this should be an area to be considered for withdrawal from the urban growth area; indicating that the Parker-Jackson lands were suggested could be removed from the urban growth boundary; noting that he does not work for the landowners; enquiring why staff would pick those lands when there are sewers all along Jackson Road; indicating that right beside these lands, there are 44 hectares that there is no planned infrastructure for and there have been no planning applications for these lands; indicating that there are 44 hectares, in the urban growth boundary, with no hope, in the near future, of being developed; indicating that, to him, these areas are pretty obvious to be removed from the urban growth boundary and put the other low-hanging fruit in; providing another example on Clarke Road, near the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, with 37 hectares, with no hope of being developed, but it is inside the urban growth boundary; advising of another property along Dundas Street that is 45 hectares, that is inside the urban growth boundary; reiterating to take the lands out and put the easy ones in, get the development charges revenue; suggesting that the mechanics of the current analysis bears no resemblance to what was discussed at prior Committee meetings or to what many in the industry expected to occur through this work; and, requesting that the Committee refer this matter back to have staff to simplify the review and figure out where the obvious areas for inclusion and exclusion from the urban growth boundary are located.  (See attached maps).

·                     Phil Masschelin, Vice-President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited, representing Sifton Properties Limited, Crown Homes of London, 166142 Ontario Limited, 818255 Ontario Limited, relating to the properties located 2270, 2380 and 2576 Highbury Avenue North, (the Highbury North Landowner group), the properties are located on Highbury Avenue North, south and north of Sunningdale Road, on the east side of Highbury Avenue North; Sifton Properties Limited, property located at 1682 Byron Baseline Road and 2420 Westdel Bourne; the Dirks, property located at 1697 Byron Baseline Road; 2090864 Ontario Incorporated, property located at 2291 Wickerson Road; Kape Developments Limited, property located at 2280 Wickerson Road; the James Wickerson Stanley estate, property located at 2426 Wickerson Road, (the Wickerson Landowner group) and Hans and Sigrid Wagner, property located at 1478 Westdel Bourne – indicating that there has been a lot of discussion at the meeting tonight about Municipal Council resolutions from 2006, staff reports, land needs, the Terms of Reference from 2011 and the recent Municipal Council direction that has stirred the staff report that the Committee has in front of it currently; advising that there are two things that he concludes from this process; indicating that one of those matters is that Vision ’96 laid out a growth boundary, at that time, which was almost 18 years ago, and today, we are basically still dealing with the same line; enquiring as to why, in 18 years, that line has not moved for the most part; indicating that, with 18 years of absorption, the line is due for an update; requesting the Committee to look at all the growth that has occurred, especially in the North and the West and the relatively small amount that has occurred in the Southwest; noting that the lack of development in the Southwest is mainly due to the lack of services; advising that it is time for a proper review; advising that we do agree that the current 20 year growth boundary does have more than 20 years of supply in it today; expressing agreement that the land needs determine that we do not need any new land; enquiring as to whether or not all of the land inside the boundary can be serviced by engineers; responding that of course engineers can come up with a solution to service anything; advising that it is a question of cost, timing and how much land to bring in; enquiring as to whether or not we can get the maximum developable land using the Official Plan growth forecasts from Altus, that no one seems to dispute, for the least amount of money; expressing regret that this is not what we have in front of us tonight; advising that this is not what the Municipal Council asked for in the review of events; noting that, in 2006, the Municipal Council asked to review the urban growth boundary looking at cost and benefits and a review of the entire boundary; indicating that the report tonight makes the premise that if you are designated Urban Reserve Community growth that you are presumed to be more costly or at least a longer term; advising that they respectfully submit that this is not correct; indicating that there has been no analysis done on the cost, the revenues for the lands to be removed and for those lands in Riverbend South; advising that, with all due respect, the land use designations themselves are irrelevant; indicating that the most important matter here is whether or not you have access to a sewer, what proximity there is to a sewer, whether or not it is funded or could it be funded; indicating that the Riverbend South final Environmental Assessment has been completed and the sewer will be constructed in 2014; indicating that, at Riverbend South, there will be a sanitary sewer at their doorstep in early 2014; advising that, just last month, a Thames Valley District School Board meeting was held and the School Board identified a need for a school in Riverbend South; noting that the School Board has provided written correspondence to them and identified a future site in their property for a school; indicating that Sifton also has a property in Northeast London, in the Highbury Avenue North and Sunningdale area; advising that their review shows that Northeast London has the lowest supply of land in the entire City, with an eight year supply of land; indicating that Riverbend is second with a 12 year supply; advising that the largest supply in London is Southwest London with a 50 year supply; noting that this is based on the City’s own calculations; advising that proposing to remove land in West London, the second lowest lot supply, with sewers at the doorstep in 2014, does not make any sense to them whatsoever; advising that, if the Municipal Council were to accept this report tonight, this would cause appeals and significant issues on proceeding with this proposal; reiterating that this is not what the Municipal Council intended to do; indicating that they think that there is a better way to proceed; advising that Sfiton has lands inside and outside the urban growth boundary; indicating that Sifton and other companies are able to exchange those lands, which is a better way that has the potential to proceed; however, we understand that that does not work for everybody as not everyone has lands that they can swap in and out; suggesting taking it one step further; indicating that it has been seven years since the 2006 direction and we believe that in order for the Municipal Council to obtain the appropriate information and to make a proper decision, it is important to refer this back to staff and a new Municipal Council resolution to be obtained; proposing a Task Force be established with members of this Committee serving on the Task Force as well as possibly members of the development community, the planning community and the engineering community, to investigate the actual line, where the line should be, what lands should be in the boundary, what lands should be out; recommending Lynn Townsend, who was involved with the City on the last Development Charges by-law, who would be an excellent candidate to be chair of the Task Force; anticipating that the review could take 4 to 6 months as it is a significant review of the boundary which is what the Municipal Council, on two occasions, has asked for.

·                     Carol Weibe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, on behalf of J-Aar Excavating Inc., for the properties located at 1620 to 1640 Fanshawe Park Road East (N-3) and South Winds Development Co., relating to the property located at 1870 Fanshawe Park Road East (N-4) – (see attached communications dated December 10, 2013).

·                     Sergio Pompilii and Ryan Pompilii, Sergio E. Pompilii & Associates Ltd., on behalf of Louis and Marjorie Flannigan, 2969 Trafalgar Street, Scott McLaren, 3050 Trafalgar Street, Suzanne McLaren & Betty Jean O’Reilly, 3085 Trafalgar Street, Dorothy Loewy, 2735 Trafalgar Street, Doug and Joyce Byers, 2612 Trafalgar Street, Elizabeth Byers, 2700 Trafalgar Street and Peter Drankowsky, 1176 Crumlin Side Road - (See attached presentation).

·                     1711794 Ontario Corporation, property located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road and Kilally Road – advising that they were not provided notice of this meeting until the day before the meeting by a member of the public, not by the City; indicating that the staff report recommends that the property located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road and Kilally Road be removed from the urban growth boundary, which they are opposing; recommending that the meeting be adjourned; advising that any discussions which could affect their property should not be allowed to take place this evening as it would constitute a clear abuse of process; and, indicating they trust that the Committee will reschedule this meeting and provide them with proper notice.

·                     Paul Hinde and Don DeJonge, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating to the Kempinski/Tridon Hyde Park property (NW-2) – (see attached communication).

·                     Ali Jomaa, on behalf of himself and Randy Clarke (NW-1) – (see attached presentation).

·                     Murray Jones, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Vaness, 2031 Commissioners Road East – indicating that this is a farming property; advising that this is not A-1 Agricultural land; indicating that the property is west of Old Victoria Road, south of Commissioners Road; advising that the property to the north is designated future residential, the property to the east is industrial and the property to the west is commercial and residential; advising that they believe that this property would be a great fit to fill in Commissioners Road; indicating that $13,000,000 has been earmarked to upgrade Commissioners Road in 2014; and, indicating that he does not forsee this being a problem to add into the urban growth boundary .

·                     Joe Plutino, on behalf of Green Valley Estates – (see attached presentation).  (Secretary’s Note:  The Green Valley Estates Inc. and Green Valley Estates II Inc., Proposed Green Valley Estates Phase I and Phase II Subdivision Development Functional Servicing Report is available on the City of London website). 

·                     Fernando Desando, 1530 Westdel Bourne – advising that he is not here to discuss his property as he is not sure which criteria it came in at; speaking about the money that has gone into Westdel Bourne; indicating that he heard, tonight, that a decision was made to have some parcels removed; advising that, as taxpayers, they have put in two watermains on either side of the road; indicating there are approximately 10 houses on the east side of the road that are being utilized on the watermain; and, enquiring as to when the money is going to be recouped if development is not allowed along that road.

·                     Jim Kennedy, London Development Institute – indicating that through the discussion that has occurred at this meeting, one of the underlying faults that has come up is that, unless you have projects to service your lands that are included in the GMIS, you cannot go forward; advising that you cannot bring projects into the GMIS unless the lands are in the growth boundary; indicating that they are currently in the process of updating the 2014 Development Charges and the GMIS; noting that one of the things that is being discussed is putting a couple of stormwater management ponds in as a contingency; and, advising that provisional items in this review and the Development Charges and the GMIS review would assist so we are not doing this again in five years.

·                     Doug Stanlake, on behalf of Stantec Consulting, and their client, Z Group – objecting to any suggestions that the lands be taken out of the urban growth boundary; advising that the Parker-Jackson lands are part of a larger complex that Z Group brought forward in the 1990’s, when both sanitary and trunk services were provided; advising that one stormwater management pond has been built and another one will be built shortly; advising that the second pond is the only service requirement left to build these lands; and, enquiring as to why you would take out Tier 1 lands only to replace it with Tier 1 lands.

·                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – advising that, for over a year, he has been working with the London Development Institute, staff and the London Home Builders Association on the Development Charges study, which becomes an important date because it is August, 2014, when the current by-law expires; advising that everyone agreed that there was no reason for the Official Plan review; noting that there will very likely need to be an expansion of the urban growth boundary in the next Official Plan review; indicating that more supply does not create more demand; cautioning the referral back because four to six months brings you to June; advising that there have been a lot of reports from staff relating to the Development Charge study; and, indicating that it is unclear what will happen if you do not have a Development Charge by-law.

·                     Steve Polhill, 341 Hale Street – indicating that the boundary and how it is developed is fundamentally flawed as it does not look at certain things that should be looked at; speaking to the lands east of Crumlin Side Road and south of Dundas Street; and, advising that there has been an increase in industrial with no residential to support it.

·                     Mauro Castrilli, 2156 Highbury Avenue North – requesting to be included in the urban growth boundary; indicating that is municipal water that fronts his property; advising that the Municipal Council has accepted a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment recommendation for the sanitary service works of the Stoney Creek sanitary sewer which runs along Highbury Avenue North. 

·                     Susan Smith, 124 Bruce Street – indicating that none of the presentations included transit supported investment if the city permits roads; and, indicating that she does not like to see Rural Settlement as a secondary appendix.   (2013-D09)

 

At 5:48 PM His Worship the Mayor places Councillor P. Hubert in the Chair and takes a seat at the Council Board.

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor P. Polhill, that pursuant to section 9.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Mayor J.F. Fontana be permitted to speak longer than 5 minutes with respect to the urban growth boundary inclusion requests.

 

Motion Passed

 

At 6:04 PM His Worship the Mayor resumes the Chair and Councillor P. Hubert takes his seat at the Council Board.

 

The motion to Approve clause 11 is put.

 

Motion Failed

 

YEAS: B. Polhill, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen (3)

 

NAYS: J.F. Fontana, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve that the following actions be taken with respect to the Urban Growth Boundary inclusion requests:

 

a)         NO ACTION BE TAKEN to amend the Urban Growth Boundary for residential, institutional or commercial for the Rethink London Official Plan Review process; and,

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide a report outlining a protocol for the review of the land needs assessment process and the urban growth boundary, including the creation of a priority list of lands, that will include community and stakeholder engagement and the establishment of a working group, including representation from the stakeholders, to review the submissions received and questions raised at the December 10, 2013 Planning and Environment Committee Public Participation Meeting, outside the ReThink London plan review process;

 

it being noted that the Planning and Environment Committee reviewed and received a communication, dated December 5, 2013, from P.V. Hinde, Manager, Land Development, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating to this matter;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     William Hill, 2168 Bradley Avenue, on behalf of the property owners on Bradley Avenue from Innovation Park to the current Urban Growth Boundary – advising that there are 13 landowners; noting that 12 of the landowners formed their own group; indicating that he reviewed a staff report on the November 18, 2013, Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Agenda which indicated that the City needs more industrial land, in terms of size, location and quantity; indicating that they have potential industrial land in this group of properties along Highway 401; advising that their lands are deemed inappropriate as they cannot be serviced by existing or planned infrastructure; expressing disagreement with this because roads, sewers and water were mentioned as being expensive to build; advising that, a few years ago, the City rebuilt Bradley Avenue and brought water and hydro to Innovation Park; noting that they have always had gas service along Bradley Avenue; advising that when he looks at what has been done and the fact that Innovation Park is at the east portion of the lands and the Summerside residential development is at the west end of the lands, it should be possible to service these lands at a reasonable cost; advising that, for the people he is representing, they are all original owners; noting that he has lived there for 25 years and he is the newest resident; indicating that there are people in the group that he represents that are in their fourth generation of living on the land; indicating that they have no land developers or land bankers; advising that they need some change so that they can do something with the land; noting that these are small lands, originally they were 50 acres and five acres were removed to accommodate Highway 401; indicating that they are no longer viable as farm land; noting that only one person is still farming and he has a secondary job off the farm; further noting that it is cash crop, the dairy farms that used to be on Bradley Avenue disappeared a long time ago; indicating that they are surrounded by development; pointing out that they have Highway 401 on one side, Innovation Park on another side, residential development along Jackson Road; noting that there are a lot of “change of use” signs along Jackson Road and Commissioners Road and Sifton has just started a development along Hamilton Road, near Commissioners Road; advising that they feel isolated and helpless because they do not have any zoning to allow them to do anything effective with their lands; indicating that, despite everything that he has heard about the fact that lands cannot be added unless lands are taken out, which will not be a popular idea; indicating that the residents of Bradley Avenue are requesting that the lands on the south and north sides of Bradley Avenue be included in the urban growth area; recommending the south side of Bradley Avenue should be industrial; suggesting that the north side of Bradley Avenue should be residential; advising that the land is suitable, as there are approximately 2.5 kilometers of land along the Highway 401 corridor, which is highly visible and reasonably flat; noting that it would not require the amount of grading and excavating that went into Innovation Park, there is great access to the city core; and, further noting that there is no need for a ring road in the area as they have Highway 401, the Veterans Memorial Parkway and two interchanges servicing Bradley Avenue .

·                     Alan R. Patton, Patton, Cormier & Associates – see attached communication, dated December 10, 2013, from M. Campbell, Planner, Zelinka Priamo Ltd.

·                     Doug Brown,on behalf of the West Talbot Landowners Association – indicating that these lands are located south of Southdale Road, west of Colonel Talbot Road and north of Pack Road; advising that they have been seeking inclusion into the urban growth boundary for over 20 years; advising that they have spoken to the Municipal Council several times outlining some of the problems and challenges that they face as landowners being surrounded on three sides by encroaching development and city growth; noting that these problems include trespassing, land erosion, difficulty in economically farming the lands, inability to procure insurance and other difficulties; advising that they would like to focus on three key areas, those being conceptual design for the development of the lands, compliance with the City criteria and requirements for land development and the economic feasibility to look at developing these parcels of land; advising that they hired IBI Group to explore how the lands could be developed and what the community might look like; noting that there could be a bike path to connect old London with new London, there could be a recreational area which would include a community centre that would provide sports and entertainment and other activities to the area residents and the plan could provide an opportunity for approximately 1,500 single family homes along with multi-family and high density development, community commercial school sites and recreational facilities; also noting that it provides for the extension of Boler Road, which is already planned by the City, linking Southdale Road to Colonel Talbot Road; advising that the West Talbot lands would provide the City with control over one of the largest natural heritage features in southwest London, as the back boundary is Dingman Creek; indicating that in October, 2013, they were provided with an outline of the City’s criteria that they would have to meet to be considered for development of these lands; noting that these included environmental, social, agricultural and economic requirements; advising that from the social standpoint, the inclusion of these lands will allow for the development of the Talbot community to reach its full potential as a vibrant residential and commercial community, it will enhance the entire Talbot community and allow the area to reach its full potential as a sustainable community; advising that the single biggest negative impact on agricultural land is to do nothing; advising that the subject lands are an agricultural island isolated by urban development on three sides and a large natural heritage area on the fourth side; advising that, with the appropriate development buffers and management practices, these lands can be environmentally protected and maintained as sustainable, ecological features; indicating that the study also indicated that they can meet the necessary infrastructure requirements and intensification and density targets; advising that the West Talbot land represents some of the most economical opportunities in the City of London, an opportunity to bring in one of the largest tracts of land at little additional servicing costs beyond what is already in the planning stages; advising that development studies by IBI Group clearly indicate that the lands can be attracted to service and developed considering the costs involved; noting that actual indications are that these lands could be more economically developed than other areas already included in the urban growth boundary; advising that development of the area could create jobs for local citizens, provide the street expansion to meet traffic needs and reduce present congestion at rush hours; advising that their group has worked very hard to make sure that these areas have not been left out of planning of future infrastructure as the City looks forward as to how the southwest area is to be serviced.  (See attached presentation).

·                     Dave Schmidt, Corlon Properties - (See attached presentation).

·                     Bob Stratford, RWS Consulting – advising that he participated in three of the requests by landowners for urban growth boundary alterations; indicating that he will be speaking in general terms, not in terms of specific applications, looking at the costs and engineering analysis that appears to have gone into the final suggestions that staff have made as to what should go in and what should stay out of the urban growth boundary; having attended prior meetings on this topic, and Mr. Schmidt talked about some of the older meetings, his understanding was that we wanted to investigate where there were opportunities to bring lands in, where there was little to no added cost burdens on the City of London; advising that he thought that it was fairly straight forward; noting that there is infrastructure in the ground with land near it that you do not have to spend any more money from a development charges perspective; recommending that these lands be capitalized on, bring in the land, earn the development charges revenues and carry on; noting that there are some sites where this could happen; believing that they were going to look at obvious and logical areas; understanding that there are a lot of requests and a lot of land area, but it was their hope that it would be kept simple and you would find the low-hanging fruit and try to take advantage of it, generate some development charge revenues where you already have infrastructure sunk and paid for in the ground and where there is no new added significant costs; advising that when he looks at the staff report and the special consideration lands, he does not see the logic; indicating that, with regard to two of the properties, where there is consideration for inclusion, one of them is for NW-1, on Sunningdale Road, bounded by Fanshawe Park Road and the City limit, staff is suggesting that there is no big impediment to this, but he advises that there are 1,600 metres of sanitary sewer required to get to that piece of land from where the sewer exists today; indicating that the sewer needs to go through private property, an Auburn development; noting that it is going to take 10 to 15 years for that sewer to get there if they go by the rates at which adjacent development has progressed; advising that the point is that that is not something that they need to worry about capitalizing on today; noting that there is another Official Plan review in five years; further noting that you could probably wait until the one after that; indicating that it is the notion that they should be going after the easy kills, if you will; indicating that we know that it needs a stormwater management facility, which is planned in the GMIS for 2016, but when you go north, there is another sewer through private lands, ultimately through plan of subdivision, that need to be brought up to area NW-1, so this piece of property is years and years away; indicating that he did not think that it was something that the Committee was looking towards in terms of advancing development, generating revenues and jobs and getting people active again; advising that the second property, W-1, is something that staff suggests should be considered for inclusion;  noting that, again, you need to build a sanitary sewer; advising that the sanitary sewer is approximately 800 metres long to get to an existing sewer; noting that the sewer would have to go through private property and is not going to happen; advising that the W-1 area is within the Tributary C watershed and is outside of the recently completed and approved environmentally significant area study for Tributary C so it is really not going anywhere fast; reiterating that it missed the point that we were looking for solid examples that could happen now; indicating that the two examples that he pointed out are heavily encumbered in terms of their servicing routes and other infrastructure; advising that he is not sure how we can say that those are ready and ripe to go; indicating that, in when we talk about having to go through other property developments, he recalls being in meetings about the GMIS and Committees and Council making strategies that said that they do not want other private developers in between growth, that the Committees and Council did not want to see a leap frog, but you hate to see a developer holding up some other opportunity; reiterating that these are two properties that were recommended to be brought into the urban growth boundary; advising that, in comparison, they could look at two of the requests that were Tier 2 or Tier 3; noting that he did not work for the property owners; advising that he is talking about Corlon Properties at the northwest corner of Wonderland Road North and Sunningdale Road; advising that there is a sanitary sewer and a watermain at Sunningdale Road; noting that the services are right there; advising that the City has most likely already paid the pipe subsidies out of the GMIS; noting that you have already paid the developer to oversize the pipes, so you could bring the land on; noting that it does need a stormwater management facility, so the City would have that extra expense; noting that the facility in the EA that is approved is $1,700,000, the site generates $12,000,000 in development charges revenues, which, in his opinion, is easy pickings, which is where he thought we were headed on this project; advising that another one would be out in the Wickerson area, which he did work on for Sifton Properties Limited and the other landowner group out there; advising that they looked at the servicing and costs as a whole of the servicing of the areas outlined in red on the map presented at the meeting; indicating that they also prepared a subset of calculations for the lands located on the east side of Wickerson Road; noting that this land was not considered a Tier 1 or preferred property but there has been heavy infrastructure investment through the development charges out in this area; arguing that the lands on the east side of Wickerson Road and the lands fronting Wickerson Road can be serviced; noting that there are no impediments, there are servicing requirements, but there are no added development charges costs; indicating that, in his opinion, this is the low-hanging fruit that the intention was to go after to recover costs on prior investments; indicating that, on the lands on the east side of Wickerson Road, there is the pond at the south limit of it, that the City of London is currently going out for a tender to build that pond, but they will not bring in the lands, which does not make any sense to him; advising that there are probably other obvious and logical places where we could look to gain an advantage and gain those opportunities that they were looking for; indicating that Riverbend South is one of the lands that were looked at for removal; advising that there are large sewers at the edge of the property, with a $5,000,000 pumping station in Riverbend that City Operations staff complain does not get enough flow yet as it is not developing quickly enough; noting that it is operating in a manner that was not intended because development is not happening fast enough; reiterating that staff would like to see more flows to that facility; indicating that the Tributary C Environmental Assessment took five years; noting that the Ministry has now approved it; further noting that the Minister rejected a Part 2 Order request; advising that all the works that go to this are scheduled in the GMIS today and, to his understanding, the lots apply to this end of the city, so it would make no great logical sense that this should be an area to be considered for withdrawal from the urban growth area; indicating that the Parker-Jackson lands were suggested could be removed from the urban growth boundary; noting that he does not work for the landowners; enquiring why staff would pick those lands when there are sewers all along Jackson Road; indicating that right beside these lands, there are 44 hectares that there is no planned infrastructure for and there have been no planning applications for these lands; indicating that there are 44 hectares, in the urban growth boundary, with no hope, in the near future, of being developed; indicating that, to him, these areas are pretty obvious to be removed from the urban growth boundary and put the other low-hanging fruit in; providing another example on Clarke Road, near the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, with 37 hectares, with no hope of being developed, but it is inside the urban growth boundary; advising of another property along Dundas Street that is 45 hectares, that is inside the urban growth boundary; reiterating to take the lands out and put the easy ones in, get the development charges revenue; suggesting that the mechanics of the current analysis bears no resemblance to what was discussed at prior Committee meetings or to what many in the industry expected to occur through this work; and, requesting that the Committee refer this matter back to have staff to simplify the review and figure out where the obvious areas for inclusion and exclusion from the urban growth boundary are located.  (See attached maps).

·                     Phil Masschelin, Vice-President, Neighbourhood Developments, Sifton Properties Limited, representing Sifton Properties Limited, Crown Homes of London, 166142 Ontario Limited, 818255 Ontario Limited, relating to the properties located 2270, 2380 and 2576 Highbury Avenue North, (the Highbury North Landowner group), the properties are located on Highbury Avenue North, south and north of Sunningdale Road, on the east side of Highbury Avenue North; Sifton Properties Limited, property located at 1682 Byron Baseline Road and 2420 Westdel Bourne; the Dirks, property located at 1697 Byron Baseline Road; 2090864 Ontario Incorporated, property located at 2291 Wickerson Road; Kape Developments Limited, property located at 2280 Wickerson Road; the James Wickerson Stanley estate, property located at 2426 Wickerson Road, (the Wickerson Landowner group) and Hans and Sigrid Wagner, property located at 1478 Westdel Bourne – indicating that there has been a lot of discussion at the meeting tonight about Municipal Council resolutions from 2006, staff reports, land needs, the Terms of Reference from 2011 and the recent Municipal Council direction that has stirred the staff report that the Committee has in front of it currently; advising that there are two things that he concludes from this process; indicating that one of those matters is that Vision ’96 laid out a growth boundary, at that time, which was almost 18 years ago, and today, we are basically still dealing with the same line; enquiring as to why, in 18 years, that line has not moved for the most part; indicating that, with 18 years of absorption, the line is due for an update; requesting the Committee to look at all the growth that has occurred, especially in the North and the West and the relatively small amount that has occurred in the Southwest; noting that the lack of development in the Southwest is mainly due to the lack of services; advising that it is time for a proper review; advising that we do agree that the current 20 year growth boundary does have more than 20 years of supply in it today; expressing agreement that the land needs determine that we do not need any new land; enquiring as to whether or not all of the land inside the boundary can be serviced by engineers; responding that of course engineers can come up with a solution to service anything; advising that it is a question of cost, timing and how much land to bring in; enquiring as to whether or not we can get the maximum developable land using the Official Plan growth forecasts from Altus, that no one seems to dispute, for the least amount of money; expressing regret that this is not what we have in front of us tonight; advising that this is not what the Municipal Council asked for in the review of events; noting that, in 2006, the Municipal Council asked to review the urban growth boundary looking at cost and benefits and a review of the entire boundary; indicating that the report tonight makes the premise that if you are designated Urban Reserve Community growth that you are presumed to be more costly or at least a longer term; advising that they respectfully submit that this is not correct; indicating that there has been no analysis done on the cost, the revenues for the lands to be removed and for those lands in Riverbend South; advising that, with all due respect, the land use designations themselves are irrelevant; indicating that the most important matter here is whether or not you have access to a sewer, what proximity there is to a sewer, whether or not it is funded or could it be funded; indicating that the Riverbend South final Environmental Assessment has been completed and the sewer will be constructed in 2014; indicating that, at Riverbend South, there will be a sanitary sewer at their doorstep in early 2014; advising that, just last month, a Thames Valley District School Board meeting was held and the School Board identified a need for a school in Riverbend South; noting that the School Board has provided written correspondence to them and identified a future site in their property for a school; indicating that Sifton also has a property in Northeast London, in the Highbury Avenue North and Sunningdale area; advising that their review shows that Northeast London has the lowest supply of land in the entire City, with an eight year supply of land; indicating that Riverbend is second with a 12 year supply; advising that the largest supply in London is Southwest London with a 50 year supply; noting that this is based on the City’s own calculations; advising that proposing to remove land in West London, the second lowest lot supply, with sewers at the doorstep in 2014, does not make any sense to them whatsoever; advising that, if the Municipal Council were to accept this report tonight, this would cause appeals and significant issues on proceeding with this proposal; reiterating that this is not what the Municipal Council intended to do; indicating that they think that there is a better way to proceed; advising that Sfiton has lands inside and outside the urban growth boundary; indicating that Sifton and other companies are able to exchange those lands, which is a better way that has the potential to proceed; however, we understand that that does not work for everybody as not everyone has lands that they can swap in and out; suggesting taking it one step further; indicating that it has been seven years since the 2006 direction and we believe that in order for the Municipal Council to obtain the appropriate information and to make a proper decision, it is important to refer this back to staff and a new Municipal Council resolution to be obtained; proposing a Task Force be established with members of this Committee serving on the Task Force as well as possibly members of the development community, the planning community and the engineering community, to investigate the actual line, where the line should be, what lands should be in the boundary, what lands should be out; recommending Lynn Townsend, who was involved with the City on the last Development Charges by-law, who would be an excellent candidate to be chair of the Task Force; anticipating that the review could take 4 to 6 months as it is a significant review of the boundary which is what the Municipal Council, on two occasions, has asked for.

·                     Carol Weibe, MHBC Planning Urban Design & Landscape Architecture, on behalf of J-Aar Excavating Inc., for the properties located at 1620 to 1640 Fanshawe Park Road East (N-3) and South Winds Development Co., relating to the property located at 1870 Fanshawe Park Road East (N-4) – (see attached communications dated December 10, 2013).

·                     Sergio Pompilii and Ryan Pompilii, Sergio E. Pompilii & Associates Ltd., on behalf of Louis and Marjorie Flannigan, 2969 Trafalgar Street, Scott McLaren, 3050 Trafalgar Street, Suzanne McLaren & Betty Jean O’Reilly, 3085 Trafalgar Street, Dorothy Loewy, 2735 Trafalgar Street, Doug and Joyce Byers, 2612 Trafalgar Street, Elizabeth Byers, 2700 Trafalgar Street and Peter Drankowsky, 1176 Crumlin Side Road - (See attached presentation).

·                     1711794 Ontario Corporation, property located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road and Kilally Road – advising that they were not provided notice of this meeting until the day before the meeting by a member of the public, not by the City; indicating that the staff report recommends that the property located on the southeast corner of Clarke Road and Kilally Road be removed from the urban growth boundary, which they are opposing; recommending that the meeting be adjourned; advising that any discussions which could affect their property should not be allowed to take place this evening as it would constitute a clear abuse of process; and, indicating they trust that the Committee will reschedule this meeting and provide them with proper notice.

·                     Paul Hinde and Don DeJonge, Tridon Properties Ltd., relating to the Kempinski/Tridon Hyde Park property (NW-2) – (see attached communication).

·                     Ali Jomaa, on behalf of himself and Randy Clarke (NW-1) – (see attached presentation).

·                     Murray Jones, on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Vaness, 2031 Commissioners Road East – indicating that this is a farming property; advising that this is not A-1 Agricultural land; indicating that the property is west of Old Victoria Road, south of Commissioners Road; advising that the property to the north is designated future residential, the property to the east is industrial and the property to the west is commercial and residential; advising that they believe that this property would be a great fit to fill in Commissioners Road; indicating that $13,000,000 has been earmarked to upgrade Commissioners Road in 2014; and, indicating that he does not forsee this being a problem to add into the urban growth boundary .

·                     Joe Plutino, on behalf of Green Valley Estates – (see attached presentation).  (Secretary’s Note:  The Green Valley Estates Inc. and Green Valley Estates II Inc., Proposed Green Valley Estates Phase I and Phase II Subdivision Development Functional Servicing Report is available on the City of London website). 

·                     Fernando Desando, 1530 Westdel Bourne – advising that he is not here to discuss his property as he is not sure which criteria it came in at; speaking about the money that has gone into Westdel Bourne; indicating that he heard, tonight, that a decision was made to have some parcels removed; advising that, as taxpayers, they have put in two watermains on either side of the road; indicating there are approximately 10 houses on the east side of the road that are being utilized on the watermain; and, enquiring as to when the money is going to be recouped if development is not allowed along that road.

·                     Jim Kennedy, London Development Institute – indicating that through the discussion that has occurred at this meeting, one of the underlying faults that has come up is that, unless you have projects to service your lands that are included in the GMIS, you cannot go forward; advising that you cannot bring projects into the GMIS unless the lands are in the growth boundary; indicating that they are currently in the process of updating the 2014 Development Charges and the GMIS; noting that one of the things that is being discussed is putting a couple of stormwater management ponds in as a contingency; and, advising that provisional items in this review and the Development Charges and the GMIS review would assist so we are not doing this again in five years.

·                     Doug Stanlake, on behalf of Stantec Consulting, and their client, Z Group – objecting to any suggestions that the lands be taken out of the urban growth boundary; advising that the Parker-Jackson lands are part of a larger complex that Z Group brought forward in the 1990’s, when both sanitary and trunk services were provided; advising that one stormwater management pond has been built and another one will be built shortly; advising that the second pond is the only service requirement left to build these lands; and, enquiring as to why you would take out Tier 1 lands only to replace it with Tier 1 lands.

·                     Sandy Levin, 59 Longbow Road – advising that, for over a year, he has been working with the London Development Institute, staff and the London Home Builders Association on the Development Charges study, which becomes an important date because it is August, 2014, when the current by-law expires; advising that everyone agreed that there was no reason for the Official Plan review; noting that there will very likely need to be an expansion of the urban growth boundary in the next Official Plan review; indicating that more supply does not create more demand; cautioning the referral back because four to six months brings you to June; advising that there have been a lot of reports from staff relating to the Development Charge study; and, indicating that it is unclear what will happen if you do not have a Development Charge by-law.

·                     Steve Polhill, 341 Hale Street – indicating that the boundary and how it is developed is fundamentally flawed as it does not look at certain things that should be looked at; speaking to the lands east of Crumlin Side Road and south of Dundas Street; and, advising that there has been an increase in industrial with no residential to support it.

·                     Mauro Castrilli, 2156 Highbury Avenue North – requesting to be included in the urban growth boundary; indicating that is municipal water that fronts his property; advising that the Municipal Council has accepted a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment recommendation for the sanitary service works of the Stoney Creek sanitary sewer which runs along Highbury Avenue North. 

·                     Susan Smith, 124 Bruce Street – indicating that none of the presentations included transit supported investment if the city permits roads; and, indicating that she does not like to see Rural Settlement as a secondary appendix.   (2013-D09)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert and seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Recess.

 

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 7:22 PM and reconvenes at 8:11 PM with Mayor J.F. Fontana in the Chair and all Members present except Councillor D. Brown. 

 

2nd Report of the Community and Protective Services Committee

                        Councillor M. Brown presents.

 

At 8:15 PM Councillor D. Brown enters the meeting.

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clauses 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and clauses 9 to 13, inclusive.

 

1.

Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

2.

10th Report of the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee

 

That the 10th Report of the London Diversity and Race Relations Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on November 21, 2013, BE RECEIVED.

 

4.

Request for Proposal 13-39 - Consultant to Conduct a Municipal Class Environmental Assessment to Determine a Preferred Pedestrian Recreational Pathway Crossing of Richmond Street

 

That consideration of the staff report dated December 9, 2013, with respect to Request for Proposal (RFP) 13-39 to retain a consultant to conduct a Municipal Class Environment Assessment for a preferred pedestrian recreational pathway crossing of Richmond Street, BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to undertake a further technical review of the matter and report back at a future meeting of the appropriate Standing Committee. (2013-F18)

 

5.

RFP 13-34 - Provide Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy Services at the Dearness Home

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home, the following actions be taken with respect to physiotherapy and occupational therapy services at the Dearness Home, Request for Proposal (RFP)13-34:

 

a)         the RFP submission from Achieva Health, 355 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M4P 1M5, BE ACCEPTED;

 

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

 

c)         approvals hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.  (2013-F18)

 

7.

7th Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee

 

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) from its meeting of November 28, 2013:

 

a)        the Civic Administration BE ADVISED that the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee (CSCP) supports the proposed amendments to the Parks and Recreation Area By-Law PR-2, a by-law to provide clarity on the exclusion of e-scooters from Multi-Use Pathways, Section 2.1 By-law Applicability Defined, as appended to the staff report dated November 11, 2013, and relating to “power-assisted bicycle”, specific to:

 

·                     allowing e-bikes when powered by pedal, rather than motor, when being used on a bike path and/or designated bike lanes;

·                     requiring e-bike users to be at least 16 years of age; and,

·                     requiring e-bike users to wear helmets;

 

it being noted that the CSCP reviewed and received the above-noted Report from the Managing Director of Parks and Recreation, with respect to this matter, and received the fact sheets appended to the 7th Report CSCP, from R. Black, London Police Service, on new and emerging vehicles, e-bikes, mopeds and motor scooters;

 

b)         the Municipal Council BE REQUESTED to consider the importance of the following             Police Programs when considering the 2014 London Police Service Budget:

 

·                     CORE Unit;

·                     Project LEARN;

·                     Five (5) Resource Officers in the Secondary Schools;

·                     Five (5) School Safety Officers in the Elementary Schools; and,

·                     Downtown foot patrols; and,

 

c)         clause 3 to 9, inclusive, of the 7th Report of the CSCP BE RECEIVED.

 

9.

Animal Welfare Services - Pet Sales

 

That on the Recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and Chief Building Official,  that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to consult with the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC), the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA), and members of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee on the licensing option of banning the sale of companion animals at flea markets and licensing pet stores for the purposes of consumer protection and animal welfare;

 

it being noted that the following communications were received regarding this matter:

 

•           communication dated December 2, 2013 - P. Caskanette

•           communication dated November 28, 2013 – L. McCann, President CEO, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

•           communication dated December 3, 2013 – C. Carter, ATN Access Inc.

•           communication dated November 22, 2013 – M. Rubio  (2013-P14)

 

10.

National Dementia Strategy

 

That the following with respect to a National Dementia Strategy BE SUPPORTED:

 

WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias are progressive, degenerative diseases of the brain that cause thinking and memory to become seriously impaired;

 

AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias most often occur in people over the age of 65 but can strike adults at any age;

 

AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias affect more than 500,000 Canadians currently and that this figure is projected to reach 1.1 million within a generation;

 

AND WHEREAS Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias also take their toll on hundreds of thousands of families and care partners;

 

AND WHEREAS an estimated further three million Canadians face the burden and challenges of providing care for those suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias;

 

AND WHEREAS there is no known cause or cure for this devastating illness;

 

AND WHEREAS the costs related to the health care system is in the billions and only going to increase, at a time when our health care system is already facing enormous financial challenges;

 

AND WHEREAS Canada, unlike many countries, do not have a national dementia strategy;

 

AND WHEREAS there is an urgent need to plan and raise awareness and understanding about Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias for the sake of improving the quality of life of the people it touches;

 

AND WHEREAS MP Claude Gravelle Nickle Belt has introduced Bill C-356, an Act respecting a National Strategy for Dementia, as he works for broad, all party and non-partisan support for an issue that touches us all, with his legislation calling for a national plan that includes the development of strategies in priority health care, in health promotion and prevention of illness, in community development in building community capacity and care partner engagement, investments in research and other (advisory board, objectives, investment in research and caregivers and more);

 

NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of London calls on all levels of government and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to adopt a national dementia strategy and urges all citizens of our communities to become more aware and engaged concerning the far-reaching effects of this devastating disease.

 

11.

S. Ford, Dancor - Amendment to the Sign By-law

 

That the following action be taken regarding the undated communication from S. Ford, Dancor regarding a Work Order with respect to a contravention of the City of London Sign and Canopy By-law S.-3775-94

 

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to place a moratorium on the enforcement of section 10.1c of the Sign and Canopy By-law S.-3775-94 with respect to existing signs on trailers, until such time as an environmental scan of other municipalities has been conducted and a review of the Sign and Canopy By-law S.-3775-94 has been completed;

 

b)         the attached communication from Councillor H.L. Usher BE RECEIVED.

 

12.

J. Brodie - Proposed Changes to the Dog Licensing and Control By-laws

 

That the undated communication from Jay Brodie, regarding potential amendments to By-law PH-4, being a By-law to provide for the regulation, restriction and prohibition of the keeping and the running at large of dogs in the City of London BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration during the upcoming reviews By-law PH-4. 

 

 

 

13.

10th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee

 

That the 10th Report of the Accessibility Advisory Committee,  from its meeting of November 28, 2013 BE RECEIVED.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 3.

 

3.

Single Source for a Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director Housing, Social Services and Dearness Home the following actions be taken with the respect to the implementation of a Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization Contract for the City of London:

 

a)         the proposed attached by-law (Appendix “A”)  BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of December 17, 2013 to approve an agreement, substantially in the form as attached to the by-law as Appendix “A”, between The Corporation of the City of London and Extendicare (Canada) Inc. carrying on business as Silver  Group Purchasing (“SGP”) 3000 Steele Ave., Markham, Ontario L3R 9W2, for SGP to act as the Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization under which the City will purchase food products and other services and products for City service areas, including the Dearness Home,  with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2014 and for SGP to act as the single source supplier of a Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization for a one year term with up to three one year renewals in accordance with the “Procurement of Goods and Services Policy” Section 14.4 Single Source, clause (d);

 

b)         the proposed attached by-law (Appendix “B”) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting of December 17, 2013 to approve an agreement, substantially in the form as attached to the by-law as Appendix “A”, between The Corporation of the City of London and Extendicare (Canada) inc., carrying on business as Silver Group Purchasing (SGP), 3000 Steeles Ave., Markham L3R 9W2, for the City to participate in a Revenues Share Program pursuant to the agreement with SGP for Supply Chain Group Purchasing, under which the City will purchase food products and other services and products for City service areas, including Dearness Home and under which the City will receive volume related rebates for purchase of  food products and other services and products for City service areas, including Dearness Home, with a proposed effective date of January 1, 2014; and,

c)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the necessary administrative acts in connection with the above-noted matters. (2013-L04)

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 6.

 

6.

Rockin' New Year's Eve

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director of Parks and Recreation, with respect to the noise levels at the Rockin’ New Year’s Eve Event, the attached by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013, to provide an exemption from sections 13.1(a) and 13.2 of the City of London’s Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual; it being noted that future exemptions will be considered as part of the annual review which will be informed by happenings at this year’s event;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following, the following individual made an oral submission in connection therewith:

 

  • J. Harcourt – 7 Picton Street – indicating he has been a resident at 7 Picton Street for 24 years, expressing that he has 3 serious concerns with the proposed exemption;  firstly the noise levels from festivals held at Victoria Park prohibit the reasonable use of personal property; and when he has guests to his home on New Year’s Eve, his guests cannot have a conversation without yelling over the noise from Victoria Park; secondly he had to leave town for 6 weekends of the summer, as he is unable to enjoy his property due to the noise from the festivals held at Victoria Park; and thirdly security has to be increased at his property due to vandalism; and use of private parking spaces by the general public during the festivals so that residents and their guest have no place to park  during the festivals; requesting that the Committee not support the proposed exemption for New Year’s Eve; and concluding that he is concerned that his property value is being negatively impacted by the noise from the festivals held at Victoria Park.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: B. Armstrong, J.P. Bryant (2)

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 8.

 

8.

Request for Proposal (RFP) 12-28 Animal Welfare Services

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and the Chief Building Official,  the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare Services contract, recognizing the vision for animal services where all pets have a caring, respectful and responsible home:

 

a)         the submission from Urban Animal Management Inc. operating as London Animal Care Centre (LACC) for implementing animal welfare services for the City of London and their submitted total annual cost for services of $2,103,993 excluding taxes BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the total annual budget shortfall of $146,265 related to this contract will need to be included as part of the 2015 Budget submission to maintain existing service levels and that the budget shortfall for the last six months of 2014 will be funded through one-time funding sources;

 

b)       the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this contract;

c)     the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation  entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval;

d)        the following enhanced animal care strategies BE ENDORSED;

i)              an enhanced service for additional park patrols to encourage responsible pet ownership and the licencing of dogs at the off leash dog parks;

ii)             an enhanced veterinarian services model with a focus on feral cat spay/neuter, microchipping, and medical triage;

iii)            an enhanced model of animal care focusing on implementing a City Cat Adoption Centre;

e)       the following annual operating and one-time capital costs for the enhanced animal care             strategies BE SUPPORTED and BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget approval process:

                      i)        $375,776 operating and $700,000 one-time capital for:

A)   $50,776 in annual operating for enhanced services related to additional park patrols;

B)   $125,000 for annual operating costs for a veterinarian; and $300,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building, product and equipment;

C)   $200,000 for annual operating costs for the cat adoption centre; $400,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building and equipment; 

                     ii)        $50,000 annual contribution to a reserve fund to be created to fund additional off-leash dog parks;

f)         a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider the following amendments to the Animal Control and Dog Licensing and Control by-laws: No person shall keep in any dwelling unit more than six of any combination of dogs and cats with the number of dogs being limited to no more than three; except that any person who, on the date of the passing of this by-law, was lawfully keeping more than six of any combination of dogs and cats may keep those dogs and cats until they have deceased  or are otherwise been removed from, or have left the dwelling unit; and further that new citizens to the City of London who produce proof of a current valid licence for a dog/cat from another municipality may continue to have that same animal licensed annually within the City of London for the duration of the life of the animal so long as it resides with same registered owner(s);

g)         a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider by-law amendments allow newborns to be exempt from licensing and registration requirements for a period of six months after birth for the purposes of promoting spay/neuter responsibilities;

h)      a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider an Animal Fostering By-law to include regulations intended to protect the health and safety of fostered animals and  to allow registered fosters to temporarily house up to ten animals with a maximum limit of  four dogs at any one time;  

i)          an animal microchipping program BE IMPLEMENTED as a key component of the enhanced veterinarian services model noting that microchipping is a proven tool to promptly reunite lost animals with their guardians;

j)       the Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) program BE ENDORSED as a successful program to address the growing feral cat population; 

k)         local businesses and retailers BE ENCOURAGED to participate in the “License to $ave “ program in an effort to encourage and maintain companion animal licensing;

l)          a barn cat program BE ENDORSED as a positive program to address solutions for healthy non-adoptable outdoor cats entering the animal shelter;

m)       the first principle of “no kill” and an open shelter policy, with continuous improvement to obtain a live release of  90% by no later than year 4 of the contract BE ADOPTED as the City’s goal for moving towards an animal welfare model focusing on animal care; it being noted that shelter statistics will be released monthly on the City’s web site and that the Civic Administration will report annually to Council on the statistics and any recommended program changes and/or funding requests;

n)         consideration BE GIVEN to initiating discussions on creating partnerships towards the development of a joint venture multi-use animal welfare facility to include centralized  shelter, adoption, education and enforcement services;

o)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and report back on the potential implementation of mandatory spay/neuter;

p)         the following delegation requests BE REFERRED to the public processes noted in parts f), g) and h), above:

·                     delegation request – F. Morrison

·                     delegation request – D. Fortney

·                     delegation request – M. Robertson

·                     delegation request – D. Ennis

·                     delegation request and clause 1 of the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee – V. VanLinden;


it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee heard the  attached presentation from O. Katolyk, Chief By-law Enforcement Officer, with respect to this matter. (2013-F18)

 

Motion made by Councillor S.E. White and seconded by Councillor M. Brown to Amend clause 8 by adding the following new part q):

 

“q)      in support of a no kill principle, City Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the public processes noted in parts f), g) and h) above, early in 2014 to ensure that any necessary by-law amendments are in place prior to July 1, 2014 to expand the opportunities for animal adoption and fostering of animals and to move toward a reduction in euthanasia;”

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor S.E. White to Approve clause 8, as amended.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Clause 8, as amended, reads as follows:

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Development & Compliance Services and the Chief Building Official,  the following actions be taken with respect to the Animal Welfare Services contract, recognizing the vision for animal services where all pets have a caring, respectful and responsible home:

 

a)         the submission from Urban Animal Management Inc. operating as London Animal Care Centre (LACC) for implementing animal welfare services for the City of London and their submitted total annual cost for services of $2,103,993 excluding taxes BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the total annual budget shortfall of $146,265 related to this contract will need to be included as part of the 2015 Budget submission to maintain existing service levels and that the budget shortfall for the last six months of 2014 will be funded through one-time funding sources;

 

b)         the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with this contract;

c)         the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation  entering into a formal contract or issuing a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval;

d)        the following enhanced animal care strategies BE ENDORSED;

i)          an enhanced service for additional park patrols to encourage responsible pet         ownership and the licencing of dogs at the off leash dog parks;

ii)         an enhanced veterinarian services model with a focus on feral cat spay/neuter,     microchipping, and medical triage;

iii)         an enhanced model of animal care focusing on implementing a City Cat Adoption             Centre;

e)         the following annual operating and one-time capital costs for the enhanced animal care strategies BE SUPPORTED and BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget approval process:

i)          $375,776 operating and $700,000 one-time capital for:

A)        $50,776 in annual operating for enhanced services related to additional      park patrols;

B)        $125,000 for annual operating costs for a veterinarian; and $300,000 one-  time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building, product and    equipment;

C)        $200,000 for annual operating costs for the cat adoption centre; $400,000 one-time capital cost for the purchase of a mobile building and           equipment;
 

ii)         $50,000 annual contribution to a reserve fund to be created to fund additional off-  leash dog parks;

f)         a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider the following amendments to the Animal Control and Dog Licensing and Control by-laws: No person shall keep in any dwelling unit more than six of any combination of dogs and cats with the number of dogs being limited to no more than three; except that any person who, on the date of the passing of this by-law, was lawfully keeping more than six of any combination of dogs and cats may keep those dogs and cats until they have deceased  or are otherwise been removed from, or have left the dwelling unit; and further that new citizens to the City of London who produce proof of a current valid licence for a dog/cat from another municipality may continue to have that same animal licensed annually within the City of London for the duration of the life of the animal so long as it resides with same registered owner(s);

g)         a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider by-law amendments allow newborns to be exempt from licensing and registration requirements for a period of six months after birth for the purposes of promoting spay/neuter responsibilities;

h)         a public participation meeting BE HELD in 2014 to consider an Animal Fostering By-law to include regulations intended to protect the health and safety of fostered animals and  to allow registered fosters to temporarily house up to ten animals with a maximum limit of  four dogs at any one time;  

i)          an animal microchipping program BE IMPLEMENTED as a key component of the enhanced veterinarian services model noting that microchipping is a proven tool to promptly reunite lost animals with their guardians;

j)          the Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR) program BE ENDORSED as a successful program to address the growing feral cat population; 

k)         local businesses and retailers BE ENCOURAGED to participate in the “License to $ave “ program in an effort to encourage and maintain companion animal licensing;

l)          a barn cat program BE ENDORSED as a positive program to address solutions for healthy non-adoptable outdoor cats entering the animal shelter;

m)       the first principle of “no kill” and an open shelter policy, with continuous improvement to obtain a live release of  90% by no later than year 4 of the contract BE ADOPTED as the City’s goal for moving towards an animal welfare model focusing on animal care; it being noted that shelter statistics will be released monthly on the City’s web site and that the Civic Administration will report annually to Council on the statistics and any recommended program changes and/or funding requests;

n)         consideration BE GIVEN to initiating discussions on creating partnerships towards the development of a joint venture multi-use animal welfare facility to include centralized  shelter, adoption, education and enforcement services;

o)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and report back on the potential implementation of mandatory spay/neuter;

p)         the following delegation requests BE REFERRED to the public processes noted in parts f), g) and h), above:

·                     delegation request – F. Morrison

·                     delegation request – D. Fortney

·                     delegation request – M. Robertson

·                     delegation request – D. Ennis

·                     delegation request and clause 1 of the 1st Report of the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee – V. VanLinden;


q)         in support of a no kill principle, City Administration BE DIRECTED to complete the public             processes noted in parts f), g) and h) above, early in 2014 to ensure that any necessary         by-law amendments are in place prior to July 1, 2014 to expand the opportunities for animal adoption and fostering of animals and to move toward a reduction in euthanasia;

 

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee heard the  attached presentation from O. Katolyk, Chief By-law Enforcement Officer, with respect to this matter. (2013-F18)

 

 

 

2nd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

                        Councillor J.B. Swan presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clauses 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 14 to 17, inclusive.

 

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J.B. Swan disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 2 of this Report having to do with placing a question on the ballot for the 2014 Municipal Election with respect to funding a Performing Arts Centre by indicating that his employer, Orchestra London, is a proponent.

 

 

3.

Use of Corporate Resources for Election Purposes

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, with respect to use of corporate resources during an election year, BE RECEIVED for information.

 

4.

Annual Report - 2012 Risk Management Services

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Solicitor, on the advice of the Manager, Risk Management, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, regarding the 2012 risk management services, BE RECEIVED for information.

 

5.

Expropriation of Lands - Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension - TS1325

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, approval be given to the expropriation of lands as may be required for a project known as Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension, between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road, and that the following actions be taken in connection therewith:

 

a)         application be made by The Corporation of the City of London as Expropriating Authority to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London as approving authority for the approval to expropriate the lands required for Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road;

 

b)         The Corporation of the City of London serve and publish notice of the above application in accordance with the terms of the Expropriations Act;

 

c)         The Corporation of the City of London forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer any requests for a hearing that may be received and report such to the Council of The Corporation of the City of London for its information; and

 

d)         the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to authorize the foregoing and direct the Civic Administration to carry out all necessary administrative actions.

 

8.

Amendment to Council Policy 28(1) Travel and Business Expenses

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the proposed by-law (Appendix “A”) appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to delete and replace subsection 5 of section VIII of Council Policy 28(1) entitled “Travel and Business Expenses” in order to add a provision that addresses bereavement.

 

10.

2013 Capital Budget Status - Third Quarter Report

 

That on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the 2013 Capital Budget Status - Third Quarter Report BE RECEIVED for information.

 

12.

Extension of Realty Services - Agency of Record Agreement

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, with respect to the Agreement dated the 20th day of October, 2010 between The Corporation of the City of London and CB Richard Ellis Limited, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide written notice to CBRE extending the term of the Agreement for an additional (3) three years as provided for in the Agreement, on the understanding that staff will only seek third party assistance for transaction management and brokerage services under the explicit direction of the Manager of Realty Services.

 

14.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Compliance

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Parks and Recreation, the staff report dated December 10, 2013 with respect to the City of London’s compliance with Ontario Regulation 191/11-Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, BE RECEIVED for information.

 

15.

Security Services

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and Chief Human Resources Officer, on the advice of the Division Manager, Corporate Security and Emergency Management, and on the advice and with the concurrence of the Deputy City Treasurer, the following actions be taken with respect to the provision of security services by the Commissionaires:

 

a)         the proposal submitted by the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for the provision of security services through a three (3) year contract with an additional two (2) year renewal option BE ACCEPTED; it being noted this is a single/sole source procurement;

 

b)         the proposed by-law (Appendix “A”), appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to approve the Agreement (Schedule “A” to the By-law) between The Corporation of the City of London and the Commissionaires (Great Lakes), at an estimated annual expenditure of approximately $385,500.00 annually, and subject to the amendments to be made which are noted herein;

c)         subject to b), above, the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the contract with the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for the applicable services; and

 

d)         Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the report and the Agreement referenced herein.

 

16.

Agreements between the City of London and Fanshawe College for Mutual Benefit at Market Lane

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Land Use Planning and City Planner, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute two agreements for the mutual benefit of the City and Fanshawe College related to  the City’s use of a discrete area within 137 Dundas Street for electrical and mechanical services that support Market Lane, and for an encroachment into Market Lane at 139 Dundas Street to permit stairs and ramping for Fanshawe’s new building.

 

17.

Request for Write Off of Miscellaneous and Dearness Home Accounts Receivable

 

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Treasurer, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to write off the outstanding Miscellaneous and Dearness accounts receivable, attached as Appendix “A” to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, to the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, in accordance with the Uncollectible Accounts Receivable Policy.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve clause 2.

 

 

 

2.

Submission of Questions on Ballot - 2014 Municipal Election

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the staff report dated December 10, 2013, providing information outlining the legislative requirements to place a question on the 2014 Municipal Election ballot, BE RECEIVED for information.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher, S.E. White (12)

 

NAYS: D. Brown, J.P. Bryant (2)

 

RECUSED: J.B. Swan (1)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 6.

 

6.

Declare Surplus City-Owned Land Adjacent to 47 and 49 Agincourt Gardens

 

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of Staff to enforce the encroachment policy, on October 1, 2013 the Municipal Council directed staff to sell certain encroachment properties. In light of this, it is recommended that the following actions be taken with respect to the City-owned property known as Westminster Ponds - North East - Pond Mills Environmentally Significant Area to the rear of properties municipally known as 47 and 49 Agincourt Gardens, further described as Part Block A, Plan 875, being an irregular strip of land containing approximately 4,125 square feet (as shown on Schedule “A” appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013):

 

a)         the subject property BE DECLARED SURPLUS;

 

b)         the subject property BE OFFERED for sale to the individual abutting property owners at fair market value in accordance with the City of London’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy, inclusive of ancillary costs associated with the transaction as detailed in the staff report dated December 10, 2013; and

 

c)         the subject properties BE DISPOSED OF subject to the participation and agreement of all (2) owners described above, noting that failure to do this will result in increased cost and potentially landlocked lands.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.L. Baechler and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Refer clause 6 regarding the declaration of surplus city-owned land adjacent to 47 and 49 Agincourt Gardens back to the Civic Administration for further review.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (12)

 

NAYS: B. Polhill, D.G. Henderson, S.E. White (3)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 7.

 

7.

Declare Surplus City-Owned Land Adjacent to 33, 37, 41, 45, 49, 53 and 57 Stoneycreek Crescent

 

That, notwithstanding the recommendation of Staff to enforce the encroachment policy, on October 1, 2013 the Municipal Council directed staff to sell certain encroachment properties. In light of this, it is recommended the following actions be taken with respect to the City-owned property known as the Stoneycreek Valley, further described as Block 26, Plan M-249, Part A: being a triangular shaped parcel to the rear of 25 and 29 Stoneycreek Crescent, containing approximately 1,050 square feet (as shown on Schedule “A” attached), and Part B: being a 10 foot wide strip of land containing approximately 4,600 square feet to the rear of 25 to 57 Stoneycreek Crescent (as shown on Schedule “A” appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013):

 

a)         the subject property referred to as Part B BE DECLARED surplus;

 

b)         the subject properties referred to as Part A and Part B BE OFFERED for sale to the individual abutting property owners at fair market value in accordance with the City of London’s Sale and Other Disposition of Land Policy, inclusive of ancillary costs associated with the transaction, which includes survey, fencing, and legal; and

 

c)         the subject properties BE DISPOSED OF subject to the participation and agreement of all (9) nine owners described above, noting that failure to do this will result in increased cost and potentially landlocked lands.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, S.E. White (10)

 

NAYS: B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant (5)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 9.

 

9.

Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Revisions

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 10, 2013, being a By-Law to amend By-Law No. A.-6151-17, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013, to revise Schedule “C” to By-Law No. A.-6151-17 being the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to:

 

a)         increase the dollar limit from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 for Tenders that do not have an irregular result as per Section 13.2 in the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy; and

 

b)         modify Section 20.3 d) ii) and Schedule “A” of the Policy both regarding Contract Amendments/Extensions.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 11.

 

11.

2013 Operating Budget Status - Third Quarter Report

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General (Property Tax Supported), Water, and Wastewater and Treatment Budgets:

 

a)         the 2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General Budget (Property Tax Supported refer to Appendix A), Water Budget and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the Civic Administration is projecting:

 

i)          $6.9 million in savings in the General (Property Tax Supported) Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council resolution, the $6.9 million in savings if realized would be contributed to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; it being further noted that $3.7 million of the $6.9 million projected surplus relates to a one-time reconciliation of 2010 Ontario Municipal Partnership Funding;

 

ii)         $3.7 million in savings in the Water Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council direction, the $3.7 million savings would be contributed to the Water Works Capital Reserve Fund;  

 

iii)         $1.8 million in savings in the Wastewater and Treatment Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council direction, the $1.8 million savings would be contributed to the Sewage Works Reserve Fund;

 

 

b)         notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following drawdowns from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve be considered:

 

i)          $2.3 million to the City Facilities Reserve Fund in order to provide a “potential” source of funding for facility related initiatives such as Ontario Works Decentralization should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus position; it being noted that the Ontario Works Decentralization initiative is progressing and is on target to meet the staged timelines identified in the June 17, 2013 report to the Community and Protective Services Committee;

 

ii)         $1.0 million to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to be used to support initiatives brought forward by the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee that best accelerate London’s economy and foster private sector investment in the City, should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus position;

 

iii)         $3.6 million be applied as a funding source to avoid 2014 capital budget reductions; it being noted that as part of the 2013 budget deliberations, Council approved a permanent $3.6 million funding cut to capital that flowed through to the 2014 capital budget; it being further noted that the final 2013 year-end position could fluctuate significantly based on factors beyond the control of Civic Administration such as Ontario Works caseload and/or winter maintenance and will not be known until early 2014;

 

c)         the Civic Administration’s contribution of $1,435,013 ($1,280,920 – property tax supported; $84,143 – wastewater; and $69,950 – water) to the Efficiency, Effectiveness             and Economy reserves in 2013 BE NOTED.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and seconded by Councillor H.L. Usher to Amend clause 11, in line 2 of part b), by deleting the word "CONSIDERED" and by replacing it with the following words "REFERRED to the 2014 Budget Process".

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve clause 11, as amended.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Clause 11, as amended, reads as follows:

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General (Property Tax Supported), Water, and Wastewater and Treatment Budgets:

 

a)         the 2013 Operating Budget Status – Third Quarter Report for the General Budget (Property Tax Supported refer to Appendix A), Water Budget and Wastewater and Treatment Budget BE RECEIVED for information, it being noted that the Civic Administration is projecting:

 

i)          $6.9 million in savings in the General (Property Tax Supported) Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council resolution, the $6.9 million in savings if realized would be contributed to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve; it being further noted that $3.7 million of the $6.9 million projected surplus relates to a one-time reconciliation of 2010 Ontario Municipal Partnership Funding;

 

ii)         $3.7 million in savings in the Water Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council direction, the $3.7 million savings would be contributed to the Water Works Capital Reserve Fund;  

 

iii)         $1.8 million in savings in the Wastewater and Treatment Budget; it being noted that consistent with Council direction, the $1.8 million savings would be contributed to the Sewage Works Reserve Fund;

 

b)         notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following drawdowns from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget process:

 

i)          $2.3 million to the City Facilities Reserve Fund in order to provide a “potential” source of funding for facility related initiatives such as Ontario Works Decentralization should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus position; it being noted that the Ontario Works Decentralization initiative is progressing and is on target to meet the staged timelines identified in the June 17, 2013 report to the Community and Protective Services Committee;

 

ii)         $1.0 million to the Economic Development Reserve Fund to be used to support initiatives brought forward by the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee that best accelerate London’s economy and foster private sector investment in the City, should the Property Tax Supported Budget be in a surplus position;

 

iii)         $3.6 million be applied as a funding source to avoid 2014 capital budget reductions; it being noted that as part of the 2013 budget deliberations, Council approved a permanent $3.6 million funding cut to capital that flowed through to the 2014 capital budget; it being further noted that the final 2013 year-end position could fluctuate significantly based on factors beyond the control of Civic Administration such as Ontario Works caseload and/or winter maintenance and will not be known until early 2014;

 

c)         the Civic Administration’s contribution of $1,435,013 ($1,280,920 – property tax supported; $84,143 – wastewater; and $69,950 – water) to the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy reserves in 2013 BE NOTED.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 13.

 

13.

Sherwood Forest Public School - Stakeholder Consultation Process

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to consultation processes undertaken to consider concepts for the possible redevelopment of the Sherwood Forest Public School property:

 

a)         the staff report dated December 10, 2013 BE RECEIVED for information; and

 

b)         the attached communication from S. Levin, President, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Ratepayers BE RECEIVED.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

RECUSED: M. Brown (1)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 18.

 

18.

Participation of Young Women in Civics and Government

 

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide one-time funding in the amount of $20,000, within the existing budget to be contributed to the Operating Contingency Reserve Fund, for a video to deliver an impactful message to young women to be shared widely, including on-line media, with the objective of encouraging young women to actively participate in civics and government.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen (2)

 

 

3rd Report of the Corporate Services Committee

                        Councillor J.P. Bryant presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.P. Bryant to Approve clause 1.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

RECUSED: M. Brown (1)

 

 

1st Report of the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee

                        Councillor J.B. Swan presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 3.

 

3.

Donation of the "Sentinel" Public Art from the Blackburn Foundation

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve that, on the recommendation of the Director of Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the following actions be taken with respect to the acquisition of the “Sentinel” public art:

 

a)         the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated December 2, 2013, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013 to:

 

i)          approve the Donation Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and the Walter J. Blackburn Foundation to transfer the ownership of the “Sentinel” public art to the City of London;

 

ii)         authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the above-noted transfer and issue a tax receipt to the Blackburn Foundation for their donation; and,

 

b)         the “Sentinel” public art BE LOCATED on City of London property in Mitch Baran Park in close proximity to the Walter J. Blackburn Memorial Fountain at the Forks of the Thames.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

NAYS: D.G. Henderson (1)

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clause 5.

 

5.

Mixed-Use Development Including a Performing Arts Centre - Update

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the following actions be taken with respect to the proposals submitted by Music London and the Grand Theatre for a Mixed-Use Development including a Performance Centre:

 

a)         the joint letter provided by Music London and the Grand Theatre BE RECEIVED for information;

 

b)         based on the request outlined in the above-noted letter, as well as the consistent theme throughout the public consultation process, the creation of a proposed “Joint Task Force” for the purpose of advancing the “Mixed-Use Development Including a Performing Arts Centre” proposal, between Music London and the Grand Theatre BE ENDORSED; and,

 

c)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review the revised business plan submitted by the Joint Task Force, and continue to engage Novita Interpares for a third party review; it being noted that, previously identified milestones may need to be amended at the request of the Joint Task Force.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (13)

 

NAYS: S. Orser (1)

 

RECUSED: J.B. Swan (1)

 

At 9:20 PM Councillor S. Orser leaves the meeting.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clause 8.

 

8.

Ontario Music Fund Program

 

That the communication from A. Halwa, Executive Director, London Arts Council, with respect to a funding request of $50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE REFERRED to the Civic Administration to work through the due diligence project checklist process with the London Arts Council, with a report back to IEPC, as soon as possible, at a special meeting if required. 

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Amend clause 8 by deleting the clause in its entirety and by replacing it with the following new clause:

 

“That the communication from A. Halwa, Executive Director, London Arts Council with respect to a funding request of $50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE REFERRED to the 2014 Operating Budget Emerging Issues, to be included as part of Business Case #57 Cultural Prosperity Plan, for consideration.”

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and seconded by Councillor D. Brown to Approve clause 8, as amended.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

Clause 8, as amended, reads as follows:

 

That the communication from A. Halwa, Executive Director, London Arts Council with respect to a funding request of $50,000 per year for a two year London Music Strategy Business Plan BE REFERRED to the 2014 Operating Budget Emerging Issues, to be included as part of Business Case #57 Cultural Prosperity Plan, for consideration.

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan to Approve clauses 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Swan disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 5 of this Report, having to with a mixed-use development for a Performing Arts Centre, by indicating that his employer, Orchestra London, is a proponent.

 

2.

Election of Vice Chair

 

That Councillor M. Brown BE ELECTED as Vice Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014.

 

4.

City of London Community Arts Investment Program Category #1 Policy Amendment

 

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Corporate Investments and Partnerships, the proposed by-law, appended to the staff report dated December 2, 2013, to amend Council Policy 8(11), entitled “Grants and Capital Grants Policy”, as it relates to the Community Arts Investment Program, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2013.

 

6.

Western University - IBM Industry Problem Solving Workshop

 

That the report dated December 2, 2013, from the Director of Corporate Investments and Partnerships, with respect to the Western University’s IBM Industry problem solving workshop, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee heard a presentation from A. Kope, M.Sc Candidate Computer Science, with respect to this matter. 

 

7.

Sunfest Funding Request

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication dated November 8, 2013, from A. Caxaj, Executive, Artistic Director and D. Mumford, Board Member, Sunfest, relating to a one-time funding request of $50,000 to assist in celebrating the festival’s 20th Anniversary:

 

a)         the above-noted funding request BE REFERRED to the 2014 Budget process;

 

b)         any funding granted through the Budget process BE DIRECTED to CAIP through the Culture Office, noting that Sunfest currently receives operational funding from CAIP Category 2;

 

c)         Sunfest BE REQUESTED to use local talent, in addition to international talent for London Day to build live music capacity in London; and,

 

d)         Sunfest BE REQUESTED to work with the Culture Office and London Arts Council for 2014 Sunfest, to build sustainability for future years;

 

it being noted that the Investment and Economic Prosperity Committee reviewed and received a communication from A. Halwa, Executive Director, London Arts Council, with respect to this matter.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

 

1st Report of the Audit Committee

                        Councillor M. Brown presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor M. Brown to Approve clauses 1 to 5, inclusive.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

 

2.

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the term ending November 30, 2014

 

That Councillor M. Brown BE ELECTED Chair and Councillor P. Hubert BE ELECTED Vice Chair of the Audit Committee for the term ending November 30, 2014.

 

3.

TSD (ITS) IT Governance and JDE IT General Controls - Progress Update to Audit Committee

 

That the report dated December 5, 2013, from the Chief Technology Officer, regarding the progress ITS has made to date on IT governance, BE RECEIVED for information.

 

4.

Quarterly Report on Internal Audit Result - Parks and Recreation - Revenue Strategies

 

That, on the recommendation of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), the following actions be taken with respect to the Quarterly Reports on Internal Audit Results – Parks and Recreation - Revenue Strategies:

 

a)         the Action Plans identified in Appendix A of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) report dated December 5, 2013 BE IMPLEMENTED; and,

 

b)         the Quarterly Results on Internal Audit Results identified in Appendix B of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) report dated December 5, 2013, BE RECEIVED.

 

5.

Proposed Risk Assessment and 2014 - 2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Proposed Risk Assessment and 2014 - 2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan:

 

a)         the Risk Assessment and 2014 - 2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan identified in Appendix A of the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ (PwC) report dated December 5, 2013, BE APPROVED; and,

 

b)         the title “Risk Assessment and 2014-2016 Risk-Based Audit Plan” BE CHANGED to “Risk Assessment and 2014 – 2016 Performance-Based Audit Plan” to better reflect the goal of achieving effective and efficient services.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

 

2nd Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

                        Councillor P. Hubert presents.

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clauses 1 to 5, inclusive.

 

1.

Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

 

That it BE NOTED that Councillor B. Armstrong disclosed a pecuniary interest in clause 4 of this Report, specifically having to do with the Residential Rental Licensing Fees, by indicating that he is a landlord.

 

2.

2013 Community Survey

 

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated December 16, 2013 with respect to a survey of Londoners as conducted by Environics Research Group BE RECEIVED for information.

 

3.

Service London Update Report

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director of Neighbourhood, Children and Fire Services, the staff report dated December 16, 2013 on the deliverables and progress associated with the Service London Implementation Plan BE RECEIVED for information.

 

4.

Public Participation Meeting – Amendments to Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to amendments to the Consolidated Fees and Charges By-law:

 

a)            a proposed revised by-law which contains the various fees and charges included in the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 16, 2013, with the exclusion of item iv) under the Service Grouping “Fire Services”, contained within the Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Fighting activity, for the recovery of additional expenses through charging costs to the property owner, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on December 17, 2013 for the purpose of repealing By-law No. A-46, as amended, being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” and replacing it with a new Fees and Charges By-law that updates, adds and increases certain fees and charges for services or activities provided by the City of London;

 

b)            item iv) under the Service Grouping “Fire Services”, contained within the Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Fighting Activity, for the recovery of additional expenses through charging costs to the property owner, as included in the proposed by-law appended to the staff report dated December 16, 2013, BE REFERRED back to the Fire Chief for further review;

 

it being pointed out that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     J. Hoffer, representing the London Property Management Association – expressing concern with the lack of specificity  in item iv) under the Service Grouping “Fire Services”, contained within the Fire & Rescue Services/Fire Fighting Activity, for the recovery of additional expenses through charging costs to the property owner; noting that the Fire Chief would have too much discretion as to when to apply the additional charges; further noting that those who could be charged the additional fees would be easy targets without any ability to challenge the application of those fees; stating that there is a systemic problem with the by-law as currently drafted; and asking that further consideration be given to this fee.

·                     G. Brown – 35A-59 Ridout Street South – expressing concern with any increase to Parks and Recreation user fees and charges; suggesting that before raising user fees, thought should be given to cancelling the project to pave a portion of Thames Park and applying those monies to mitigate any user fee increases; and noting that user fees affect those who can least afford them.

 

5.

2013 Report to the Community

 

That the presentation from the City Manager and the Manager, Corporate Initiatives, with respect to the 2013 Report to the Community BE RECEIVED.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

Motion made by Councillor P. Hubert to Approve clause 6.

 

6.

Cycling Advisory Committee

 

That the following actions be taken with respect to the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee:

 

a)            the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee BE APPROVED;

 

b)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to report back with a proposed terms of reference for the   Cycling Advisory Committee, approved in a) above;

 

c)         the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to report back with revised terms of reference for the         Transportation Advisory Committee, which incorporate certain changes arising from the   establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; and

 

d)         the following written submissions BE RECEIVED:

 

i)              a communication dated December 5, 2013 from S. Steel, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

ii)             a communication from A. Eftekarpour, Vice-President External, University Students’ Council, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

iii)            the attached communication from D.J. Rycroft, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

iv)           the attached communication from P. Myers, Board of Directors of the London Cycling Club, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

v)            the attached communication from M. Marsman, speaking in favour of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

 

it being noted that E. McMahon advised that she was unable to attend the meeting to make verbal representation with respect to this matter;

 

it being further noted that the Managing Director, Environmental and Engineering Services and City Engineer and the Director, Roads and Transportation, gave a verbal overview with respect to the Civic Administration’s position on this matter;

 

it being pointed out that the following individuals made oral submissions in connection therewith:

 

·                     Gary Brown, 35A-59 Ridout Street South – making the attached presentation in support of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; noting cities with successful cycling all have Cycling Advisory Committees; suggesting that London follow the model of other cities; claiming that London is the least friendly and safe cycling community in Ontario; indicating that staff could not provide a firm dollar amount for the City of London’s cycling budget; pointing out that the Ontario Bike Master Plan will have funding available for shovel-ready projects; and asking that the cycling community that wants to be engaged, be engaged by the City.

·                     Daniel Hall – noting he is a London resident and avid cycler; indicating support for a Cycling Advisory Committee; indicating that the City should be targeting the “interested but concerned” segment of the cycling community; noting that a “one size fits all” solution will not work; and asking that the City work with the community to build the cycling infrastructure.

·                     Henk Ketellars – making the attached presentation in support of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee;

·                     Ross Graham – indicating that he and his spouse are avid cyclists; speaking in support of the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; indicating there is a serious communications issue that would be addressed through the establishment of a Cycling Advisory Committee; noting that 90% of people surveyed want to live in London, not cars first and this message doesn’t seem to be getting through—rather the opposite seems to be the case; stating that pushing for more individuals to bike on sidewalks is actually “car centric”; further noting that the next steps for transportation cited “generally pursue no cost and low cost solutions” and “engage the public and business community with respect to the Transportation Demand Management program”; stating that cyclists are over engaged and under serviced; expressing he understands why staff would like to see a more comprehensive committee, but more action would likely be taken if a separate Cycling Advisory Committee were established.

·                     Dave Mitchell – indicating he has been to a number of the Transportation Advisory Committee meetings and his view is that Committee is not serving such a limited scope as cycling; stating he is a diehard cyclist and that he does not want to see a piece meal solution; noting that cyclists are a growing demographic and need to be considered beyond automobile drivers.

·                     Anthea Rowe, 44 Kingsford Crescent – indicating she is a young professional with two children and two motor vehicles, living in South London; stating that she does not have a lot of time to devote to staying fit and healthy, so cycling to work offers her an opportunity to do that; further indicating that London’s quality of life and ability to get around the City on a bicycle keeps her family here as they don’t have other family here and job prospects might be greater elsewhere; stating that she will never be a “fearless” cyclist but does champion cycling with friends and peers; noting she is proud to live in London and can see what we can be and that we are making progress;  and expressing support for a Cycling Advisory Committee.

·                     Helen Reardon, 590 Piccadilly Street – expressing support for a Cycling Advisory Committee; noting it is very dangerous cycling off bicycle paths so safer bicycle routes are needed; stating that other cities, such as Quebec City where there is a lot of snow make year-round use of bicycle lanes and that is was time that London did too.

·                     Diane Szoller – noting she has seen a lot of change in the environmental area in the last 20 years and there is a need to provide focus to each aspect; stating she attended the former Cycling Advisory Committee meetings when it was reviewing the Bicycle Master Plan; noting the Bicycle Master Plan needs dedicated support and that a specific committee dealing with cycling would ensure that cycling was not forgotten in the bigger picture; further noting that she would like to see more work done to make cycling safer, as a lot more can be done in that regard; expressing that she does not like seeing more people ride bicycles on sidewalks and would like to see better cycling education; and expressing support for a Cycling Advisory Committee.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, D. Brown, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (12)

 

NAYS: P. Van Meerbergen, H.L. Usher (2)

 

 

2nd Report of the Committee of the Whole

                        Councillor N. Branscombe presents.

 

PRESENT: Mayor J.F. Fontana, and Councillors B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White and C. Saunders (City Clerk).

 

ALSO PRESENT: A. Zuidema, J.P. Barber, J. Braam, S. Datars Bere, J.M. Fleming, A. Hagan, M. Hayward, G.T. Hopcroft, O. Katolyk, G. Kotsifas, V. McAlea Major, D. Mounteer, L. Rowe and B. Warner.

 

Motion made by Councillor N. Branscombe to Approve:

 

That, as a procedural matter pursuant to Section 239 (6) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the following recommendation be forwarded to City Council for deliberation and a vote in public session:

 

That, on the recommendation of the Managing Director, Corporate Services and City Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer, on the advice of the Manager of Realty Services, the lease between the City and The Court House Block Inc. (the “Landlord”) for the 6th Floor space at 220 Dundas Street BE RENEWED for an additional term of two (2) years, for the J. D. Edwards Upgrade Project, at a base rent of $8.00 per square foot, subject to the same terms and conditions of the existing lease.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (14)

 

X

DEFERRED MATTERS

 

            None.

 

XI

ENQUIRIES

 

            None.

 

XII

EMERGENT MOTIONS

 

            None.

 

At 9:29 PM Councillor S. Orser enters the meeting.

 

XIII

BY-LAWS

 

BY-LAWS TO BE READ A FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD TIME:

 

Motion made by Councillor J.B. Swan and seconded by Councillor B. Polhill to Approve Introduction and First Reading of Bill No.s 31 to 55, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor B. Polhill and seconded by Councillor S. Orser to Approve Second Reading of Bill No.s 31 to 55, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

Motion made by Councillor S. Orser and seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Approve Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No.s 31 to 55, inclusive.

 

Motion Passed

 

YEAS: J.F. Fontana, B. Polhill, B. Armstrong, J.B. Swan, S. Orser, J.L. Baechler, N. Branscombe, M. Brown, P. Hubert, D.G. Henderson, P. Van Meerbergen, D. Brown, H.L. Usher, J.P. Bryant, S.E. White (15)

 

The following by-laws are passed and enacted as by-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

 

Bill No. 31

By-law No. A.-7048-22

A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 17th day of December, 2013. (City Clerk)

 

Bill No. 32

By-law No. A.-7049-23

A by-law to amend subsection 5 of section VIII of Council Policy 28(1) entitled “Travel & Business Expenses”. (8/2/CSC)

 

Bill No. 33

By-law No. A.-6151(i)-24

A By-law to amend By-law A.-6151-17, being a by-law to establish policies for the sale and other disposition of land, hiring of employees, procurement of goods and services, public notice, accountability and transparency, and delegation of powers and duties, as required under section 270(1) of the Municipal Act, 2001. (9/2/CSC)

Bill No. 34

By-law No. A.-7050-25

A By-law to approve the Agreement with the Commissionaires (Great Lakes) for the provision of Security Services and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement. (15/2/CSC)

 

Bill No. 35

By-law No. A.-7051-26

 

A By-law to approve two Agreements between The Corporation of the City of London and The Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreements. (16/2/CSC)

 

Bill No. 36

By-law No. A.-7052-27

 

A By-law to approve a donation agreement with The Walter J. Blackburn Foundation; and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement. (3/1/IEPC)

 

Bill No. 37

By-law No. A.-7053-28

 

A by-law to amend Council Policy 8(11) entitled “Grants and Capital Grants Policy” as it relates to the Community Arts Investment Program. (4/1/IEPC)

 

Bill No. 38

By-law No. A.-7054-29

 

A By-law to exempt the 2013 Rockin’ New Year’s Eve event from subsections 13.1(a) and 13.2 of the 2013 Special Events Policies and Procedures Manual. (6/2/CPSC)

 

Bill No. 39

By-law No. A.-7055-30

 

A by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Extendicare (Canada) Inc., carrying on business as Silver Group Purchasing (SGP), for SGP to act as the Supply Chain Group Purchasing Organization under which the City will purchase food products and other services and products for City service areas including the Dearness Home (identified as Purchasing Agreement) (3/2/CPSC)

Bill No. 40

By-law No. A.-7056-31

 

A by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Extendicare (Canada) Inc., carrying on business as Silver Group Purchasing (SGP), for the City to participate in a Revenue Share Program pursuant to the agreement with SGP for Supply Chain Group Purchasing, under which the City will purchase food products and other services and products for City service areas including the Dearness Home (identified as Revenue Share Agreement) (3/2/CPSC)

 

Bill No. 41

By-law No. C.P.-1284(to)-32

 

A by-law to amend the Official Plan for the City of London, 1989 relating to parallel street network to the Veterans Memorial Parkway corridor. (8/1/PEC)

 

Bill No.42

By-law No. L.S.P.-3433-33

 

A by-law to authorize an application to expropriate lands in the City of London in the County of Middlesex for the Veterans Memorial Parkway South Extension between Highway 401 and Wilton Grove Road. (5/1/CSC)

 

Bill No. 43

By-law No. PS-111-14129

 

A by-law to amend By-law PS-111 entitled, “A by-law to regulate traffic and the parking of motor vehicles in the City of London.” (4/1/CWC)

Bill No. 44

By-law No. S.-5617-34

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Talbot Street, south of John Street) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 45

By-law No. S.-5618-35

 

A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Summerside Subdivision – Phase 9) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 46

By-law No. S.-5619-36

 

A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Summerside Subdivision – Phase 10) (Chief Surveyor)

Bill No. 47

By-law No. S.-5620-37

 

A by-law to assume certain works and services in the City of London. (Summerside Subdivision – Phase 12A) (Chief Surveyor)

Bill No. 48

By-law No. S.-5621-38

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (as widening to Dundas Street, between Merlin Street and Ronald Street) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 49

By-law No. S.-5622-39

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (for the purposes of a public highway for pedestrian use only, lying between Sunningdale Road East and Waterwheel Road) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 50

By-law No. S.-5623-40

 

A by-law to lay out, constitute, establish and assume lands in the City of London as public highway.  (for the purposes of a public highway for pedestrian use only, north of North Routledge Park and north of Moy Crescent) (Chief Surveyor)

 

Bill No. 51

By-law No. Z.-1-142253

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 1103 Adelaide Street North. (6/1/PEC)

Bill No. 52

By-law No. Z.-1-142254

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 Section 4.21 by adding, deleting and replacing the road allowance for various streets. (8/1/PEC)

 

Bill No.53

By-law No. Z.-1-142255

 

A by-law to amend By-law No. Z.-1 to rezone an area of land located at 860-874 Southdale Road West. (9/1/PEC)

 

Bill No. 54

By-law No. A-47

 

A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges and to repeal By-law A-46 being “A by-law to provide for Various Fees and Charges” and By-law CP-20   being “A by-law to provide for the Tariff of Fees for the processing of applications under the Planning Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.13, as amended and to repeal By-law CP-18” . (2/3/SPPC)

 

Bill No. 55

By-law No. A.-7057-32

A By-law to authorize the renewal of the lease of property at 220 Dundas Street and to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Lease Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and The Court House Block Inc. (2/2/CSC)

 

XIV

ADJOURNMENT

 

Motion made by Councillor H.L. Usher and seconded by Councillor P. Van Meerbergen to Adjourn.

 

Motion Passed

 

The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.

 

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                          Joe Fontana, Mayor

 

 

_________________________________

                                                                                          Catharine Saunders, City Clerk

 

No Item Selected