February 1, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That Items 2.2 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.2   Single Source Procurement - London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program

2022-02-01 SR - Single Source Procurement - London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February, 1, 2022, related to a Single Source Procurement - London Homeless Prevention Housing Allowance Program, as per the City of London Procurement of Goods and Service Policy, section 8.5.a.iv, that committee and city council must approve single source awards greater than $50,000.00:

a)    the single source procurements BE ACCEPTED, at a total estimated cost of $1,084,000 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, to administer Housing Stability Services Housing Allowance program, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d), to the following providers:

  •    Mission Services – Rotholme Family Shelter (SS-2022-029) 

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services (Street Level Woman At Risk Program) (SS-2022-030)

  •    CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services (SS-2022-031)

  •    Unity Project Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-033)

  •    Youth Opportunities Unlimited (SS-2022-034)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services (SS-2022-035) 

  •    St. Leonard’s Society of London (SS-2022-036)

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project; and,

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2022-S14)

Motion Passed

2.4   Odell Jalna Social Housing Provider Proposal

2022-02-01 SR - Odell Jalna Social Housing Provider Proposal

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to the Odell Jalna Social Housing Provider Proposal:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to work with the Board of Odell Jalna and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to advance the provider’s proposal; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-invest the anticipated future tax levy supported mortgage subsidy savings related to the Odell Jalna portfolio to address the long-term financial stability of the Odell Jalna portfolio;

it being noted that the communication, dated January 27, 2022, from C. Sprovieri, Odell-Jalna Residences of London, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed

2.1   Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs Including Outreach, Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank 

2022-02-01 SR - Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs Including Outreach

Moved by M. Hamou

Seconded by J. Helmer

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to a Single Source Award Recommendation for Housing Stability Service Programs including Outreach, Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank:

a)    single source procurements BE ACCEPTED, at a total estimated cost of $9,890,000 (excluding HST), for the period of April 1, 2022, to March 31, 2023, with the opportunity to extend for four (4) additional one (1) year terms, to administer Housing Stability Services Emergency Shelter and Housing Stability Bank and Outreach programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d), to the following providers:

  •    Men’s Mission Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-021) 

  •    Salvation Army Centre of Hope Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-022)

  •    Rotholme Family Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-023)

  •    Unity Project Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-024)

  •    Youth Opportunities Emergency Shelter (SS-2022-025)

  •    London Cares Homeless Response Services Outreach Program (SS-2022-026) 

  •    The Salvation Army Centre of Hope Housing Stability Bank Program (SS-2022-027)

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project; and,

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into Purchase of Service Agreements with each program;

it being noted that the communication, dated January 23, 2022, the presentation, dated February 1, 2022, and the verbal delegation from P. Rozeluk, Mission Services of London and the communication, dated January 21, 2022 and the verbal delegation from J. DeActis, Centre of Hope London, with respect to this matter, were received. (2022-S11)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by M. Hamou

Motion to approve the delegation requests from P. Rozeluk, Executive Director, Mission Services of London and J. DeActis, Executive Director, Centre of Hope London.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.3   End of Mortgage (EOM) and End of Operating Agreement (EOA) Impacts and Analysis

2022-02-01 SR - End of Mortgage and End of Operating Agreement Impacts and Analysis

Moved by J. Helmer

Seconded by S. Hillier

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated February 1, 2022, related to the End of Mortgage (EOM) and End of Operating Agreement (EOA) Impacts and Analysis:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to re-invest any anticipated future municipal mortgage subsidy savings in the social housing portfolio to address the long-term financial sustainability of the portfolio; and

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to send a letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on behalf of the City Council, to:

  •    request continued provincial partnership and investment in existing community housing;

  •    highlight Council’s recent significant investment commitments in housing with the need for additional provincial support; and,

  •    communicate the need to receive the new Housing Services Act regulatory Exit and Service Agreement framework as early as possible to develop strategies to address challenges facing the sector;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will continue to examine alternative and innovative solutions to the challenge of maintaining social housing units due to EOM/EOA;

it being further noted that the communication, dated February 1, 2022, from M. Carlson, Birch Housing, with respect to this matter, was received. (2022-S04)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   Deferred Matters List

CPSC DEFERRED MATTERS as at January 24, 2022

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by E. Holder

That the Deferred Matters List for the Community and Protective Services Committee, as at January 24, 2022, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Confidential

None.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:27 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (1 hour, 43 minutes)

Good afternoon, everybody. I will call the third meeting of the community and protective services committee to order. This is a virtual meeting during the COVID-19 emergency. Please check the city website for current details of COVID-19 service impact.

And meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for council, standing or advisory committee meetings, and information upon request. To make a request for any city service, please contact accessibility@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact PSC@london.ca.

With that, I will look to committee members to see if there are any disclosures of conflicts. Conflicts, we will move on to the consent items. There are four items on that list. We do have two delegation requests, so I will pull item 2.1.

And I will look to committee to see if there are any other items that you would like pulled. Head counselor, Hillier. 2.3 if you don’t mind. 2.1 and 2.3 are pulled.

If there are no others, then I would look for a motion for to go with 2.2 and 2.4. Moved by counselor Helmer, seconded by counselor Hillier. Are there any discussion on those two items? Seeing none, I will call the question.

I’ll note as well that under 2.4, there is an added communication there as well, so just take note of that. All right, unfortunately, we are starting off with a bang. E-scribe, so we will have to vote verbally, and I will call your name and you can indicate whether you are a yes or a no, how’s that? We’ll go with counselor Hillier.

Yes. Counselor Helmer. Yes. Counselor Helmer.

Yes. Mayor Holder. Yes. Counselor Selley.

Yes. I am a yes. Supposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So 2.1, we can handle a couple of different ways.

We have two delegation requests, and the requesters are present, so I believe it would make sense to hear their delegation today. And it is related to item 2.1, where staff have provided us with a report. So it is, I will look to committee. Do you want to hear from staff first, or do you want to hear from the delegations first, and then staff in response?

I look for motion either way. Counselor Helier. I’d like to hear if the delegations first, and then staff, if possible. So Counselor Helier is moving that we accept the two delegation requests, one from Mr.

Rose Luck of the Mission Services London, and one from Mr. Deactis of Center of Hope London. Seconded by Counselor Hamu. Any discussion on that?

We’ll call the vote then, Counselor Helier. Yes. Counselor Helmer. Yes.

Counselor Hamu, Mayor Holder. Yes. Counselor Sally. Yes.

And I vote yes. Seeing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. So, since I will just go in the order of the agenda, I’ll start with Mr. Rose Luck, and I will let staff invite him in.

I believe he has a presentation, a copy of his presentation slides are in the agenda. So I imagine you can follow along with that, but I will let him tell you that. Through the chair, thank you for having me here today to provide some observations and report on the topics before you. My first observation is that when I first started in my current role 12 years ago, the city had what I believe was a foundation for 24/7 rusting space system.

One by one, these spaces closed until none were left, in part because of insufficient staffing and funding. There is today a more broadly based community response, but with what are now annual winter response concerns, surely exacerbated by COVID-19, it certainly does not feel like progress has been made. My second observation is that emergency shelters in this city have never been fully funded. The same could be said of all emergency shelters in the province.

It is made obviously clear by the fact that every emergency shelter that I know of does its own fundraising to make up for gaps in government funding. And thirdly, it is abundantly clear from the information provided that there are external economic factors beyond the control of the city that impact poverty and homelessness. It is steadily and consistently worsened in the last 10 years as average rents in London have almost doubled the increase in social assistance payments. My observations lead me to conclude that the issues we are facing today are absolutely nothing new and shelter providers have been watching this train come down the tracks for a decade now.

I support the single source recommendations. And again, I want to provide some context. The RFP was a new process. There are excellent financial stewardship reasons for the city to require RFPs for construction projects or purchasing a fleet of vehicles, but I’m not so sure that there are reasons applied to social services.

An RFP process results in a competitive process that is hardly conducive to a collaborative effort among interested parties. When the parameters of the RFP came out, I sincerely believe that there was more money, a lot more money available to shelter operators. Otherwise, why would parameters never before achieved be provided? As much as I can say that the RFP process did not make intuitive sense to me, there were some lessons learned.

The first is, quoting from the report, it became clear that operating costs of the emergency shelter response have increased beyond the current funding envelope available. Yes, it has for a while now, as noted in my previous comments. And the second and for me, the most valuable acknowledgement of the RFP process was the parameter that the city would only provide 80% of the funding for operations. For me, that was significant and acknowledgement by the city that it will not fund the entire cost of services.

Cost is an interesting word. It’s used in the report section 3.0. The first sentence starts with the 2022 cost for homeless stability services expected to be 9.89 million. This is the city’s costs.

Your costs are our funding. And so remember that the actual cost to operate shelters is higher. The recommendation before the committee provides funding certainty for emergency shelters. Certainty is a more accurate word than stability.

It acknowledges that the community needs to be financially interested in homelessness, as donations are essential to the operation of shelters. A credible argument could be made that shelter operating costs are rising faster than the city costs to fund, similar to the disparity between average rents and social payments. Stability will have to come via the community donors to all of the emergency shelters. I suggest there are no right or wrong answers of where do we go now?

There will be differences of opinion. Homelessness and poverty are complex issues and the underlying causes or reasons are equally, if not more complex. So what can we do? What is in our control?

Some suggestions. The first is the supply of housing. We need more of it and we’ve needed it for years. Shelters have been at capacity for a very long time and it is increasingly difficult for shelter participants to find safe, adequate, affordable housing.

Local developers in this city have successfully housed tens of thousands of Londoners. They’re efficient, effective. They invest their own capital. They need to be at the table to slowly make our way out of the current situation.

Council can directly encourage more housing supply and affordable options through development plans, density requirements, zoning and permit applications to the extent that is within council’s power, reduce the time it takes to get approvals and permits. I have heard from nonprofits and for-profits alike that the time it takes to get shovels into the ground is discouraging to prospective builders. That is within your control. Enforced bylaws meant to ensure that rental properties are habitable, provide quiet enjoyment for the tenants and are safe and adequate.

Council needs to decide what the priorities are. If homelessness is a priority, treat it as a priority. Direct resources toward it by taking resources away from budget lines that are not a priority. As an example, increasing the funding envelope devoted to rental supplements will help individuals and families leave shelter sooner.

Administration can tell you what the average rent supplement is. When you’re making decisions about any expenditure, call it why. Use that rent supplement benchmark to judge the priority of spending. This amount of spending will assist ex-families to obtain or retain housing for X number of months.

Or we can spend it on why, which is the priority? Homelessness or why? And lastly, I want to acknowledge the amazing work that’s already been done by the city’s homelessness department, particularly around the COVID-19 isolation monitoring spaces. Kudos to Kevin Dickens and Craig Cooper and their team for making isolation and monitoring space a priority.

Over two years ago when COVID-19 worries began, the thoughts of a COVID outbreak in the shelter were terrifying. However, the provision of isolation and monitoring spaces by the city, making it a priority to protect vulnerable individuals has been a marvel. I will need to be fact-checked, but to the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single death from COVID among emergency shelter participants in the city. To the best of my knowledge, there’s not been a single hospitalization due to COVID among the emergency shelter participants in the city.

This is contrasted to cities like Ottawa, Toronto, and Edmonton, where I know that there have been deaths due to COVID. I cannot give enough praise to the city for making isolation and monitoring spaces a priority in the shelter system. That is good news. We should acknowledge and if not celebrate.

Thank you to the entire team with the housing stability services that made that happen. There are no magic bullets. There are many difficult decisions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Rose. Like, and I forgot to mention that you did have five minutes, so I appreciate you keeping within that time. Are there any questions for our delegate?

Okay, thank you so much. I will move on to the next delegate, Mr. Deactis from the Center of Hope. And as I forgot to mention to Mr.

Rose Love, you’ll have five minutes to address the committee. Welcome, go ahead, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Council, for allowing me to this opportunity come to give you a better understanding of the Salvation Army Center of Hope and in our budget concerns.

As you’re aware, this year has been a challenge when it’s come to submitting our budget needs due to the RFP process that we’ve all been through, prying the budget funds under the restrictions given and then having them frequently changed over one month to very difficult. The RFP process brought out the good, the bad and the ugly. It was a process that took many hours of work. And at the same time, we saw the very shelter organizations and competition with one another.

I do not believe that was purposeful, but suddenly in one RFP, the system began to work separately instead of together. The faltered process also brought out some very positive outcomes. First, there was a realization and recognition that the city funding was not and is not adequate to meet the present needs of the shelter system. And secondly, there was a clear understanding of the actual cost for operating a shelter in the city of London.

I would like to give you a quick understanding of cost increases over the past five years, but understand that this has been going on for the past 10 years, as Peter also mentioned. Over the past five years at the Center of Hope, there’s been a 29.33% increase in personnel expenses, a 55% increase in food costs, a 61% increase in maintenance costs, a 166% increase in waste removal costs, 35% in janitorial costs, and a 0.1 increase in utilities costs. And at the same time, a 47% increase in admin costs. Over the past year and 2021, we served over almost 200,000 meals of those meals.

76,000 of those were prepared for our community programs. In a program of 107 beds, we admitted 2457 men, 678 women, seven transgendered folks, and 647 youth. We had 42,000 bed days used in the past year in the shelter. This year in the 2022-23 budget, you will notice that the Center of Hope is vastly underfunded in comparison to other shelters.

If you review the funding allocated to the Center of Hope for the fiscal year coming up, you will see that the Center of Hope has received approximately $5,000 less per bed compared to the other funded shelters. Recognize this is not a per diem, shelter or funded system. However, that was the only thing I could compare to. This difference equates to approximately $500,000 less than funding compared to the average funding of the other shelters, or 1.5 million less when compared to the youth shelter.

It has been felt in the past that larger nonprofit organizations have unlimited resources. Therefore, we don’t require as much funding, and this is simply not true. I recognize that funding shelters is not an easy thing, but I also believe there is a need for you to understand that the present funding has not increased proportionally to the cost of living. Housing is one of the most critical issues with homelessness, and the Center of Hope has not allocated funds in our budget to have a housing staff or housing support workers.

This funding comes from donations from the Salvation Army. So what am I asking you? Please reconsider the amount of funding being offered to the shelters under the Center of Hope. We are a very important partner in the works, in the work towards eliminating homelessness in London, but we need the resources now to be part of the solution.

We work well with the city, and we work well with our partners, but we need to recognize that the work also has a cost. We want to be engaged in developing the solutions. We need funding to support the folks who are presently in the shelter, to assist them in being successful and obtaining and maintaining a place that they can call their own. The Center of Hope has been over backwards to help when help was needed.

During the pandemic, we’ve purchased privacy screens for rooms so we could keep more people inside and safe and off the streets. We responded to the call whenever asked, when it came time to serve people during heater cold alerts, we have always responded. We have gone almost two years without going into an outbreak, except for the past week and a half, when it was declared a week and a half ago. And we isolated over 72 people in this building.

Fortunately, over a week and a half time, we’re down to one person left in isolation. We take our responsibility seriously, and all we’re asking is that we all do this as well when it comes to the Center of Hope and how it’s underfunded. As always, we are willing and looking forward to working together to develop solutions to help one of the most vulnerable populations in London, the homeless. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Deactos. Are there any questions for this delegate being none? I’m Councilor, Councilor Lewis, welcome to the committee.

Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to wait to see if any committee members have questions first, but I appreciate the opportunity. And through you, if you’ll allow, if either of the delegates wants to offer a response to this, it would be appreciated.

We heard from both delegates the amount of funding that the city provides is not meeting their needs. But what I didn’t hear from either delegate was what contributions, what funding level is being provided by the provincial level of government. And the reason I asked that, Madam Chair, is we absolutely have funding priorities. And I don’t think anybody would argue that any time we suggest we’re gonna take money from one area and put it in another, someone is gonna come forward and say, no, my area is a priority too.

You can’t reduce my funding. But we do know that there are folks in our homeless population here in London who are coming here from smaller municipalities where there are no shelters or there are very limited capacities for shelter beds. And yet we certainly don’t get funding from neighboring regional partners to help support our shelter system. That’s a burden that’s coming from the municipal taxpayer here in London.

So if either one of them could share a comment, what role do they see for the province here in equalizing and helping shelter systems, not just in this city, but across all the municipalities in this province, ‘cause we know that, and it was mentioned by Mr. Rose, like shelters in other communities are facing similar challenges. So where do they see the role of the other levels of government involved in this? So if I can respond to that, my understanding is actually most of the shelter, if not all of the funding for the shelters is coming from the province.

It’s not coming from the city. So these are chippy money, chippy money. So I mean, that’s the short answers. The province is by far the major funder.

Thank you, Mr. Rose. So, and that might be something to explore further with our staff as well. Councillor Lewis, it is a lot of the social service money that we do deal with in the city is flow through money, but let staff deal with that.

Yeah, you have a follow up. Yeah, just a very quick follow up comment. I appreciate it, especially in the last two years, the social service relief funding that has been coming through has been from the province. And I think to your points, that has been key in helping you all and Mr.

Dickinson and Mr. Cooper and others in not only addressing the need in the community, but also in preventing serious COVID outbreaks and deaths amongst the most vulnerable. So I absolutely recognize that the social service relief funding has played a big role in helping me the immediate need. And I will pursue that with staff, certainly as well, Madam Chair, but I did want to get our delegates, the opportunity to speak up as well and get their thoughts on that before we move into questions for staff.

So I appreciate the gentleman entertaining that question. Thank you, Councillor. So now I’m going to go to city staff to Mr. Dickens.

If you would like to provide some brief comments on the report, it is in the consent item, but we’ve had to delegate speak to this report and it’s a pretty important report as are all of the reports that you bring forward. So I’ll go to you, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, happy to present this report to committee.

As you’ll note in the report, we are seeking the endorsement of a single source agreement with the listed providers for three areas of our homeless prevention system, one of which is the emergency shelter provision, the other is outreach services, and the third is the housing stability bank services. As you may recall, city staff, we set out as part of our procurement policy, we were required to conduct a competitive RFP process for the provision and the service delivery of these services. Through that, we were in a position where because of the submissions, not aligning or meeting the requirements of the RFP, we had to enter into the single source negotiation. We had aimed to introduce some systems change within the shelter system, within the outreach work that occurs and system change within the housing stability bank services.

Partly because a requirement under the Chippy funding with the province of Ontario is a requirement that municipalities as service managers decrease their reliance on emergency shelters. This same intent is echoed in the council endorsed housing stability action plan where we set out to reduce the reliance on emergency shelters. That is not because emergency shelters do not do good work. It is not because emergency shelters are not significant pillars of our community.

It is that evidence tells us that upstream services, housing focused services and housing with supports help us alleviate the impact of homelessness in our communities and allow us to work with individuals experiencing homelessness to achieve greater stability in their own lives through housing and housing with supports. The city is recommending or civic administration is recommending an increase in our investment in this area of an $800,000 increase for this upcoming fiscal year from what last year’s investment was. So while that is not to the levels that our delegations have indicated they require, it is a increase from previous year’s investments. We are fully aware and support many of the comments made by the delegations around the need to create housing stock.

The need to work together as a system. This council has been very supportive in their advocacy efforts to the provincial government around sustaining and expanding SSRF level investments. They’ve also been very vocal in their commitment to pursuing increased housing stock and affordable housing stock, which is reminiscent and are reflected in our roadmap to 3,000 units. We’re happy as civic administration.

I’m joined by Mr. Cooper to entertain any questions that committee might have regarding the contents of the report before you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. Are there any questions for Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper?

Or comments from committee? Mr. Mayor, go ahead. Thanks very much, perhaps through to Mr.

Dickens. So the approach that I’m trying to reconcile the recommendation that single source procurements be accepted along with the fact that we have increased the budget by $800,000. If I hear the concerns expressed by mission services and I was gonna say a Salvation Army only, but it really is the center of hope, but it’s all the same. I’m left with the perspective from their presentations that they are not participating, but clearly they are.

I mean, I look at the list here and Roth home, which is part of the men’s mission overall group is I think a very, they’re significant players. So what changes are the primary ones, Mr. Dickens, that you’re asking us to recommend this year over what would have been this past year? What’s the noticeable difference as you see it?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, we appreciate the question. The difference, so I’ll start with the structure.

We are entering into the one-year agreement with the option for a four-year annual renewal. We feel that given where we are in this state of funding with the province, with changing landscapes in the community, really having not experienced a, what we would call a typical year for the last two years due to COVID, we feel like this is the best approach. We feel like it gives some certainty, as we’ve used earlier in this meeting, perhaps not stability to the system, but we echo that, that there’s not a lot of stability in the system. We continue to work through our provincial partners around what this chippy funding file looks like.

The, this year, in the previous two years, our funding from the province has remained the same. So while we see service organizations and the demand for services, while we see costs increasing for them to deliver service and the demand increasing, our funding levels have not. So we really are in a position where we need to make changes around where those investments are made and where we see very positive returns for those experiencing homelessness. It’s a reason why on this agenda, you will also see a report to invest over a million dollars in a housing allowance, which allows people to access market rent units.

So some of the changes introduced through this whole process are not superficial in nature. They reflect some consistency and standardization around the intake process, around how individuals’ personal belongings are kept and handled. We’re also looking to standardize how disruptive behaviors or when there’s a person who’s not permitted into a certain facility. You know, if there’s a disruption at one site, it might mean that you’re banned for three hours at another site, it could mean you’re banned for three months.

And we really need to try and standardize that across the system. This allows us to start to introduce change and it’s going to be a slow process, but it starts that conversation. And we’re happy that through the single source negotiations, through the conversations with these providers, that they’ve been willing and able to accept and introduce some of the changes recommended in this report. So we certainly look forward to more.

We will not look to throw the system into turmoil. It’s a collaborative process and I think that’s what’s reflective here in this report. Go ahead, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. So through the chair, Mr.

Dickens, I heard you say that food funding has been static and yet we’re increasing the funding in this by some $800,000. So I will speculate that that has to come, as it comes from somewhere, it comes from City Hall coffers. And you’ll correct me if that’s not the case. And so when I see that both men’s mission, Salvation Army are the service providers for so much of this, I also see why you and Unity Project amongst others.

What I’m trying to understand and I would have asked them, but I’ll ask you what you see as their biggest concern with the, let you speculate at least what you think, the biggest concern of the sole source procurement becomes. Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, Chair.

To answer the first question, Mr. Mayor, the additional investment is coming from municipal funds in terms of where we structure the portfolio and where those investments can be made. So that increases is coming from municipal contributions. As far as speculating on some of the concerns, I think the RFP process was very new to the system, new for us to go through it.

But I think some of the concerns is around that stability. We hear the delegates talk about the ability to cover the true cost of providing services. We know operators and their board of governors, in some cases have made very strong decisions around talent retention, staff recruitment and retention, including increase in wages. And those are really good decisions for them to make and very wise decisions I’m sure in an industry where there’s not a lot of staff coming forward to do the work and very hard to retain staff in this type of work.

But those are costs that the city cannot bear at this point, or not all of it. We are certainly continuing to look at where we can make investments in the housing side of things. I don’t know through speculation if that causes any concerns to operators, I suspect it wouldn’t, but we really are trying to shift this system little by little. But we hear the concerns through the delegations, recognizing it’s two delegates of a larger group.

But we do have support from the network, from the industry, people who provide services that recognize the need to have more of a housing focus, whether it be transitional housing or supportive housing, that this is where we’re going to make a difference in the world of homeless prevention and to support individuals and families experiencing homelessness. And we remain committed to work with all providers, those that are delegations and not, to help make those changes for our community. I hope that answers your question, Mr. Mayor.

It does, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, and I’ll go to Councillor Hummon. I didn’t have my hand up.

My apologies, I thought I saw you put your hand up when the mayor put his hand up way back. I did, and then I put it down again, because I heard the, thank you. Okay, wonderful. So if I’ll look to committee first, see if there are any other committee members who would like to ask questions or provide commentary.

I’m seeing none, so I will go to you Councillor Van Holst and welcome to the Committee on Protective Services Committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. And if I may ask some questions about how this will affect the individuals at risk out there, I’ve been engaged with a couple of those. And so one is an individual living in their car and that hasn’t been successful in finding assistance so far.

I’m encouraged that we’re trying some changes. And I wonder if some of those changes would make a difference for an individual in that situation. Mr. Dickens.

Thank you Chair and through you. We appreciate that question. There are certainly unique situations and circumstances that our teams and the community encounter on a regular basis. Part of our ambitious goal is to begin to introduce more low barrier type services.

We are seeing the benefit of low barrier services play out through overnight resting spaces in a number of locations and with some of these shelter providers as well, specifically related to your example. Because I have an expert like Mr. Cooper on this meeting, I’m gonna ask him to maybe speak to the number of avenues that individuals can access and where these services before you tie into the larger system. Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for the question Councillor Van Holst. I think the best way to sort of tackle the answer to this question is that we’ve identified earlier.

The system is very complex and it’s not easy to navigate. And so the work that my team on housing stability services has undertaken in the last 18 months to coordinate services for individuals to coordinate access to services involves the shelter system, but involves pretty much every aspect of our homeless prevention and housing system. As we look to try and help prevent individuals from experiencing homelessness and then divert individuals from accessing emergency shelter and then realizing individuals do need to access emergency shelters at certain areas. Those are the options we focus on as our prevention system at the moment.

What we really work to do is give people that centralized intake option. Historically, when somebody was experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness, the only avenue they really had was the relying on the emergency shelter system. It wasn’t a really significantly coordinated system. There was a lot of probably confusion I would suspect for individuals that at least that we’re hearing from the access our system now of the past.

But what that coordinated access system now does is gives individuals that one point of contact to work with our team, to look at prevention diversion and then accessing emergency system services. And so we like Mr. Dickens indicated, we do still rely very heavily on our emergency system and there will always be a role for an emergency shelter system in our community. But that is our primary response at this point is for individuals to do an intake for our centralized system, understand if there’s opportunities to divert them or prevent them from experiencing homelessness.

And where that cannot be mitigated, it is that facilitation into an emergency shelter system where units are available for individuals. Now we do recognize that a number of individuals choose not to access shelter services. And those are the additional avenues that we’re continuing to work on with service providers and other agencies in our community where we can fund them and have funding available to provide that rapid linkage to housing. And so I can’t speak to the examples specifically that you use, but for an individual that is experiencing homelessness are called to the 661 home number for an intake and triage by my team to then understand their specific needs as it fits with the community prioritization process that our community has established would then be getting matched to resources that become available, whether it’s housing, a supplement benefit or some other resource, maybe perhaps shelter to be able to utilize.

Councilor. Thank you very much, perhaps two more questions. The first is to ask if you elaborate on what’s meant by low barrier options. What do we mean by that just to, I think to help the listeners?

Mr. Dickens. Certainly and through you chair, thank you for that question. Low barrier is, it’s a definition that can have I think different meanings in terms of where you seek out the answer, whether it be through some academic literature or whether it be through a more local experiential type definition.

What we are seeking as a system, this is not strictly the municipality, this is feedback from individuals who access services or attempt to access services, as well as other service providers funded and not funded. Low barrier is really around meeting people where they’re at, being able to provide services that in some cases are customized to a population or suitable for a certain behavior type. But we know that individuals experiencing homelessness come carrying a lot of trauma and conforming to rules or to restrictions is often a barrier to accessing service. So an example might be you must be here at a certain time in order to get a space.

Removing the time constraint, if applicable and manageable would be removing part of that barrier or lowering that barrier. Whether individuals are currently using substances would be another form of low barrier or harm reduction. So as a system, we would also look to spaces where individuals could come with pets or where couples would be able to stay as part of an emergency shelter system. Those that might be more diverse in their service offerings or smaller in nature to make it safer or at least feel safer for people.

Those are all different types of lower barrier because if you have a pet, your options might be limited. There are services available in this community, absolutely. We know why OU is doing a great job at that as well but it’s not necessarily a barrier that’s been removed everywhere. So those are the type of examples that come to mind.

Councilor. Okay, thank you. And then finally, I’ll ask this question ‘cause I had a little heartbreak today. My question is what kind of assistance are we getting from the province in terms of mental health?

Because I know that that’s a challenge that makes it difficult for us to keep somebody in housing. There’s an individual that I’d encountered a couple of times this year. I thought we attempted to help. I know there was some challenges there.

I counted them earlier today while on a walk, they were sleeping rough, person younger than me. So it’s the same person I’d seen except today, they were missing both their front teeth. So you talked about trauma and that’s a big challenge because the homelessness creates trauma. And that seems to be a very difficult challenge.

I wonder if you could tell us if there’s some hope along if there’s hope with dealing with those kind of very difficult issues? Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, Chair.

As a municipal service manager, we are not a recipient of mental health funding. We do not act or serve as a transfer payment organization for health dollars. That being said, we work closely and we continue to try and work even closer with the health community. That might be on the mental health side.

We certainly have great relationships with organizations like the Canadian Mental Health Association and some of their programs such as My Sisters Place and the overnight resting spaces that they provide and we were able to expand their beds this past year as well where there are mental health supports embedded in there. We do not receive direct funding, however. We also will try to work closely with hospitals, whether it be around emergency department discharging and ensuring people are not discharged to homelessness and really that they connect through our coordinated access program so we can provide more preventative services so people don’t end up on the streets unsheltered. Far more advocacy efforts underway when it comes to the need for our community to have programs and services like a stabilization space.

We work closely and benefit greatly from the London Police Services, the St. Joe’s Healthcare and the CMHA, Thames Valley Partnership that is the coast program. We would certainly like to see mental health dollars invested in that program so it can be sustained. So there, I don’t think as civic administration we’re looking to insert ourselves into the mental health field but we certainly want to champion the cause for our partner organizations because they too share your concerns and our concerns around the need for mental health and addiction supports for so many in our community.

Councilor. Thank you, Madam Chair and thanks to our staff and guests for the work. Thank you. Go to you, Councilor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I had to find the button to unmute myself. Which you’d think after this long we’d have all figured out. So through you to our staff, I do have a couple of questions that I’m hoping they might be able to answer and apologies.

I probably should have sent these to them in advance ‘cause they may not have necessarily either question the answers readily available. But when we talk about the funding sources and the costs of the services that are being provided not just through the shelter program but through all of our housing and homelessness stabilization programs, can Mr. Dickens indicate through you, Madam Chair, the costs of our administration of these things as a service provider? Well, we heard about the Chippy funding being the primary source of the shelter funding.

Are we as a municipality covering operational costs for the staff, individuals like Mr. Dickens, like Mr. Cooper and those who work with them? Is there a cost sharing on the service provision or are we providing the staffing costs and then the funding is flowing out through the provincial dollars?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through you, Chair. So under the Chippy envelope, there’s a 10% admin coverage, which goes to fund a number of positions that deliver a number of services at the city.

So the management of all of our heifas database and work like that, there is also some admin dollars associated to reaching home, which is a about a million dollars from the federal government. So there’s a admin allocation there and then the administrative costs are cost shared at the municipal level as well. My position, for example, is cost shared across my entire portfolio, including the Ontario Works program, the Deerness home and childcare in early years as well. So there is municipal cost sharing and then there are administrative allowances under the funding envelopes from the province and from the federal government.

Thank you for that answer. Because I do think it’s important for people to understand that there are municipal dollars involved in providing these programs and services. It’s not all funding that’s coming from the province, not that we don’t appreciate the funding we get from the province because we absolutely do, but it’s not covering 100% of the cost by any stretch of the imagination. The other question I had and this was something that you raised, sorry, Madam Chair, the staff raised through their presentation, our goal is to actually divert people from shelter beds and have them in a more stabilized housing environment.

And that might look like different things to different people. But I’m wondering if our staff might be able to indicate over the course of recent years or even over the course of the last year, if they have a ballpark number of county people, we have been able to house in a stable manner through the head lease program that may have otherwise not been in the stable housing environments who may have in fact ended up in the shelter system as well. Mr. Dickens.

Thank you. As I struggle to find my mute button as well. So through you, Chair, first is on the municipal investment piece. It is noted in our report that there are municipal contributions across this entire portfolio outside of emergency shelters and outside of outreach and the housing stability bank.

Roughly to the tune of about $10 million is a municipal investment in the homeless prevention services. And those go to fund things like the coordinated informed response program, which is very busy and in a very effective program, but it also goes towards housing allowances, subsidies under the housing access center for those looking to access social housing wait lists and social housing units. So there are a number of housing programs that the municipality contributes money towards that play a role in the spectrum or the continuum of homeless prevention services. To your second question about the head lease program and the number of people housed.

Again, I’ll throw it over to Mr. Cooper who can speak to the head lease program and then probably individuals housed under this portfolio in general, perhaps. Thank you. Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for the question. In 2021, our system housed just over 300 individuals through the housing stability services team through our supportive housing, housing first model programs.

With council’s endorsement last spring, we have utilized up to 25 units at any given time for our head lease program. We’ve been traditionally operating in around the 18 units for operating of the head lease in the last, say six to eight months. We have seen some successes. We’re getting people connected to services and that’s included in that 304 number.

We will be bringing a report forward later this year about the lessons learned for the head lease program as that pilot winds down and some recommendations for future administration of a head lease program should council wish to endorse the extension of such a program. But it has been a successful program. We have been able to support a number of individuals and families through our head lease programs and have had, like I say, the 25 units available through that program to support individuals with higher acuity that do have challenges with achieving identification and being able to sign a lease. So, like I say, we’ll have additional information this year, but I personally would feel that the head lease program has been a success.

Thank you, Councilor Lewis. Thank you. I just think it was really important to ask that and to highlight the fact that when we talk about the homeless issue and the housing initiatives that are happening around both from service providers like the center of hope and the men’s mission as YOU, my sister’s place, all of these agencies, that that’s one part of it. But it’s important to remember that ultimately, the goal is to get people to a position where they have stable housing.

And that has been a focus. And I think that, you know, when we hear 304 this year, I think that’s a very encouraging number. I said this yesterday at corporate services, Madam Chair, as you’ll recall, it can feel like we’re treading water on this problem. But we are making progress, although it is sometimes difficult to see and realize on our day-to-day travels about the city, there is work being done and there are successes happening.

So I just wanna thank Mr. Dickens, Mr. Cooper, and their entire team. They’re doing some really fantastic things.

And that includes the interim winter response programs that we have happening with our own location at Fanshawe golf course, as well as the location, the indigenous led location at Parkwood Hospital. So I just wanted to thank them for that work. We all know that this is a big problem and there’s no one single solution for it. But I do think it’s important to point out that there is progress being made.

Thank you, Councillor Lewis. Any other questions or comments? Councillor Halmer. Thank you, appreciate the discussion so far.

My question through the chair to city staff is, it seems like part of the issue we’ve run into here is that we’re aiming for a pretty significant system transformation, yet we’re working with sort of the existing funding envelope and a lot of the increases in funding have been coming from the municipal contributions and to a lesser extent from the federal contributions and the provincial contributions over the last couple years have been kind of flat with the exception of the social services relief funding, which has been excellent for the issues we’ve been dealing with specifically around COVID. But in terms of changing the system, I think it seems to me that an increase in resources at least for several years as the system is transforming is needed. I don’t want to see that come entirely from the municipal funding. And I guess when you think about the scale of what is needed to kind of achieve a successful transformation, what do you think we’re talking about?

Because I think sometimes when we look at flat provincial funding, we say, well, the great to have cost of living type increases rather than flat. But I think what we actually need is something significantly more than cost of living increases, say something like let’s double the should be funding. And what could we do with that in terms of system transformation, start doing some of the things that are upstream while also dealing with the cost pressures that the shelter system’s facing, try and make it the transition as the demand ideally for shelter spaces declines. Then we could actually achieve that system transformation that you’re talking about.

So I guess what’s the scope of what’s really needed from all the funders, you know, we don’t have to pin it all in the province, but what’s the scope that’s needed to achieve that successful transformation over the next, you know, five to 10 years? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair.

Through you, thank you for the question. This is a question that we sort of wrestle with as well and that we have conversations with our municipal sector, frankly, service providers across the province on. There’s an active push for municipalities to seek out the SSRF, the social services relief funding level investments on a continued basis. In London, London Middlesex as the service manager, the SSRF investments pretty well tripled our operating budget during COVID.

Those are one-time contributions and those are contributions for programs that have an expiry date. And so while they’re welcomed and they’re very much needed, some of them are very limited in what we can invest in for that systems change, that transformational change. We did benefit from some flexibility to be able to make capital investments. And we were able to offer two shelters, capital dollars for repairs and renovations to their facilities as a result of congregate living limitations in COVID.

We were also able through some of that flexibility to use those one-time capital dollars to make investments into affordable housing projects, into our rapid housing projects, which is an upstream, you know, and a very effective tool to use. To answer your question about what is needed, you know, we’re probably, and this is without crunching the numbers, we’re probably looking at a $20 million type investment to make the full scope of the transformational change. As we’ve indicated, this will be a very slow methodical process. We won’t look to turn the entire system upside down, but we feel like we can make great dividends and great investments on the housing side and start to decrease or decline our reliance on the emergency shelter system the way it is now.

It really is hard to speculate though, as COVID has forced our providers in the community to rethink their own service models, to rethink their own capacity limits, staffing ratios and their own operating costs. And, you know, I’ll take this as an opportunity to echo that are the shelter providers in the community and those that play a role in the resting space programs have all stepped up and gone above and beyond during COVID to make sure that individuals and families experiencing homelessness have are safe and cared for. So that’s our best ballpark speculation. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens, Councillor. You’re good, Councillor Hellman. Thank you, Councillor Hellman.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to staff, do you have any benchmarks for closing down these shelters? Just to kind of circle back to the emergency shelters. Do you have any benchmarks for closing shelters?

Because I think from what I understand, the goal is to invest less over time in emergency shelters and more into the upstream projects. Do you have any type of goals or benchmarks that you’re looking forward to? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, Chair and through you. Mr. Cooper, we’ll be happy to take this question. Great, go ahead, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate the question from Councillor Hamou. Yeah, we had started having some conversations with shelters pre-pandemic about the provincial direction and our housing stability action plan direction.

And we had started working on a plan to systematically start reducing shelter beds subject to seeing some of the investments we were making in our community to house folks. Sadly, the pandemic has blown that plan out of the water. So part of what we’re gonna work on in the next three years with the shelter transformation and engagement with the shelter providers is what that needs to look like, right? And does it look like something within a three-year window?

We’ve seen our by names list increased by 60% since the beginning of the pandemic. So we really need to see a little bit of a balance in our system and understand how the pandemic has impacted folks both in the short term, but also in the mid and long term. And then as well, what investments we’re making now on the roadway to 3,000 units, how that’s gonna impact our ability to house folks. We’re hoping to see a bit of an equilibrium on that for the shelter demand and then the housing matches to sort of, like I say, level off, but we’re not there right now.

And so those conversations will be part of that transformation work that our teams are gonna do with the shelter providers to sort of find the right timing. Subject to obviously external influences, availability of funding for shifting and pivoting. We really recognize some of the low hanging fruit we’re gonna look at this year around the alignment of behaviors, the alignment of appealing of any kind of restrictions, consistency, applications of restrictions. It seems like this has been what we heard through our community consultations, creating that lower barrier reaction system and being able to have other options for folks.

That’s gonna be our priority in year one with hopefully seeing some of the, like I say, things leveling off in years two and three to be able to have that conversation with agencies. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

I just wanted to offer a comment that I really appreciate. I just read a book about being trauma informed and I really appreciate the trauma informed methods you are using for housing. I think that it’s the way forward. And again, I appreciate all the work you are doing on homeless prevention.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from committee? So I have a few questions and maybe some comments.

So maybe I will ask Councillor Helmer as vice chair to take the chair. Okay, I’ve taken the chair. I have you on the speakers list. Let me know colleagues if you wanna get on there.

Go ahead, Councillor Cassie. Thank you, Councillor. So to Mr. Dickens, both of our delegates made comments about the RFP process, not being conducive towards collaboration.

And I think this is what we’re actually looking for is that kind of collaboration across the sector where different agencies can step up where their particular expertise is and sort of help each other out and work together in transforming the system. So I’m wondering how you respond to the RFP process that the city uses and is chosen to use in this situation, not helping with that collaboration. And could we or would we do anything different next time around? Thank you and through you presiding officer.

Thank you for the question. Certainly entering into the RFP process was something that was a decision after long conversation with our procurement team. It was a process that needed to occur in terms of following our own corporate policies, but also it had been a very long time, if ever, since the process had occurred. What we were looking to achieve through that RFP process was to gain some baseline on the introduction of new services, some new processes, but also looking to reflect the feedback that we have received from the community from individuals accessing services and service providers themselves.

So that is what formed the basis of the content of the RFP. As far as the RFP not being collaborative, that’s feedback we take to heart, absolutely a civic administration. But what I might also do is in order to expand on an answer to your question, Mr. Cooper was heavily involved in the evaluation process of the RFP in scoping the RFP and his team, as well as the single source negotiations.

And perhaps he can speak to some of the intent versus impact. Sure, go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr.

presiding officer. You know, the feedback is, as Mr. Dickens mentioned, is appreciated. I know in my conversations with all the providers and the community as well in our initial consultations, we were hearing the need to foster some change and that there might be some interest of additional individuals or additional agencies that might want to get into the business, so to speak, of shelter provision.

And I think what we saw through the RFP process was that is not in fact the case. The providers who have provided shelter services in our community for many, many years are still stepping to the plate and still stepping up to want to do this work. This is hard work. This is not easy work.

That has to be identified and reflected that these agencies in the shelter system that provides those services to the city’s most marginalized and vulnerable are, you know, it is very important work. And the words can’t express, you know, how great these agencies have been to come to the table. Recognizing, you know, an RFP process is, we weren’t looking to buy widgets. We were looking at social services and services for people.

So we did hear the feedback. We know that relationships were impacted as part of that process, but my team and I strive every day to ensure that we repair those relationships, understand and provide the feedback to our purchasing team around future procurements with our services and look at other opportunities as well as some system checks for other service managers and how they are procuring services similarly funded from the provincial federal government. So we are always striving to improve our procurement, but we do wanna make sure that the large amount of— I’m not sure it’s just me, Mr. Cooper, but we lost your audio.

As you can try turning off your video and seeing if you can get the audio back. Committee can hear me, but it looks like everything’s— I come back, there we go. Councillor Cassidy, can you hear us? Yes, I can hear you and everybody seems to be back except I don’t have my participant list up.

I have to fix everything over here too. Yeah, well, no problem. I’m chairing the meeting, so take your time. We have Mr.

Cooper, I saw him pop back on the screen and I’m just gonna see if he’s available. Looks like we lost a lot of people there all at once. Thank you. I’m not sure if the committee can hear me.

We can hear you, yeah, can hear me now. Okay, I’m not exactly sure where you lost me and my answer there, but I think, you know, what we recognize is the shelter system, it’s hard work. And we were looking to foster change and, you know, we recognize that the providers who do provide services currently in this system are willing to help foster that change. But a procurement process, like we weren’t looking to purchase widgets on this process.

We were really recognizing that the social services that are being offered to individuals may, you know, had to follow a specific process through our procurement policy and we’re gonna take some of that feedback back. So we are looking to obviously continue to foster the relationships with the existing providers and see what other service managers are doing across the system and across the province on how they procure provincial and federal funds as well and make improvements on that process. But it will say the work that we have done to date does ensure that we have procured the services in a clear and transparent manner and recognizing that there has been opportunity for competitiveness in this field, also recognizing that, you know, not everybody wants to get into shelter work. It is the same providers that have been providing the services for quite a number of years, still providing it today.

Thanks very much, Mr. Cooper. I’m gonna go to Councillor Cassidy. So if you have another question, then I have Councillor Renholz next on the list.

I see you raise your hand. Go ahead, Councillor Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I have, I have two more questions and then a comment. But my next question is that Councillor Lewis mentioned about people coming in here getting services from other communities. I’ve heard this as well, especially with regard to Elgin Middlesex Detention Center and how people are sent here, even if they have a tenuous link to the city of London. So I wonder what your response is around those kinds of comments.

Is that for Mr. Dickens? Sorry, yes, that’s for Mr. Dickens and/or Mr.

Cooper, whichever. Thank you. I will have Mr. Cooper answer this one.

His team tracks all of our HIFAS database and through the Coordinated Access team, they’re able to identify individuals in their home origins, if you will. So he’ll be better to speak to it. I’ll pass it to him now. Go ahead, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through Mr. Presiding Officer, it’s a great question. And one, I think our team hears quite often.

We do recognize that London as a regional center does do see a number of folks come into our community from neighboring communities and across the province. We recognize that what we can do and what we can control in our community is a coordinated intake. And so what my team then does is they work with individuals when they present to a shelter system for the first time to prevent and divert them back to home community, if that’s where they’re looking to go. And so we do a lot of great work upstream with the hospitals, with the other institutions in our center here that may look to discharge individuals at any given time.

And so my team does have a great practice and protocol to support individuals to get home and to their home communities. Thank you. Thank you for that answer as well. And so, and I just wanna touch on the temporary funding, excuse me, that we received through COVID relief funding and specifically programs like the pop-up shelters in the trailers at the Parkwood Hospital and that Fanshawe golf and last year there was a similar program that was set up.

So I’m wondering, you know, what’s the long-term? People talk about that, like this is temporary and the city’s only doing this during the winter. And then what happens when the spring comes? So what does happen to these individuals once spring comes and this trailer system is shut down?

We’d like to hand all that. To the staff. Thank you, Ms. Rosetta and Officer.

I’ll take that question. Thank you for the question. I think, you know, that is the perpetual challenge that we see in community is that the immediate needs of individuals and how we can best respond to support both individuals experiencing and sheltered homelessness, individuals living in shelter, attending resting spaces or individuals living precariously housed. My team is working daily as everybody has mentioned here on those solutions.

You know, we did focus Fanshawe for housing. We are seeing a lot of good outcomes there. We have a number of individuals who’ve been able to stabilize in that community. They’re creating that community and they’ve been able to go for addictions treatments.

We have a number of folks that have been able to actively seek housing and we do have a number of move-ins on both locations as if you may have seen in a couple of the news articles recently in the paper. So, you know, we are slowly moving towards, continuing to house folks as we look to continue to negotiate units with private developers, nonprofit developers. We are matching individuals to those units off our by name lesson and focusing on reduction, hopefully, not reduction of beds and shelters, but reduction of that reliance on shelter so that we can move individuals into those shelter beds in the short term while of individuals find housing. So, you know, it is a multifaceted approach and there isn’t one exact answer for Fanshawe or the Parkwood site.

But like I say, our housing is the answer for us in the long term and it is what we continue to achieve and work folks towards their housing stability journey. And so I think the programs that Mr. Dickens mentioned earlier around the housing allowances and other investments that are made by council through the roadmap to the 3000 are going to tie in directly to supporting individuals to that journey. Hey, Councillor Cassidy for comments and then we’ll just take the chair back once you’re done with those.

Excellent, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So thank you for those answers. I think it’s important for people to hear because I think it’s, these are questions that people in the community at large have.

But I just wanna say first and foremost, thank you to Mr. Deactis and to Mr. Rose luck for coming here today and speaking to us. Thank you for your delegations.

And in particular, thank you to the entire teams at the mission services and at Salvation Army in the center of hope. And also the youth opportunities unlimited people, the unity project team and London Cares Homeless Response Services and all of the agencies and organizations that are doing this work in the city. I know I’m gonna quote the mayor and I may or may not be quoting his Cape Breton mother, but you are doing the work of angels. Absolutely, 100%.

I have toured both of the facilities that were represented today through the delegations. I have had countless conversations with our city staff when there has been a crisis and when it has just been ongoing talking about the work that’s going on. This is very difficult work. And the people that are engaged in this work are passionate and dedicated people, doing their very, very best.

Not everybody is always going to agree on the approach, the approach that is taken by whichever sector organization, but everybody can agree that the people involved in this work are passionate and dedicated individuals and groups of individuals. And we could not have made the progress that has been made without these individuals doing this work in the city. So I, for one, am extremely grateful for the work that you do and I appreciate it very much. So with that, I will take the chair back and I will go to Councilor Van Holst.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for your comments. My question is this, as we transition away from a system that relies on emergency beds, and we’re also transitioning away from the use of some pretty substantial pieces of real estate that have the beds in them. And so is there a plan for those in the future?

How will those buildings change to continue to assist while the number of emergency beds is reduced? Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

I think that reality is a few years out, for sure. But those are discussions that happen at the organizational level with each respective shelter operator having discussions with their governance groups around the use of space, how they use their space currently. I know some organizations are very busy in the planning stages of redesigning and repurposing existing space. And those are conversations we’ve also had with providers around dedicating space to be transitional housing focus, looking at how they can use large infrastructure to be both emergency shelter bed and also some type of transitional housing.

But those are conversations that will be ongoing, frankly, but there will be decisions that are made at the organizational governance level. And I think that’s probably where they should be. Thank you, Councillor Vanholst. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Excellent. Are there any other questions or comments from committee or visiting members of council? I’m seeing that, so I would look for a motion and I’m assuming that people would want to move this staff recommendation unless they have something different. Moved by Councillor Hamu, seconded by Councillor Helmer.

And I know this was a consent item, but this was an extremely important conversation. And I recognize that it took some time, but I think I don’t think anybody would disagree that that was time well spent. And with that, I will call the question. Sorry, and I will call the question verbally.

And I will follow my screen again, Councillor Hillier. Yes. Councillor Helmer. Yes.

Councillor Hamu. Yes. Mayor Holder. Yes.

Councillor Saleh. Yes. And I vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero.

That takes us to item 2.3 and Councillor Hillier, you vote that item. Yes, thank you very much. Yes, just one question. Looking at the number of units impacted by the EOA, EOM coming up in the future, what are the levels of funding from provincial and federal levels are ending with this?

And are we being asked to pick this up? I see Mr. Cooper on the screen. So I guess I will go to you, Mr.

Cooper. Yes, thank you for the question and through the chair. So as the mortgages and agreements and the amount of money that’s transferred from the federal government and the provincial government will be going down. So typically right across Canada and London’s not immune to this, we’re looking at about 2028, about 90% of all units or federal units will be off of agreement.

Trickling down to about 2032 will be the end of all units. So all the projects signed different agreements and mortgages. And so they all come up to end right over the near future. They all started in around 2019 and that’s when the trickle started.

And now between 2023 to 2028, it’s gonna be a real, what we call the cliff. It’s the social housing cliff during that time. And that’s where we’ll be seeing the most drop off. Councillor Hilliard.

So how much are we talking about, dollar-wise being transferred as a percentage? Are they paying 20%, 30%? How much is being transferred to us? Oh, okay.

So it’s a formula that was developed in about the early 1980s called the HSA. The amount of money changes over the years. And so every year it’s gonna be a different amount. Just as the mortgages are paid and the amount of money.

So it’s difficult to say that it’s gonna be this amount and it’s gonna be into right till 2028. But by 2029, it should be 2032, it’ll be zero. But right now, if we look at the amount of money that we’re getting, if we flatline the contribution that the city provides at 9.1, that will hopefully then be able to bridge some of the construction in the capital deficit. But the amount of money that actually comes from the federal government and the province, it declines over time.

So it’s not a static amount. I notice it declines over time, but I also look forward. And in the next term, I’m looking at 852 units 2027. That is a large hit.

Yes. Every year it’s gonna be a different number of units just because of the type, oh, I’m sorry, through the tear on this one. Yes, thank you. The number of units coming over each year will be a different amount.

Similarly, it’s also a different amount of non-profits. So it might be one non-profit having 200 units or it might be 10 non-profits having 20 units. So it’s a different number of units and also a different number of non-profit providers. So, okay.

Let me see if I can get it down. How much money are we talking about going, how have we done any estimates of how much additional funding this will be required in the coming years? Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

Through the chair, the amount of money that will take over the years, there won’t be any money required from the city to come to the mortgages because we already get the mortgage money for that. It’s the amount of money that is for the capital that is of acute need, but also too is also the increasing operating. There’s basically almost enough money to cover the operating until the mortgages are up and then they’ll have to be making some decisions as to how they want to cover the operating costs. Every project is different.

Some are at the affordable level. They should be making enough money to keep the lights on, as I would say. At the level for RGI, that’s a deep subsidy, they will be requiring more of a subsidy that’s usually covered through the rental supplement, but they also might be requiring more operating. Every project is different and we should be developing a plan and working with each individual organization.

So going forward, if they are required to say something major, like a major roof renovation or construction, would they be required to go to get an additional mortgage for this? Through the chair, they would then have to approach the city and if the city has enough money to provide for that repair, that repair money does come from the province. It’s not enough to cover all of the costs for all the non-profits, but if the city does have enough as part of the capital plan, we prioritize the projects based off need and also the type of repair that’s required for the building to ensure the sustainability. Councilor.

  • Thank you very much. Going forward, it would be nice if we would know in advance of anything being put onto us. That’s what the only way I can say it. I’ll go to you, Councilor.

Haller. I don’t think it’s necessary. Okay, great, thank you. Any other questions or comments on this report?

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. I look for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councilor Halmer, seconded by Councilor Hillier.

I believe that would be the staff recommendation that’s in the report, and I’ll call the question on that. Councilor Hillier. - Yes. Councilor Halmer.

  • Yes. Councilor Hamou. - Yes. Mr.

Mayor. - Yes. Councilor Salih. - Yes.

And I vote yes. Housing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, we have no scheduled items, no items for direction. The only remaining item on the agenda is the deferred matters list.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for that. Moved by Councilor Hillier, seconded by Mr. Mayor, thank you. Any discussion on the deferred matters list?

Seeing none, I’ll call the question. Councilor Hillier. - Yes. Councilor Hamou.

  • Yes. Mr. Mayor. - Yes.

Councilor Salih. - Yes. Councilor Halmer. - Yes.

And I vote yes. Housing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. That is it for our public agenda. We have no confidential items, so I will look for a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Councilor Halmer, seconded by Councilor Hillier. All those in favor by show of hands. You see that? That motion passes.

I’ve been advised that the motion passed. Thank you, everybody. Have a wonderful afternoon.