April 12, 2023, 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 S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That Items 2.1 and 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2023-03-23 ACAC Report

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the 3rd Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on March 23, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   RFP-2022-309 Prime Consulting Services for the New Fire Station No. 15

2023-04-12 SR - RFP-2022-309 Prime Consulting Services for the new Fire Station No 15 - Full

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 12, 2023, related to RFP-2022-309 Prime Consulting Services for the New Fire Station No. 15:

a)    the proposal submitted by Cornerstone Architecture Incorporated, 110-700 Richmond Street, London, Ontario, N6A 5C7, for the Prime Consultant Services for the New Fire Station No. 15 project for a fee of $421,285.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the evaluation team determined the proposal submitted by Cornerstone Architecture Incorporated provided the best technical and financial value to the Corporation, met the City’s requirements in all areas and acceptance is in accordance with section 15.2 of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Sources of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the project;

d)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with the consultant for the work; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute a contract or any other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2023-P16)

Motion Passed

2023-04-12 SR Property Standards Related Demolitions

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 12, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 25, 2023, to approve the potential demolition of vacant buildings at 689 Hamilton Road, 253, 255 and 257 Grey Street and 520 South Street under the Property Standards provisions of the Building Code Act; it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, and verbal delegation, from H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-P10D)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve the delegation request by H. Froussios, Zelinka Priamo Ltd., to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.4   2022-2023 Winter Response and Community Accountability Working Group Funding Reallocation Request

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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 April 12, 2023, related to the 2022-2023 Winter Response and Community Accountability Working Group Funding Reallocation Request:

a)    a one-time contract amendment, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 20.3.e, BE APPROVED for London Cares at a total estimated cost of up to $92,500;

b)    a one-time contract amendment, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 20.3.e, BE APPROVED for Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) Thames Valley Addictions and Mental Health Services at a total estimated cost of up to $85,750;

c)    a one-time contract amendment, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 20.3.e, BE APPROVED for The Salvation Army, Centre of Hope at a total estimated cost of up to $131,000;

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

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending a Purchase of Service Agreement with the above noted programs.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 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, 48 minutes)

Good afternoon. This is the seventh meeting of Community and Protective Services Committee. Please check the website for additional meeting details. There’s live streaming happening via YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is situated in the traditional lands of the International Ashback, Haudenosaunee, Linamak and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, language and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nation Métis and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have our change to work and live within this territory.

Joining me in chambers today, the members of committee are myself as chair, Councillor Stevenson, Pribble, ramen for and Mayor Morgan is absent. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, to make a request specific to this meeting. Please contact dpsc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I’ll make note as well that we have an added agenda, so just make sure that you have the right one that you’re going off of for those online and in chambers here.

I’m looking to committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, there’s four items before us on the consent. Okay, I need to pull 2.2 separate as we do have a delegation request for it. Looking to see if anyone else would like anything pulled from 2.1, 2.3 or 2.4.

Looking for a mover of 2.1, 2.2 and 2.1. Sorry, 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4. We can pull 2.4. Okay, looking for a mover then of 2.1 and 2.3.

Moved by Councillor Stevenson, council seconded by Councillor ramen. Looking to see if there’s any questions on items 2.1 and 2.3. I’ll end the question. Councillor Purple, closing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Thank you, item 2.2. I will need someone to move it, recognizing that there is a request for delegation status from a representative of Zilinco Priemo. They are joining us virtually today.

So moved by Councillor Stevenson. That’s for the item and the delegation request. We need to do it. Okay, delegation comes first.

So moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor ramen. Calling the question. Councillor Purple, closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero.

Thank you at this time. The delegation can come forward virtually. I think we can see you on the screen. You have up to five minutes and we do have your communication to us in our packages today.

So please proceed and welcome. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you for the opportunity to allow me to speak on behalf of our client this afternoon. Really the purpose for me attending this afternoon is to see if there’s any questions regarding the correspondence that we submitted late last week.

Again, this came as a bit of a surprise that there was intended to demolish. We’ve been involved in this process with the new owner for almost a year now. And there is plans to redevelop the property for an 18-story mixed use building. Actually, we have a minor variance application that’s being considered tomorrow that will allow the development to proceed.

And we’re also looking to submit for site plan approval within the next week or so. So we, but upon finding out about the city’s intended to demolish these buildings, we have taken the necessary steps to, on behalf of our client to make sure that the demolition permits have been applied for and all the clearances have been obtained. So what we’re hoping is that the city will just allow us to proceed on that basis and not feel like they need to take any more action on these properties. So on that, I’m just here to answer any questions that you may have with respect to the letter that we submitted, thank you.

Thank you. Traditionally, we don’t do questions back and forth, but I know this is a little bit of a different situation that you’re on our docket today, but you’re on Planning Environment Committee tomorrow evening. And I know it’s gotten some news coverage as well. Looking to committee to see if you’re, if you want to hear from staff of with this information being before us of ways forward to.

Okay, so looking, Mr. Jeffrey is way with us. Mr. Jeffrey, I don’t know if you wanted to speak to this one, just updating us as there is communication that’s now public before us.

If staff would be satisfied with committee, waiting to see what happens at Peck tomorrow evening and pushing this off for a cycle should resolve itself or advice on a way forward for this one. Do you Madam Chair, I thank you. I would be willing to work with the property owner and their hired consultant here to see through the process of the site plan application as well as the minor variance. Thank you.

And I will correct myself that it’s on adjustment tomorrow. So looking to committee for further questions of staff or if you would like to just receive this communication and take no action or if you had a different path forward that you were thinking of. Okay, I’ll go to you one second. Just if we did want to remove just specifically the properties that Zilinko Priemo is referencing, the clerk does have wording that they could read out for us.

Councillor ramen. Thank you and three before we do that. I’m wondering if we might be able to hear from staff on this before we move forward. Thanks.

Did you have further questions of Mr. Jeffrey who’s spoken? I was hoping maybe Mr. Mathers could help us.

I’m sure he’d be happy to understand where we are at at this point. Mr. Mathers. Absolutely through the chair.

We look forward to working with the owner of these properties. I will note that they have been unresponsive to us and we would still recommend moving forward with the recommendation as it stands. The reason for that is we of course never want to have to demolish a property and this would allow us that leverage to be able to ensure that they do what they’re committing to do and if they are working with us and they’re going through a process that they will be demolishing themselves, that would be our preferred way forward. So this would allow us to maintain that ability to ensure that there’s action taken on this site.

So we would recommend that you maintain the recommendation as it’s listed. Councilor Ramana, follow-up? Thank you. I’m happy to move that recommendation as it’s worded here.

Okay. If I may from the church to follow-up question to Mr. Mathers, realizing we always prefer to work together in collaboration with the community. Is there a timeline we would put on the demolishing of, or if they just seem engaged in moving forward that we’re pleased?

Through the chair. If the owner of the property would actually contact our bylaw officials, that’s something they would work out with a proposal type of a process. So if they provide some timelines and then we just ensure that those timelines are maintained, then I think it can work out for both ourselves and for the owner. So would bylaws or a key staff person, you would recommend contacting, just recognizing we have a representative today that could be very clear and efficient?

Through the chair, we do that, that individual is listed on the letters that have been sent out. However, if it’s the will of committee here, we’ll also provide that documentation to their representative here through their planner. Councillor Stevenson. So just for clarity, is the best way forward to leave it as is and let the work out an arrangement versus removing the properties tonight?

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, my recommendation would be to leave the recommendation as it is, and then we’ll work together to try to come up with a positive result for all of us. Looking for further questions from committee?

Yeah, so just on the floor at the moment is item 2.2, and if there’s any Councillors joining us virtually or in person who have questions, just on item 2.2 for the property standards related demolition, Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. Sorry, I just want to clarify this. Are we, can I talk about the other properties or just the three that?

All of them. Okay, thank you. Thank you for letting me be the guest this evening. I didn’t just here to express my thanks from my ward.

I really appreciate working with staff in terms of the demolition proposal for 689 Hamilton Road. I know, I’m sure you’re all as thankful as I am that we won’t be getting any more correspondence. I received quite a bit. There’s a banner that also has the mayor and by-law on it as well, so it will be nice to finally put this issue to rest, and I know the community is really looking forward to it.

I would ask this committee to move this process forward because it is something that the community has really pushed for, that I’ve pushed for, and we would really like to see a resolution to this. Thank you. Thank you. I think Councillor Ramen had moved it.

I need a seconder and Councillor Stevenson. Final call for questions or comments on item 2.2. Seeing none online or in chambers, calling the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, Mr. Councillor McAllister is cheering in the corner, well, a good start to your evening. 2.4 is the Winter Response and Community Accountability Working Group Funding Reallocation Request. There is an added staff report, so I’m just going to go to staff briefly first to give an overview of the added report and then open it up for a conversation amongst colleagues realizing that there’s probably some questions.

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you. The report that you see before you on the agenda is a reflection of the recommendations coming out of the Community Accountability Working Group, which has been spearheading and coordinating this year’s Winter Response.

Again, which is a different approach taken this year than the previous two Winter Response, which was more city-led. The recommendations in the report aim to use projected unspent funds that were allocated to the Winter Response this year. Those projected unspent funds would be directed towards three recommendations coming from the group, which include indoor daytime drop-in spaces, extended operating hours at the coffee house that would run well into the evening hours, and then some additional shelter beds, shower access, and security personnel at the center of hope. So happy to take any questions from committee.

So we can certainly take some questions from committee and then at any point if someone wants to remove the recommendation or amend part of it, happy to do that as well. So looking, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the Chair. I’m just curious as to why there isn’t more of a focus on beds.

There’s only 16 beds for three months, and given that that was the focus of the Winter Response, I’m just wondering why the shift. Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your indulgence to have Mr. Cooper with us today to also provide some input. This is the recommendation that has come from the community organizations. So the Accountability Working Group represents a number of organizations involved in the Winter Response.

They go through a collective decision-making process, and they have brought forward these recommendations stating that these are the areas of focus that they feel are most needed at this time, and that would have the greatest impact, I suppose, with those that they’re trying to support. So I appreciate the question in terms of why not more beds, I think from a resourcing perspective, this is where they feel they can have the biggest impact right now, but again, these are the recommendations that the community group has brought forward as the top choices based on what they feel is best to pursue. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and through the Chair.

Were there proposals for beds that were not accepted to staff? Thank you, and through you, Chair, not to my knowledge. We did not receive all of the proposals directly. The proposals went to the Community Accountability Working Group, which was spearheaded by London Cares.

So if there were additional proposals for additional beds, we did not receive those directly. And also what you see here allows the programs to stay within the original budgeted allocation. So any additional beds probably would have pushed that budget beyond what we had already proposed. Okay, I’m going to do Councillor Stevenson, and then when you’re done questions, Councillor Robinson on the list, and then Councillor Provel, and we’ll keep going from there.

As we’ve previously emailed, this winter response was community driven coming out of the hunger strike with an emphasis on we need beds for people. We still have the issue of the 650,000, and I know I’ve had feedback that somehow I’m being critical of safe space, and that isn’t my intention at all, because that organization is funded through the multi-year grants process, and we’re not talking about that at all. What I’m talking about is the 650,000 that was allocated for 20 women overnight beds and 24/7 operation. And I’m not sure, I mean, there’s even accountability in the name of the group.

And I’m just wondering why it hasn’t been discussed that there have not been beds yet. I have seen that there’s advertisements for jobs just recently on the weekend. But from trying to answer to both the taxpayers who are funding this and the residents who are looking, have lost, I think we had 430 beds previous to the winter response ending. So there’s a lot of people who, as of April 1st, don’t have access to a mattress in doors within our facilities.

And so I’d like to know how to answer the questions of residents when they say, you know, that we’ve got shelters that have capacity to do more. And we are instead creating a new organization, hiring new staff, training capital beds and everything, when across the street at our gate, they were operating. That has closed. And now we’re looking to hire, you know what I mean?

It’s difficult to explain to people as to why. So I’m wondering if staff can help me with that. Does staff please? Thank you and through you, Chair.

Couple of topics to touch on there. So you’ll notice in the report where we actually reference that there’s unspent funds associated to the delay in safe space. So the piece around $650,000 being out there somewhere in the ether, not accounted for, we’re actually reallocating the unspent funds from safe space due to the delay in operating towards these recommendations, as well as other delays in the arc, for example, being able to expand to additional sites. As far as why the recommendations did not come forward to reflect additional beds at the arc, I don’t really have a solid answer for that other than the conversations were held between organizations that are making these recommendations and what they brought forward to us was this list.

We did not pair this list down. There was no additional items on the list. This is what was represented for us. So the other piece about safe space and trying to sort of correlate what they do with what a traditional shelter does, I think are two very different things.

And there’s a reason safe space exists and why they’re successful. We have seen in the first two weeks of operating that safe spaces provided more showers than one of our traditional shelters has been able to do in three months. They are seeing a high quantity of individuals access their services. And the staffing piece is not to be understated.

This is really difficult work with very difficult and complex populations and organizations have been trying to recruit your right. And those delays do hamper our ability to have the maximum effort or maximum impact on the winter response. I sympathize with those organizations. I sympathize with safe space and doing all that they can to try and staff up as fast as they can.

We are seeing their hours increase. We do have regular ongoing contact with London Cares as a lead agency. We are going through all of the operating impacts, the projected budgets. And we will be having some of those service reviews happening here shortly as well.

So we’re staying on top of this and doing everything we can to be both supportive and managing the winter response accordingly. Okay, Councillor, follow up. Yeah, there is because, you know, thank you and through the chair. I understand that this is different and not city-led as in previous years.

And ultimately, we are responsible. And so I really need a reason as to why we would fund a new organization to start up with both capital training and staffing for a temporary response. Because Salvation Army and I’m grateful to see this reallocation of funds for the unspent. But they’re doing 16 beds which is 24/7 drop-in center, three meals a day plus snacks.

Whereas, you know, so there are organizations that are capable of providing the desperately needed service. And I’ve been told twice that Safe Space will not have 24/7 and it does not do meals. So I understand that we’ve deferred it to the community, but I’m in this moment feeling like maybe we need to refer it back because it needs to be, there’s a desperate, desperate need out there. That’s what precipitated this $5 million winter response and giving it to the community.

And so now if the community is gonna lead it, then they get to be accountable then to us here in City Council to say why would we invest all of this money when there are organizations that are capable and ready to provide more service for less dollars. The money will go further that way. It’ll be more immediate and people get what they need. So my question is help me get the best results here and help these service agencies provide the desperately needed service.

Sorry, I was just looking for clarification. If that’s a question for staff and if you have a problem with us, like if your concern is the Salvation Army and others getting this funding or if you’re talking about defunding Safe Space. Okay, don’t like that terminology. I’m looking to provide people the beds and meals and 24/7 drop-in that is desperately needed.

And so this, although I don’t totally understand why only one of the three is offering beds and why we’re not doing more beds, I kinda like the answers to that. I’m very happy with Salvation Army in the sense that we’ve got beds 24/7 in meals. That’s what’s needed. So what I’m wondering is going forward, there’s still the other half of the 650,000 from June until November.

We’ve got an organization that is ramping up and hiring at a time when we know that our other civil service agencies can barely meet their resourcing needs. So I’m concerned that we’re not looking at this as a whole community and that we’re gonna impede others in trying to do good in another area. And so I’m looking, like what I would like to see is the Salvation Army be allowed to do it for the entire time up until the end of November because they can provide 24/7, three meals a day, plus snacks and beds. And then Arc Aid is right across the street from Safe Space with the ability, the mattresses, they had the staff.

And I’m open to another organization, but somebody that’s already been doing it, people know that the access is there versus trying to move them to a new organization that has gonna have a new staff and new capital equipment. I’m not seeing this as the best use of funds to staff. Through you, Chair, thank you. And I’ll just sort of ask a clarifying question.

If the counselor’s asking that we redirect the other half of the $650,000 as well as, in addition to what’s in this report. And if that’s committee’s recommendation or direction to staff is to reallocate those funds from Safe Space to another organization, we would certainly take the necessary steps to start that process. But just clarifying if that’s what I heard. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. And yes, looking for the reasoning why we wouldn’t do that, that is my recommendation that we continue with the organizations that have been doing it. Again, remembering this is temporary funding. It’s just temporary.

So we’ve got organizations that are capable already, unless there’s a compelling reason to fund a new organization. I understand the original intent, but having that not been met now and having us, I’m seeing postings on Facebook where Arcade is laying off staff and closing 70 beds. From the taxpayers, the residents in London, they are asking me, the residents in my award, are saying, what are you guys doing? Like, why is this shutting down?

And then you’ve got another organization starting up that isn’t able to meet the demand as urgently as the other ones are. So, like I said, other than I was asking for the reasons, if we don’t have reasons, then yes, absolutely. I would like to see us redirect, given that it’s temporary funding, and given that it is the most cost effective and immediate way to get the 24/7 beds with meals or the best that can be done. Arcade, I believe, is beds and some meals.

Can I stop, please? Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’ll try to provide some reasoning, which I think we’ve shared with some members of committee in the past. The traditional spaces, if you will, are typically co-ed. There may be some segregation of space, but they’re typical co-ed or mixed gender on site.

The women that save space has been seeing in their first two weeks of service are not women that would typically feel safe going into co-ed living arrangements. Very different clientele. And while we can look at economies of scale and the efficiencies from a financial perspective of a large organization’s adding a couple beds or opening a wing here and there, it does not meet the needs of everybody gets what they want. And the clientele that save space is desperately trying to serve to the best of their ability.

It’s very much a niche population, but it’s a population that they’re trying to do the best they can to create a safe location for women only. And we would not be getting that in return at the other locations that are proposed, but again, defer to the direction of committee on what to do with the remaining funds. Thank you. Okay, I’m gonna go to the other speakers first and then we’ll circle.

Yep. Just to say that I hear you on that and you have expressed that and I understand the reason in the original winter response application, but now that we’re in April and there are so many people who’ve just lost their bed. I think it’s just a different perspective now to say I appreciate what was trying to be done, but knowing this is only temporary. There’s a great, great, great, great need that I feel it’s best served to make sure that those people who, you know, we’re just putting a small dent in the need in even reallocating this money, right?

We’re not gonna be able to continue what we did in the winter. So while I hear you, I think given that we’re where we are at right now, we’ve got a population that’s used to being served in certain locations and to try to we, I just feel yes that can I, I’ll defer to others. I have Councilor Raman and then Councilor Pribble. Thank you and through you, Chair.

First, thank you to staff for the report and the openness to having a discussion and answering questions today at committee. I just for my own understanding, I’m just wondering on number three for the proposed for reallocated funds for the Center of Hope, does this maximize the amount of beds that they would be able to have at that location at 16? Thank you and through the chair, the space at Center of Hope is a very large space encompassing more than just shelter beds. There is a recovery center there as well as a number of transitional beds.

So we have constant meetings and communications with the Center of Hope on the number of folks that they serve men and women in different ways. The challenge becomes there’s a lot of people in that space at that one time and you do get some other societal challenges and social challenges that come when you start putting more and more and more people into one location. So I’m sure there’s opportunities to explore with that organization on what is safe for that space but as Mr. Dickens alluded to earlier, it doesn’t mean necessarily the intent of the purpose of safe space, what the community was telling us for trying to support women who are fleeing violence, who are involved in sex work, it does not support those folks.

Mr. Ramen? Just to further understand that. So what you’re saying is, so within the Center of Hope, there’s set up for the eight female shelter beds.

You’re saying that those are in a co-ed facility and that there is no separate wing and that there is no ability to provide the protective needs that an organization like Safe Space could. Mr. Cooper? Thank you and through the chair, there’s actually 25 existing beds that we support through original contracts with Center of Hope.

We’ve added an additional 15 as part of the original winter response and now looking to add another eight. So they are on a separate floor but there is co-ed access to elevator, to meals in and out of the building. It is a large building with a lot of common areas and so the women have access to all of those areas as well. There isn’t a secured space I would suggest beyond the main four where the women are sleeping that women could access.

Councillor Ramen? Thank you. And beyond the three months, if there was need or desire to have these 16 additional beds at Center for Hope, that would be an opportunity and that would be something that would come back to committee for consideration to staff. Thank you.

I can start this and have Mr. Dickens. ‘Cause this gets into the conversation of the whole of community response with the health and homelessness. We heard as part of that community consultation and discussion that bigger isn’t always better when it comes to shelters.

And I think the reality that we’ve seen is it serves a specific purpose but it’s not meeting the increased need or the types of vulnerable populations that we’re seeing in our community. They do great work. They do great job, don’t get me wrong. They serve a lot of people and do a lot of things well.

But there are other populations that just will not access that space or other spaces in London that we’re seeing living unsheltered that we wanna try and find a solution for in the interim until the larger whole of community response in those community hubs are up and running. Councillor Ramen? Thank you so much for spending that time explaining that. I really do appreciate it.

And I think that it’s always helpful for us to have more of that information here in terms of the rationale. When we’re in committee, I hope people that are watching understand that what we’re going off of what we’re asking questions on is what’s coming in the report. And some of these finer points around the rationale as to why these decisions are being made isn’t very clear to us nor to the public. And so I think these conversations where we’re having this bigger dialogue around some of these intricacies of the decision making and why we’re having these decisions being made are really important to the public because what they see is something different sometimes in the media.

And I think it’s really, really critical that we keep having this dialogue. So I hope you don’t mind the continued questioning. I really appreciate it. It helps me to make a more informed decision.

And I’ll be supporting the recommendation for that reason, thank you. Would you like to move the recommendation? Happy to move it, thank you. Would there be a seconder out there?

Councillor for our second sit. Councillor Pribbles, next to my speaker’s list. Just a few comments and few questions in terms of the recommendations. I’m glad certainly to see them that there were actually some savings and we are putting it forward for some additional help to these people.

We do have crisis there and we all know that. And I’m gonna tell you, for example, we had a big encampment in London. There were up to 14 people last year. Nearby school issues left and right.

Right now I was there this afternoon because I was told that the encampment is starting and we have a first 10 there. And the people and the parents are very worried about it. So we don’t go through the same thing as last year. And again, a lot of issues and the encampment ended up being there ‘til I think it was still fall ‘til we had the big fire.

I’ll tell you right now, within the three downtown blocks that I do on a daily basis, we went in five days from eight people to 24 people. So issues are huge there. I do think that in terms of if I address the three points the arcade, I love to see the, from the organizations from the agency that are coming up with their own fundraising efforts like this organization does. By the way, they did move their time.

They’re providing from one o’clock, not just from 2.30, which I think is great. They also they provide potentially 30 beds for three months for $200,000, which I think that as my fellow counselor mentioned, I think that it should be a thing that we should look at. And again, what does the investment, which investment gets us the furthest? And I think that’s a thing that we should look at in terms of the salvation army.

I think it’s great, especially for the security because just within last week, that one of their staff had a knife to the throat and bowled to their head. So I think that those are really huge, huge concerns. My thing is that, and I know our partner for this is London cares. I feel that we are not proactive enough and we are a lot reactive that we again, we got, we are into the April, this ended in March, and we are again trying to catch our breath.

I know in the big picture, we then, which I think is great, the initiative we are doing with homelessness and to mental health, fantastic. But I would like to see in the big picture now, when do you think we’ll have certain results or initiatives coming out of this? Because again, this is buying us minimum three months and we are really addressing total, total minimums. We will have the homelessness and so there will be more people on the street in the encampment, no doubt, because all these people that had truth over their head during winter, they don’t have it and they won’t have it now.

So I just want to know now kind of, in terms of the bigger picture, whenever you’re gonna have any proposals from the summit and if they’re not within three months, what are we gonna do and are we gonna change this process? So we really get from every dollar, the biggest mileage we can. Daph, please. Thank you, Chair and through you.

I don’t want to play spoiler here because there’s an SPPC report coming forward next week, which is the first update on the health and homelessness work and that report to SPPC will outline the work that has taken, that has happened to date and outline some of the next steps in that work. All that being said, we are moving forward on a tight timeline that we are gonna be standing up our implementation tables in May and June to come forward with clear designs, recommendations to start activating hubs, our highly supportive housing, as well as some various implementation tables focusing on standards of care, workforce development and encampments. So that’s the timeline we’re working on. You’ll see in the report that you’ll have next week at SPPC that there’ll be two implementation and strategy meetings formerly known as governance table meetings happening this month in which we’ll springboard right into the implementation table work in May and June.

So that’s our timeline. That doesn’t mean a hub’s gonna open in June. It means we’re gonna be really close to making the recommendations and starting that process to open hubs. And now this isn’t every year and I don’t mean to sound callous with this, but this is the challenge with temporary winter responses is that they are for a time limited period.

I get that. We wrestle with this all the time that when beds are provided during the coldest months, whether it’s in formerly known as construction trailers converted to housing or whether it’s in pre-existing indoor spaces like what we’ve had this year. When those beds end, there is an impact to the individuals that they’ve been supporting. And there’s a direct impact to the community, absolutely.

Mr. Cooper’s team has seen an increase in calls around encampments. We’ve seen an increase in challenges with existing encampments. And this is the time of year that resources become really challenging for us at the city in terms of trying to support people and support our organizations the best they can, but also support Londoners who call in and voice their concerns for people’s wellbeing and concerns for their outdoor spaces.

So this is a bridge with a line completely. Remains to be determined, but we are moving as fast as we can on the health and homelessness summit work. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. So in spring months, I’m just trying to think and if we don’t have any resolutions from the summit or initiatives place starting in June, which just takes us still June to whatever we are gonna approve now or put forward.

When can we get together? So again, we don’t go into the middle of June and then we are gonna start addressing the issues and have arcades, center of hopes. So we don’t go backwards and we don’t try to save the people who are already going and finding other jobs, so they have to recruit. And how can we be more proactive?

So again, we are not into the 10 days of the month and then we go backwards. The staff? Thank you, Chair, and through you. I’ll just touch on the proactive piece and then that Mr.

Cooper speak. You’re right, as we work with a number of community organizations, we sometimes get things last minute. In terms of pulling together ideas, getting new ideas come our way to get these recommendations. Absolutely, it comes after the end of March.

We’ll be moving forward with these, depending on Council’s direction. But as far as where are we gonna be proactively at the end of June and in the end of these three months, what we would look to is that if there are still unspent funds, if there’s a new source of funding, be it through our HPP funding or through federal provincial funding pockets, you could expect to see civic administration before you, again, outlining possible reinvestments or extensions or new investments based on what the need in the community is. And as we continue to stand up the work of the Health and Homelessness Summit, that too will direct what we need to be bringing to you. It may point us in a direction that we need to be before you to propose a recommendation to support people that doesn’t look like this and doesn’t necessarily look like the end state of what the hubs and the housing and the encampment strategy would look like.

But that work will unfold quite quickly and we will continue to work as proactively as we can with the organizations as proactively as they can. Councilor Pribble, do you have a follow-up? Sorry, I saw Mr. Dickens said that Mr.

Cooper is going to say something before he did. Sorry, I didn’t want to ruin any surprises. Mr. Cooper, did you want to chime in?

If not, and Councilor Pribble might have another question or? Thank you. I was just going to add, as Mr. Dickens had indicated with the Health and Homelessness work, right?

The code design is really the key and we have more players around the table with that health and homelessness focus, that health is housing, health will help solve some of these challenges. And so I think the key deliverables from the design of the hubs, those 13 points and those 13 key outcomes are what the new hubs are going to look like, right? That’s not what the current system looks like. And so that for me is that’s going to take the work and so we’re in this transition bridge as Mr.

Dickens indicated timeframe. And so our teams are absolutely doing everything we can, absolutely looking at the options that we can and as Mr. Dickens had indicated, if a bridge, an extended bridge needs to be happened as code design by that team, we will get it in front of Council as quickly as we can for the appropriate consideration. Mr.

Pribble? I really hope that the latest maybe we’ll have some results or proposals and hopefully some new source of funding so we can announce certain things again before these agencies let their people go, et cetera. One last thing that I just want to mention, which I’m quite sure you probably are aware of, and again, we have a new agency that we awarded the amounts to and they are in the process of recruiting and their hourly wage is quite a bit higher than the other ones that are currently employing, which they are promoting, it’s they’re publicly saying $25, which most other ones are $20. The ones that are paying $20 that are restricted to those amounts and they don’t want to lose their people and it’s actually better for us, for these organizations, for these people to stay there because it’s more feasible and better for our society.

And now we have a new organization that’s overpaying and potentially will be stealing people from the other agencies. So I think that’s a thing for us, even though it is through London Cares, but again, we are the ones who are ultimately responsible for it so we should look at these things as well so we don’t make a bigger mess in this era of agencies. But thanks you for your responses, greatly appreciated, and I will certainly be, I will be in support of this as well, but I’m really hoping that in future we are going to be dealing with this looking ahead, that this ends in one month, what are we going to do? Not that this ended two weeks ago and what are we going to do, but thank you very much.

Thank you and I have Councillor McAllister and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the opportunity to speak again. First off, I want to thank staff for these proposals.

I know there’s an implementation strategy coming to us for the hubs, but I do think in the meantime, we really do have to stretch our resources to help people because we know the need is very great in the community. I do have a few questions with that in mind. I noticed in terms of like point two with CMHA Coffee House, which is in my ward, were there any discussions in terms of being able to stretch the funds for a bit longer? I know this is only for three months.

They’re looking at four hours for additional services, but as I said, the need is great and if we can keep them operational until the hubs are online. Is there any way to bridge the two strategies and keep the funding alive until we can get our hubs operational? Thank you. Mr.

Cooper? Thank you and through the chair, I’ll start this. And I think as Mr. Dickens alluded to earlier, the community, I think, took into consideration some of those pieces, right?

How far can we stretch our dollars, right? How can we provide the appropriate service for the folks that we saw over the last couple of months at that space? And Coffee House specifically, it’s not closing, right? It is offering the regular Monday to Friday.

I think it’s Monday to Sunday hours. I think it’s 10 to four. So what we’re looking at is enhancing that into the evening for that three-month period. So this is that start for that.

It wasn’t indicated from the group that they could extend until the hubs are up and operational. But that will be part of the ongoing conversations we have as we meet with London Cares later in the month to talk about the actuals that we see come through from the financing piece, as well as the outcomes from the original approval and any adjustments that we may or may not need to make. We will look to have those conversations with them and then, of course, bring any appropriate reference back to committee for consideration. Councillor McAllister?

Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for the answers. Further to that, as we’re going into the summer, I think the concern is that, especially with not having as many shelter spaces, the encampments, obviously there’s that anticipated growth. So would it be even possible to have more funds allocated just to bridge that gap between now and the hubs being operational, keeping in mind with the report, I’m not sure what date you’ve established for that, but just as we go into the summer, I do anticipate that the need will increase.

Thank you. Mr. Dickens? Thank you, Chair and through you.

We’re currently receiving funding requests from every organization that receives base funding. Anybody with a purchase of service agreement in the housing stability services world has submitted funding requests. For additional hours, for additional staff, for rising staff of cost wages. CMHA and their coffee host program, be it one program that CMHA offers.

This is what they’re recommending. They’re part of the community accountability action working group, so they’re putting forward this recommendation. I can’t speak on their behalf fully to say this is what they’ve proposed because that’s what capacity allows. If that’s what temporary staffing allows, I’m not, if that’s what the physical space allows, I’m not sure, maybe they have renovations plan, I have no idea.

So I would just caution that we make commitments to extending specific programs when all programs are currently looking for additional funding outside of the winter response. That being said, the first financial reporting cycle will be at the end of April for the winter response, where lead agencies will be submitting the actuals to the city. So at that point, once we get those reports, we’ll be able to take a look to see where the actuals are shaping up and what opportunities might be there, and then we can monitor that through the other monthly updates. Councilor, one more from Councilor Mc— No, yes?

One more. Final, last call for Councilor McAllister, and then I have Councilor Stevenson on the list. And thank you once again for my indulgence with these questions and through the chair. I’m just wondering, just to get some more information in terms of how the working group operated with this, so are we taking like a triage model in terms of which agency or the community that has the greatest need right now?

Because I would imagine, as you indicated, that obviously everyone is fighting for these dollars, but where can we make the most impact? And was that discussed and how did we come to that conclusion? Staff? Thank you, Chair.

The we coming to the conclusion is the community group coming to that conclusion. So they have made their assessments, they’ve had their conversations, they’ve debated these proposals, and this is what they recommend. As far as the ongoing funding requests, which is through our base provincial funding that comes to the city, not affiliated with the winter response, I’ll make that distinction very clear, we look at what the existing contracts permit, what the current service levels require, if there’s going to be, Mr. Cooper’s team is doing that triaging in terms of there’s a funding request, and if it’s not met, what does that mean for service level standards?

What does it mean for staffing levels? Is it a complete elimination of a program? Is it a reduction of a program? Is it a delay of a program?

So that triaging happens all the time as we get funding requests on a regular basis. Councilor Stevenson? Thank you, and through the chair, and I do appreciate these conversations too, and being able to, you know, it’s a difficult situation to be in with the winter response, many ending and so many people out on the street, and what I would like to do is, because although I hear what’s being said regarding the new center, it’s like I said, when I look at the numbers here, we’ve got, we had 100, let me just lost it here. We had 143 overnight spaces in the winter response, and if we, the only thing left is 15 beds for women at the Salvation Army, and 20 beds at safe space, assuming that gets up and running.

And then we now have the additional eight beds at Salvation Army, but that’s only for three months. So I’m really looking to see what committee wants to do as well, but we’ve got a limited number of dollars, a great, great, great need, and although I understand there’s a population that’s having trouble finding shelter, we’ve got hundreds of people in need of shelter. And so to spend the money, like I said, on capital and setup, just hiring the, just the paperwork alone, and hiring, getting WSAB and everything else up and operational for that. I’m looking to committee to say, how can we make sure that this winter response money goes to the people who need it most as effectively as possible?

So I really, it’s my ward, and I need to be able to explain to people why there is still no beds, and why I think we are slowly getting things up and operating when there are social service agencies here in the city able to provide the service. So this committee needs to help me, or staff needs to help me either reallocate the funds or explain to me why we are gonna let people wait. We just had a fire right out front of our gate. So I’m looking for help in terms of, can we put an F on this motion that asks staff to look at the options of reallocating?

We’re talking about the money from June to November, ‘cause I’m not gonna mess up the first payment. But from June to November, can we ask staff to go back to the working group and look at how we could reallocate that? Maybe even repeating this whole process in other three months, keeping the CMHA coffee house open. If this is what the community has said is the most important, we could reallocate it, we’d at least get 16 beds, and we’d have what the community says, but to continue on and pretend that what was intended happened is not something I’m okay with.

It didn’t happen, and now we’re in a situation where so many people are without a bed, and we’re going to, I think the time to do this is maybe with the hubs in the new program, but for right now, right on in my ward, that arcade closed down, and it’s heartbreaking what’s happening there. And so can we put an F on the motion that asks staff to go back to the working group to look at reallocating that money for the second half of that Lending Care Safe Space payment, or would committee prefer us to recommend that they reallocate it to repeat this, so instead of for three months, we would do it for six months. I’m open to suggestions, but I would like something here that addresses the fact that we acknowledge where we’re at, appreciate what everybody tried to do. We tried to meet an emergency response, tried to get a location quick in January, and it hasn’t happened.

And to see the job postings go up, and to see them starting something now for a temporary response that we’re just going to disappoint more people. As you said, it’s difficult when the response ends. We’ve just done that to a whole community. Now we’re going to do that to these women as well, just as they get settled.

Yeah, so just before we go to staff, so the next round of payments, you’re looking at either doing this or asking if there’s a way to send them back, is that just, I guess, to staff with that question? And is the next half already allocated? ‘Cause we’re into, just, we have contracts signed with safe space and other providers to do so much work. So I’m just wondering what leeway there actually is if we’re already in contractual obligations.

Thanks, thank you, and through the chair, you do hit on the contractual obligations. We have assigned contract with an authority. We make payments in two payments, so the first payment has been met to send to this organization. We then have a reporting period, which is the end of April, at which point they’ll identify any surpluses.

So they’ve done a forecast for this recommendation that comes before council today, recognizing if we wait till the end of April into May, right? We’re into June before we even get before council and they wanted to get something front and center today with the needing community. So there is a second payment that is still to be made to the program. It was for a number of resources, not just safe space.

So I guess some clarification on is the expectation to keep those other spaces operating ‘cause there is the resting spaces through London Cares, the hub through London Cares, there’s a number of things in that contract that were approved until December of 2023, or as council looking, or committee looking for us to take something back to the larger committee for the community and come back with additional recommendations. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair, my only, I’m only speaking about the 650,000 that was for 20 overnight beds and 24/7 operation that I have been told will not be 24/7 and still has no beds. So I understand that there was a contract, but like I said, I’m talking about that 325,000.

I’m not wanting to get into anything else. So that was the overnight beds for safe space. I will go to staff ‘cause I just, I know, Councillor, okay, to staff. Then we’re gonna ask you to take the chair.

So thank you, Chair. I think at this point, staff will take the direction of committee that if you, if there’s a recommendation that we reallocate the funds or we work with the community accountability group to reallocate those allocated funds to safe space, then we would take your direction. It would, yeah, we’ll follow your direction. Is that a motion you’re making, Councillor Stevenson?

Yeah, I’d like to put an amendment, just F on there on this ‘cause this part here is great. It’s just, can we ask the community accountability group to look at that next payment simply for the 20 overnight beds as to how they recommend reallocating that rather than starting something new in the summertime? So you’re asking them to specifically reallocate the funds that were for safe space? Because it’s the only one that hasn’t been able, it doesn’t have like, yes.

Is there a seconder for that? Councillor Pilar, are you seconding? Or you have a question, question, question, go ahead. My question is, I do agree with it in principle.

The only question I have, because this, this kind of a little bit different, and I keep hearing two different things. We have the agreement with London Cares and then I’m hearing that the payment has been made. Our relationship is only with London Cares, correct? That’s correct.

Then I’m hearing a couple of minutes ago that some payment was already made to this agency. So this, do we know that through London Cares or directly, my bottom line is this. To safe space, yes, I do agree with it, that we should reevaluate it. Having said that, if there were certain commitments, which I guess we shouldn’t know about, because it’s through London Cares, so I wanna be fair to safe space as well.

So we gotta look at the amounts that have been really London Cares have committed to. So bottom line is, I do agree with this in principle, what was brought up, the motion, but on the other hand, through London Cares, we really have to come up first with how much money has been committed, so we really are kind of fair to safe space, so we don’t leave them in depth. But again, do I think it’s a right move? Yes, actually this agency, as I said, this is the agency that I mentioned that are recruiting for $25 staff, which other agencies have existing staff who are not able to pay more than about $20.

So this is the only thing my concern with pushing this, supporting this motion, I’m for it, but I just want from the staff to be aware that we are realizing that potentially London Cares has already made certain commitments, and we gotta make sure that everything is properly done. To staff? Thank you, Chair, and through you. So as articulated, the payments are made into installments.

So the first installment has been paid to London Cares, London Cares then fulfills their funding agreements with those other agencies that are working through this program. So London Cares will have made an initial payment to safe space based on what safe space has been able to deliver to date. Again, I’ll take you back to the report that’s on the agenda that indicates we’ve already earmarked some of the surplus and unspent funds from safe space towards these recommendations. So that’s unspent funds as part of the first installment, and I would have to confirm us, London Cares in the recommendation, but it’s also probably some projected unspent funds throughout the entirety of safe spaces contract.

So we’re already recommending we reallocate some of the funding from safe space to these three recommendations. If the direction is to go back and make sure that we cease payment or claw back any payments for the second tranche and redirect it elsewhere, then that would be helpful information to clarify. As well, doing so would be closing safe space entirely. So no daytime, no showers, no nothing.

It would all be wrapped up into one service. So if the funding is reallocated elsewhere, then that program would have to end, I would assume, unless they have a different source of funding. Do you have a follow up? Okay, Councillor Ferri, can you take the chair please for I can speak?

Thank you, Councillor. I have the chair, I recognize Councillor Palazzo. I’m next on the speakerless list, and then Councillor Romney. Thank you, and thank you to staff for this report and the work and bringing it back.

And I do believe that you are following up respectfully and timely with service organizations to identify any surpluses that we know we can’t deliver. So we’re not finding out about these surpluses in a few months from now saying, oh, by the way, we could have did something, but we’re so late. You’re already on top of it bringing forward solutions. And I recognize that we’ve asked partners to come forward and work with us.

And they’ve done that. And for the first time ever, we have this great homelessness summit and first responders who are dealing with these issues who are trained in their fields and professionals saying frontline workers who are on the ground saying what we need and the best ways to do it. Operationally, I don’t think it’s right that we know what the employees of other organizations from frontline workers are getting paid across the sector. For me, I at least had to hope that living in Ontario’s living wage is 1972.

And certainly that’s even hard enough to get done by in realizing that the trauma they’re seeing and they’re working through and the extra care and training they have. Absolutely, I don’t think $25 is unreasonable for the work they’re doing and what they’re bringing on. When we have reports coming back, community led with the CMHA and the coffee house, I’m aware that when safe space changed physical locations that they potentially are seeing that gap in the community and saying we have a few more hours ‘cause someone else used to fill this need and they’re responding by saying some more money to help. We still send it hours to be helpful.

London Cares, I was there serving Easter dinner at the end of last weekend. And certainly we see so much need in our community and we all see it and recognizing as well that it’s the conversations that I don’t want to be hands on all the time of why can’t you do this, why can’t you do this and going to like 40 different providers realizing that that’s a conversation they’re having amongst themselves of can you ramp up? Do you have expertise to take this on? Is your staff burnt out?

Can you even take on this extra workload right now? And as we’re talking about people doing potentially what might appear at the high end overview of why people feel safer in one space over another, recognizing street work is a different line of work regardless of how you got into it. It was more by choice or necessity and why people are in that space and realizing we all have different lived experiences we’re coming with that the Salvation Army’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in his name without discrimination. Arc aid to express Christian faith and love wherever they are needed most.

Potentially if you’ve had bad, if it’s not your faith or you’ve had other interactions, those might not be spaces that are traditionally safe for you that you want to go to. And certainly safe space is welcoming different folks of different gender identities and women into their space and making a real, they’re claiming a real community that strives to raise the basic living conditions of the most vulnerable and exploited members. So it’s not for me to dictate where people should be allowed to allocate services based on where they feel most comfortable if there’s men around them, not around them, in shared spaces, having access to where they may or may not be sleeping or in a kitchen space. I’m fine with the staff recommendation before us.

I’m completely uncomfortable as we’re sitting here talking about defunding organizations who just got funding to ramp up by bed’s trained staff, put out job postings, renovate a space. And now we’re saying now that you’re on the brink of opening later this month to have those beds open, thanks but no thank you. And we’re still on the hook for all the supplies and the training that they’ve invested in that space and the people who are already going to be coming there, that seems to be doing well in our community for the sector that needs it. So I’m not interested at this moment in removing funding when partners come to the table and we’re granted contracts by London Cares.

We entrusted them to do work and I would like to let us do their work and evaluate the programs at the end to actually see the outcome. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. I yield the chair to you. I’m next on the list and Councillor Raman.

Okay, Councillor Ferra. And thank you, so echoing what Councillor or the chair just said, yeah, I am not in any of support, not supportive at all to defund a safe space. I understand that there’s concerns with the beds but the thing is we talk about wraparound services a lot. It’s not just beds, you know, you can give someone a bed at nighttime so they can sleep.

But if you give someone services and supports to help them, eventually the goal is they don’t need to use the beds that we can support. So just putting out beds all the time and just giving people only that bottom line of beds, clearly it doesn’t work because that’s kind of what we had already. So I do feel that with the services that safe space does provide on top of that, especially when we’re talking about a very niche area, just as the DCM just said, Mr. Dickens, this is a very niche thing.

We have women who are at risk of violence. We have women who are at risk of human trafficking. We have women who don’t necessarily feel comfortable going into other institutions or other organizations and safe space provides that landscape. So we can actually have an environment that makes people feel comfortable to be there.

This is why safe space is needed in London. It is a niche that fills in a space that is open and empty right now in London. So defunding that organization would not be a good idea moving forward. So I would just like to keep things quite simple and just approve what is recommended right now and move forward like that.

So I would just like to just go ahead, pass this motion and move on from here. Thank you. Oh, and okay, I’m done, yeah. Sir, I didn’t mean to click and cut you off.

Did you? I can end it there. I can go on, but that’s really what I wanted to say. I don’t want to defund safe space.

We got to keep this funding going on. It is an organization that is desperately needed. They provide services for individuals who are kind of just, they don’t have the space to go in. Just like as Council Pelosi just said, there’s certain organizations that have their faith-based or they have other types of ideologies or whatever is the structure of the organization that may set up barriers for certain individuals to come in.

We need to have that full wraparound service, that full wraparound support. This is what safe space is doing. It’s part of a huge network that we’re trying to build right now to build that infrastructure so we can actually be successful in our goals of what we’re trying to do. So we should definitely keep safe space.

It is something that we need and I’ll end it there. Thank you, Councilor Robin. Thank you and through you just procedurally. So the motion that’s on the floor, I moved.

And the addition of an F on that motion, I do not consider friendly. And so I do not agree to it being added to the motion. So if anyone would like to move that, they’d have to move it as a separate motion, please. Thank you.

So Councilor Stevenson talked about an F. The clerks doesn’t have exact wording and need some clarification, but there’s also not a seconder at the moment to F. If F does get a seconder, F goes on the floor, we vote on yay or nay to F. If F fails, there’s no more F, if F passes, it’s in.

And we could vote on it separate, a to g and then an F. Councilor Robin and then I’ll go to Councilor Pribble. Thank you. I’ll wait to see if we have a seconder, but F would not be considered in line with the motion.

And therefore, it’s my opinion that I feel that it is not part of that motion. It can be said as a separate motion if Councilors wish to move it, but it’s not part of what we’re talking about right now. It’s about a different allocation of funds. It’s been noted, we’re waiting for behind the clean scenes, deputy clerks and whatnot, Councilor Pribble.

Maybe I’m sound to study F. I didn’t know the F, the V strictly said that it’s gonna be defunded. I really thought that F was stating, and maybe if the clerk can read it to me, but I really thought it was to reevaluate the funding and see potentially where we can get more out of the dollar. But I didn’t see F as strictly going.

We are defunding one organization. The clerk just sent you the wording that she had noted from Councilor Stevenson and she’s gonna be accepting feedback on it. Is it sent to everybody in the e-scribe or just them? Sorry, it’s in email.

It is not an e-scribe yet. Councilor for a question. Thank you and through you. I am kind of a little confused on what the F exactly means as well if anybody could maybe just clarify.

Yeah, we’ll wait for the mover of F to see what the councilor thinks of the wording and can clarify any wording and then we can move forward with precise wording. Yeah, would the committee be open to it saying, instead of saying about recommending reallocating it, ask with respect to the next payment for lending care safe space? Okay, so the lending care is, I guess, the 325,000 for lending cares. ‘Cause what I would like is just for them to just reflect for the community, maybe they hadn’t thought of it, but if this community accountability working group could reflect on possible options for meeting the needs with those funds.

‘Cause maybe they haven’t thought of it, is it provable? I was just gonna add that we can’t even do the safe space because we don’t have a direct relationship with them. So really we have to direct it to London cares. And for London cares to reevaluate this amount and to see what would be the best for our community.

So our motion should be towards London cares not safe space and to maximize the funds, to direct them, to maximize the funds to the best possible initiatives for our community, something in that sense. I believe, what about just asking the community, working accountability group to reflect on the second half of the winter response and see if they recommend any adjustments to it? Mr. Dickens, does the group already reflect and bring things forward?

Like they do now or would there be changes in the back half? Just looking to see how that process plays out? Thank you, Chair. Through you, I’m gonna air on the side of yes.

They do a lot of reflecting now in terms of bringing forward the recommendations that you see before you on how to reallocate unspend funds already. So there was already a reflection of what do we need to do with these unspend funds? What do we need to do with the unspend funds that are attributed to safe space and arc and the others? If the direction is to encourage them to consider alternative service delivery, I may be back before this committee to say they have considered it, they’ve reflected and they recommend no changes.

That is a possibility, I suppose. The second installment, just so the committee is aware, is we have not issued it, we will not issue it until we receive the actuals, which is the first financial reporting cycle, which is due to civic administration April 28th. So there is, I guess, time that if we wanted to redirect funding away from the planned allocations for the second installment, that we could have those conversations with the community. Is the committee open to F being more general in scope and asking the community working group to consider alternative service deliveries for the second half of winter response, just to take a look at it and see, are you open to that?

I think this is really where we have a motion that’s prepared and circulated in a mover in a seconder, Councilor Omen, you were waving, so I’ll go to you, but thank you. I just wanna remind committee that the recommendation reads that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager, social and health development, therefore this does not fit within the motion. So I think, again, if you wanna explore it as a separate motion, that’s possible, but we have a moved and seconded motion as of right now that committee could be dealing with, and then moving on, thanks. Just clarifying that we haven’t heard back from other clerks, it would seem though that you don’t have the votes you would need potentially for what you’re talking about, at least not at committee.

You can certainly always type something up, have a mover in a seconder and bring it to council as a consideration when all the committee documents come through, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and that’s what I’ll do. I hear Councillor ramen, and I do like what is in front of us in this recommendation, so I’ll support that. But I do just need to say that it was brought before us in the January caps meeting that there had been a very rapid process where the lending care safe space operation had found a home that it was, you know, the reasons why issues like the core area action plan and other processes hadn’t been followed was because it was an emergency situation in a winter response, very difficult to argue with, all for that, but then for it to now be April.

And while I hear Councillor Ferreira and others saying the importance of the organization and what they do and all that kind of stuff, I hear it. And maybe it’s part of the greater hub conversation, but in terms of an emergency winter response, and now an emergency summer response, I’m going to have a very difficult time explaining to the residents of London why we would pay so much more money for this organization to offer less services than our other organizations. And I understand what you’re saying about how people may not be comfortable in those, the mission services, the Salvation Army and the Arc Aid have far more beds, in fact, most of the beds in this city and to have so much of that taken away. And now to say that we’re going to focus on this niche group for a few months with no future funding, no commitment to funding to that niche vulnerable group, it just does not make sense.

And when we talk about hourly rates, I am in no way saying that the work doesn’t deserve $25 an hour. What I am saying is that what I’m hearing from the agencies is that it is difficult to staff, it’s difficult to find staff. All of them are having that, and they do not all pay that rate. So we get to look at that too, some of the long-standing service organizations that we’ve had have not had an increase in base funding in eight years.

So they are not able to pay their employees what this organization is paying, and London Care is actually as well, so not just safe space. So have we looked at the implications there when we start hiring at a higher rate, what we’re doing to the other agencies that are posting 100, there’s 100 people in the men’s mission, to over 200 people in Salvation Army. I do think we need to look at this. When I see it posted, it’s not that I have any problems with what the organization is doing in the plan.

I’m saying, given that where we are right now, and with the great, great need that we have, to focus on a niche group with optimal wage and benefits and this kind of thing, I think it needs a relook. Ms. Westlake Powers does have her hand up do we want to hear from? Okay, Ms.

Westlake Powers, the floor is yours. We cannot hear you if you are speaking. That startled me, and it’s perfect. Please proceed.

Sorry about that. I just wanted to jump in with potentially some procedural help. I’m using the air quotes on help. In terms of the staff recommendation that has been duly moved and seconded and is on the floor, the committee is certainly able to vote on that staff recommendation in and of itself.

Alternatively, I understand that there is also a potential amendment, the wording of which I understand is still being worked on, which could be added to that as a new part F, and that would also be in order if it were to pass, and then the staff recommendation as amended could be passed. So it could be done separately or together. If you as a committee want to vote on the additional portion exclusively, because I don’t believe that it could be moved as a whole motion, I don’t think that there’s the support there to achieve that. But voting on that separately will deal with that matter, and then you can deal with the whole motion because you’re at committee.

If both motions were to pass, it would go forward to council as one complete recommendation though. So that’s important for you to keep in mind that even if you do vote on this separately, and in pieces, it will go forward as one whole recommendation. Also, I just want to add, and I don’t know if our legal council who is in the meeting has any comment about this, but there is potentially some legal advice that may be required with what’s being proposed, and/or we would have to look to determine whether or not reconsideration by council would be required with respect to this, because as I understand, the winter response has already been approved, and this is a reporting out and a request to reallocate some of the funding, but the initial approval of the winter response is a decided matter of council. So I’m not sure if our legal council has any advice in that regard.

If anyone from legal would like to give any words of wisdom, if this is a public session versus closed? Right, hi, I’m finished from legal. No words of wisdom that I can quite provide, if there are specific questions that require legal advice I’m happy to do so in camera. Okay, so I’ll look to the potential mover and secretary of F, realizing as Ms.

Westlake Power said, I don’t believe you have the support to get F passed a loan at committee, but if you’re interested in pursuing it at council, it would make wording available for council colleagues to consider before council, which is back to prior councilor Squire’s words of wisdom of always doing committee work at committee. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for your patience. I’m not gonna push this right now, other than just asking staff, do you see any value in putting an F here?

I guess I’m asking you if there’s any value in putting an F here to ask the community working accountability group to just take another look at the second half to ensure that they still feel that that’s the best way forward now that we’re here ‘cause that was done last fall. I would also assure you that despite what we do or don’t do, that they are watching and they are aware of the conversation we’re having right now as well. But to Mr. Deacon’s.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’m confident with what has come forward as part of the recommendations. It’s why it’s under my recommendation to support these initiatives. Thank you. Sorry, Chair, I’ll just close that off.

The question was, would I consider recommending that they look at other ways to use the remaining funds or unspent funds and I think what the, I think the leadership of the community has been evolving since the started and I have the full confidence in the community groups. Thank you. Thank you. And I’ll just clarify just because the way you worded it back wasn’t how I intended it was in my new lens, I’m asking if it makes sense to ask the community group to just not reallocate funds, but just to take a look at the second half and affirm that that is the best intention or make any recommendations, give them maybe a prompt to just say, are you still, do you still feel this way or is there a better way?

Mr. Deacon’s and then Councillor ramen. Thank you, Chair, and through you. If the question is around asking them to rethink the use of unspent funds, is that, or just funds in the entire second installment?

Is this still the recommendation? I mean, I can certainly ask the community group if they feel like this is still the recommendation, but I don’t know what it would have changed based on what they’ve provided and based on the trajectory of what they’ve been trying to do. Some contracts that were decided matter of council provided funding through to the end of December for organizations like Adlosa and the Wigewomanon program. So I don’t think there would be any reconsideration to be looking to reconsider those programs, for example.

So I know we’re focusing very specifically on one organization and I don’t think that my asking them to rethink how we move forward in the remainder of this program would change their opinions. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I’m really hoping we can vote on this as well.

So I will speak very briefly about this, but I will say that we’re dealing with a recommendation from the deputy city manager that went through the winter response and community accountability working group. I think there’s an opportunity for us to ask questions to look at what’s it before us for the proposal, but if we’re going to the point of second guessing the work of an accountability working group that has expertise at this level that we’re questioning the deputy city manager and the recommendations put forward, I think that’s completely different direction, which is why I won’t support an F in the motion as well. I do think it’s really important and it needs to be very clear to the community that the vote that we will make at the committee and then what happens to go to council is the voice of the committee not this back and forth that’s continually happening from certain members of the committee. I think it’s really important that we speak with one voice as this comes out, thank you.

Okay, looking on screen, I see no further speakers. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna be clear that this back and forth is this is the place for that and this recommendation and this council approved winter response, which I still support, has not been fulfilled. And so I think that’s really important to note that the reason why I’m questioning it and this specific organization is because we were told it was a four month lease, we were told there were gonna be beds, we were told it was gonna be 24/7.

That is what council approved and the fact that we are not holding them to that and look, I understand there’s all kinds of situations but we can say we have a contract or we have a contract where we were told 24/7 and 20 overnight beds and I think that’s critical to the people on the street, to the people who funded this. And so this is important and this is the place for that and I am the voice because it is my ward and there are all kinds of women walking around on that in that area that don’t have a place to go. They do not have a bed. And so for me to say, hey, is there another way?

Is there another organization that can meet the need? I think it’s totally fair. Okay, so you know, for their speakers, call on the question. There’s Pribble and Ferra.

Jerry, if you could just use your mic to clear it, couldn’t hear your vote if you submitted it. Yeah, so the motion was A to E and then right now it says funding and relocation request. So are we talking about the original one, A to E, correct? A to E is what’s on my E scribe.

Sorry, the clerk’s just looking, okay, submitted. Okay, currently the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. That concludes our consent items. We have no scheduled items.

We have no items for direction. Deferred matters are additional business. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, just one quick question.

It was brought to my attention that behind ARK aid there has been one tiny home. I don’t know how you call it as a sprite, single, you know what I’m talking about, the little, and yeah. So that has been there for I think quite a long time with no issues that I’m aware of, but I was told there were two more buildings now. There’s three buildings behind there.

And I’m wondering if there’s any updates from staff. Is there, were you aware of that? Or is there anything that I should be made aware of? Thank you as well.

If this is a by-law issue, please tell us that too. Councilor Mathers, or sorry, Councilors. Do you want to come sit over here for a while? I certainly get your work and I didn’t want to.

Thanks. So yeah, to answer that question. So the temporary mobile shelters is one of the references that we’ve used for those type of structures. So we now, we do have a mechanism to allow that through our zoning process.

And if at currently there is no investigation or any kind of complaint that we’ve received regarding that property. However, if the ARK aid folks would like to work with us, there is a mechanism to be able to allow for that if the zoning’s in place to be able to, which I believe it is for that property, to undertake the actions that they need to be able to get that, ensure that that’s properly zoned. So we’ve worked with one of the other property owners in the old East Village to be able to allow for that to happen, but there’s a few things they have to go through to make sure that all the eyes are dotted and tees are crossed. So we’d be happy to engage them if you have a contact.

Okay, a follow-up? Thank you. And so if something changed there, because my understanding was a couple of years ago, it was gonna cost $10,000 or something, and they had asked that that be waived in order to be able to put those in. Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, there was actually a resolution brought forward by a prior counselor that wasn’t adopted by council, looking at us exploring the opportunity to do that, or even having a staff or a council-led by-law change, and that resolution did not have support from council. However, at the same time, I had mentioned to council that we were exploring what other cities were doing, and taking a look at if that would be something that would be supported in our by-laws. We have done that assessment, and it is something that can be supported, but there would likely have to go through a consent process or a minor variance process, depending on what they’re proposing on the site.

So it’s not something that we can just say that anyone can do. There are a few different processes they’d have to go through, but it is something that is allowed in certain properties that have that zoning by-law designation in the city. Seeing nothing further, looking to adjournment. Mover, Councillor Stevenson, seconder, Councillor ramen.

A hand vote of all in favor of adjournment. That passes. Thank you. Have a wonderful evening.