July 18, 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 C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Items 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.1   4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2023-06-22 ACAC Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on June 22, 2023:

a)    the attached presentation, from K. Al Tarhuni, MyGREEN Taxi, with respect to Accessible Taxi Cabs, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and a report back to a future meeting of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee and the Community and Protective Services Committee with options related to vehicles for hire and accessible transportation; it being noted that the above-noted presentation, as well as the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from K. Al Tarhuni, with respect to this matter, was received; and,

b)    clauses 1.1 and 3.1 to 3.7, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway - Contribution Agreement

2023-07-18 SR Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway - Part 1

2023-07-18 SR Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway - Part 2

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to a Contribution Agreement for an Active Transportation Fund for Stoney Creek Pathway Connection to the Thames Valley Parkway:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to:

i)    approve the Contribution Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between His Majesty the King in right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities and The Corporation of the City of London, for the provision of funding under the Active Transportation Fund, substantially in the form as appended to the above-noted by-law;

ii)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the above-noted Contribution Agreement; 

iii)    delegate authority to the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or their written delegate, to approve any amending agreements to the above-noted Agreement, provided the amending agreements do not increase the indebtedness or liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London under the Agreement;

iv)    authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute any amending agreements approved by the Deputy City manager, Environment and Infrastructure; and,

v)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, or their written delegate, to execute any financial reports required under the above-noted Agreement and to undertake all administrative, financial, and reporting acts necessary in connection with the Agreement; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter. (2023-T10)

Motion Passed

2.5   Municipal Contribution Agreement for Vision SOHO Alliance

2023-07-18 SR Municipal Contribution Agreement for Vision SOHO Alliance - Part 1

2023-07-18 SR Municipal Contribution Agreement for Vision SOHO Alliance - Part 2

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023, to:

a)    approve a Contribution Agreement to be entered into between The Corporation of the City of London and each member of the Vision SOHO Alliance, as appended to the above-noted by-law;

b)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve amendments to the above-noted Contribution Agreement;

c)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to approve and execute the Tenant Placement Agreement prior to first occupancy of each building development by the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance; and,

d)    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development to execute the above-noted Contribution Agreement, as may be appended by the Deputy City manager, Planning and Economic Development, pursuant to their authority under section b) of this by-law. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

2.3   Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments

2023-07-18 SR Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments - Part 1

2023-07-18 SR Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments - Part 2

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to Housing Stability Services 2023-24 Contract Amendments:

a)    the contract amendments BE APPROVED, at a total estimated cost of $2,098,650 (including HST), for the period of April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer Housing Stability Services programs, as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e) ii) to the service providers outlined in Schedule 1 of the staff report, dated July 18, 2023:

b)    the matter of a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 to London Cares Homeless Response Services BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide information as to how the concerns raised as part of the neighbourhood engagement are addressed and the security staffing rationale during off-hours, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;

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

d)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with each program. (2023-S11)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion BE AMENDED in part b) to read as follows:

“b)      the matter of a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 to London Cares Homeless Response Services BE REFERRED back to the Civic Administration to provide information as to how the concerns raised as part of the neighbourhood engagement are addressed and the security staffing rationale during off-hours, at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on July 25, 2023;“

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to approve parts a), c), and d) of the clause.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

2.4   Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request

2023-07-18 SR Primary Care Recruitment - Part 1

2023-07-18 SR Primary Care Recruitment - Part 2

2023-07-18 SR Primary Care Recruitment - Part 3

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to the Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request:

a)    the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team - Primary Care Recruitment report and presentation, as appended to the Agenda, BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review opportunities through the Rethink Zoning process to facilitate the establishment of Team Based Family Care facilities, not withstanding our policies locating major office uses in the downtown core, and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for Team Based Care. (2023-S08)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis (Acting Mayor)

Motion to approve the following:

“the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review opportunities through the Rethink Zoning process to facilitate the establishment of Team Based Family Care facilities, not withstanding our policies locating major office uses in the downtown core, and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for Team Based Care.”

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve the following:

“That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated July 18, 2023, related to the Primary Care Recruitment, Transition into Practice and Retention Program Funding Request:

a)    the Middlesex London Ontario Health Team - Primary Care Recruitment report and presentation, as appended to the Agenda, BE RECEIVED;“

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to approve part b) and c) of the staff recommendation, as follows:

“b)    the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 per year for 3 years, and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to Middlesex London Ontario Health Team - Primary Care Recruitment Program.”

Motion Failed (2 to 4)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Revised Process for City Board Representative on Museum London Board

2023-07-18 Sub. City Board Representative on Museum London Board - Part 1

2023-07-18 Sub. City Board Representative on Museum London Board - Part 2

2023-07-18 Sub. City Board Representative on Museum London Board - Part 3

2023-07-18 Sub. City Board Representative on Museum London Board - Part 4

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the matter of a City of London representative on the Museum London Board BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration of an appointment; it being noted that the members of Council will be advised of the opportunity; it being further noted that a verbal delegation from S. Padfield, Board Chair, Museum London and the communication, as appended to the Agenda, from J. Bevan, Executive Director and S. Padfield, Board Chair, Museum London, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-C05)

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve delegation status for representatives from Museum London to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   Thames Pool Condition Update and Repair Options

2023-07-18 SR Thames Pool Condition Update and Repair Options - Complete

Moved by S. Lewis (Acting Mayor)

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions with respect to the Thames Pool:

a)    proceed with the process to decommission Thames Pool;

b)    undertake a community consultation with respect to implementing potential new amenities in Thames Park, including but not limited to, pickleball courts, basketball courts, or other amenities;

c)    undertake a review of the feasibility of a new spray pad installation in Thames Park or in Wortley on the Village Green, in consultation with the community on preferred location;

d)    undertake a feasibility study for the location of a potential new indoor pool opportunity including; Murray Park, Rowntree Park, and other appropriate city owned properties within the same general geographic service catchment area as Thames Pool;

e)   continue to work with the community to provide transportation opportunities to other aquatic facilities; and,

f)    parts b), c), d) and e), above, not exceed a combined budget of $1.92 million, consistent with the lowest cost temporary repair option for the current Thames Pool location outlined in the staff report, dated July 18, 2023;

it being noted that any costs associated with part a), related to any required demolition of decommissioning the existing pool, are not included in the $1.92 million noted above;

it being further noted that the communications, as appended to the Added Agenda, from M. Boyle and D. Keilholz, with respect to this matter, were received. (2023-R05C)

Motion Passed (5 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) 7th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2023-07-06 - AWCAC Report

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 7th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on July 6, 2023:

a)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to provide the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee with an update on zoning for zoos and mobile zoos, at its next meeting;

it being noted that the Notice of Planning Application, dated June 14, 2023, from the ReThink Zoning Project Team, related to Zoning By-law Changes for the New Comprehensive Zoning By-law - ReThink Zoning, was received;

b)    the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the next Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting to update the committee on Green Week, including but not limited to the following, as it may impact migratory and nesting birds:

i)    how they plan yard waste schedules;

ii)    what the process is for determining the schedule; and, 

iii)    is it possible to look at different times or days for Green Week; and,

c)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Community and Protective Services Committee convene In Closed Session for the purpose of considering the following:

6.1    Personal Matters/ Identifiable Individual

A matter pertaining to personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees, with respect to the Awarding of the 2023 Queen Elizabeth Scholarships.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 7:48 PM to 7:51 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 7:54 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 (3 hours, 57 minutes)

Audio test for Council chambers. Testing, testing. Thank you. Okay, we’re just about to get started.

If any Councillors can please take their seats. Yeah, feel free to seat their Councilor Troso and Councilor Frank. Okay, this is the 12th meeting the Community and Strategic Services Committee. The City of London is situated in the traditional lands of the Nachenabek, Haudenosaunee, Enlockmanwick and Anawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. For anyone joining us online, we do have quorum and committee today.

Councillor Stevenson, Pearl, Roman are with me in chambers. Councillor Ferrer has joined us virtually as well. His screen’s on to confirm that he’s been here. And as Mayor Morgan is absent, Deputy Mayor Lewis is acting Mayor in here on that behalf and with that voting capacity as well.

The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I will begin by mentioning there is added items are agenda today, so just make sure you have the right agenda in front of you. And I will look to committee for disclosures of the Q&A interest.

Seeing none, we move on to our consent items. We have 2.1 through to 2.5. 2.4 is being pulled, looking to committee members to see if anything else would like to be called separate. Councillor Stevenson.

I want to pull 2.3, please. So currently 2.3 and 2.4, anything else? Seeing nothing further, I’ll mention that item 2.1 is a request from the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee for regarding accessible taxis that staff is aware of, looking for a move and a seconder for items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5. Moved by Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Ferrera.

Looking for any questions or comments from first I go to committee members, and then I’m happy to welcome any guest questions after committee proceeds. Looking, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just had a question on 2.5. Happy to see this come through.

And I noticed that Indwell is doing all of their units affordable and from our wait list, which is great. And I just wondered, are those going to be supportive units or are they like, I’m just wondering what wait list they are coming off of? Thank you, Mr. Felberg.

I’ll start with you, Mr. Cooper, sorry. Thank you and through the chair. Indwell has, we’re in the process of working through matching all of their units in the city from our wait list.

It is our coordinated access wait list, which is a mix of individuals who are experiencing homelessness, people at risk of homelessness, people who are challenged within their current housing environment, as well as those on our social housing wait list. Councillor Stevenson, a follow up? Yeah, thank you, that’s great. And so these would not be our highest acuity folks.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair. The units actually depend on the model that Indwell is operating.

So they do have a number of programs that offer highly supportive units and then not as highly supportive units and units that are independent. Councillor? Thanks, one last question. Then if they are highly supportive and through the chair, who’s funding that portion of it, the care portion?

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, my apologies in the last response. Indwell has a number of partnerships with Ministry of Health and other ministries.

In some instances, we may fund support programs through a housing first program that would assist with any needs in that building, but traditionally, Indwell has partnerships with Ministry of Health. Looking further questions or comments from committee or visiting Councillors, seeing none, calling the question on items 2.1, 2.2 and 2.5. Opposing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Thank you, that moves us to item, committee is fine, I’ll just keep doing consent in order versus putting everything to the end, okay?

So item 2.3, housing stability services 20, 23, 24, contract amendments, I’ll start with Councillor Stevenson as you pull this one. Thank you, I had a few questions on this one. I did email staff questions today and I got answers back right away, so I thank you for that. I, on page 59, where it outlines the service categories and the total amounts that we’re spending, I wondered if staff could just go through quickly what those service categories are and what they cover.

I was particularly wondering about the unallocated, whether that was unspent or just not allocated here, but just a quick, just a very quick overview of what those are would be appreciated. Councillor Stevenson, a question to you. If they have your questions ahead of time, do you want them to answer everything in an overview that you submitted in advance? This one I didn’t submit in advance.

Okay, I’ll start with Mr. Dickens and you can hand it off as needed. Thank you, Chair and through you. I’ll start with the unallocated piece.

That is the, that is what it means. It’s unallocated, that is, we received an increase in our homeless prevention program funding. So that is a allocation that was above and beyond what our base budgets, what our existing service providers and things like that were requiring. What it allows for us to do though is earmark those funds to help stand up some of the highly supportive housing, but also the first three to five hubs.

So being able to take that HPP funding and put it into action as quick as possible. So those funds do not have a target assigned to them yet for funding, but they will help us advance the work of the new system response. And I will pass over to Mr. Cooper, who can talk about all those other service categories.

Thank you and through the chair. Our team pulled together this outline of our allocation for 2324 in aligned with our provincial program, the HPP, the homeless prevention program. So we found that a number of the programs that the city operates and funds or other organizations to deliver really fit well in a number of these categories. So when we look at supportive housing, it’s really assistance for individuals.

It’s flexible, it’s ongoing supports and services and it really assists with daily living in other types of supportive services. It’s not what we’d normally call former domiciliary hostile. We don’t fund any of those in our community. Community outreach support services are similar to the current outreach program that we offer.

We can fund food security type programs through that, as well as case referral and a lot of the staffing costs for our by name list to maintain and update our by name list. The housing assistance really looks at more of the supplement and allowance piece. So the economic income that we provide individuals to bridge their rental gap from what they can afford. And then the emergency shelter solutions is cost directly related to operating emergency shelters in our community.

Thank you. I’ll return it to councilor Stevenson for any further questions and let me know if you want. I have a few questions, but I’m gonna just finish this section and then I’ll take a pause, let somebody else go. On the, I did ask this question, but I’d like it done in public session.

And for the other councilors was just if you can just explain the security regarding London Cares. And I’m not familiar with what’s at 448 Horton. So if you could just say that as well. Thank you to Mr.

Dickens and the handed off is required. Thank you chair and through you. So the security pieces for London Cares have come out of two things. One, a organizational assessment on trying to remedy and rectify some of the issues that were happening at their property at 602 Queens Ave.

But it was also a byproduct of neighborhood engagement that they undertook. So the staff of the organization engaged with neighbors and they did some door knocking on both the wood field area as well as in the Horton Street area and feedback from the neighbors or that they wanted to see security on site. So the organization and their partners at 602 Queens Ave have met with members of civic administration, including myself and the city manager to look at a number of interventions that they could put in place to help address some of the congregating outside of their space and some of that stuff. And that ranges from doing more active outreach on site.

So not outreach in the traditional sense in the community, but more outreach into their own property, looking at any opportunities to make some physical changes to the site, try and limit or corral some of the large open spaces, but also in that list of things that they would be looking to do would be security. At the Horton Street site, that is where London Cares operates their resting space beds. And same thing, they’ve been doing neighborhood engagement there, they’re articulating with neighbors on ways that they can be good neighbors. They’ve actually instituted a peer support program or a peer initiative at the Horton Street property where individuals who access the service are actually canvassing the neighborhood with staff every morning picking up garbage along that neighborhood route.

That has actually been well received by neighbors and noticed by neighbors and very appreciative that those that are participating in the programming are contributing that way to the neighborhood and keeping it clean. And it’s also something that’s really having an impact on the participants because when individuals might be escalating, they remind themselves and they’ve said it aloud that they need to be good neighbors and that’s helping deescalate some of those situations. So hopefully that helps and I don’t think we need to pass them on. Thank you, just to follow up there.

The hours at 602 Queens, it’s just nine to five Monday to Friday, correct? Or roughly, it’s just daytime, business day, just a verbal from staff? Yes, it is. So I’m just curious ‘cause the security on here, it says one security guard weekdays from nine to five, two guards from five at night until nine in the morning and two on the weekends.

So that means only one guard while the facility is open and then two guards when it’s not. So, and my understanding too is that we’re not, the guards aren’t guarding like an encampment, it’s actually clearing the property. Yep, to staff. Thank you and through the chair, sorry for the previous answer on that.

So the hub there also houses, all of London cares is operations. So all of their programs, including outreach, their housing first program, their encampment response program. So they are operating out of that location, basically 24/7 with the outreach. And so they do have staff on site 24/7 and understand the securities there in place for the site as it’s, there’s not as many resources or other programs on site over the weekends.

Councillor? So for me, and this is the important part that I’d really like to understand, is there are safety concerns about the behavior of some of the participants. And what I see when I drive past there are two security guards and no tents, no people on the property. They’re, if anything along the boulevard between the sidewalk and the road.

So in terms of supporting the neighborhood, it seems to me like we’re just keeping the participants off of that particular property, but then they’re going into the neighborhood. I just not sure how that’s going to support the neighborhood. If staff would like to comment? Yeah, if the question is how will that help the neighborhood, that would be something I’d have to take up with London cares in terms of what that feedback and experience has been about if it is helping the neighborhood.

What we’ve heard so far is that it was a request of the neighborhood, that’s why it’s in place. It’s helped with some of the issues on the property, but the notion that it’s driving people into the neighborhood elsewhere. I don’t have anything to substantiate or support that. I’m sorry.

Absolutely. Yeah, well, like I said, I drive by there quite a bit or walk past there regularly. And when I see two security guards in the evenings and in the weekends, there are no participants visible that I can see. But during the day, it’s a very active place.

So one security card when the property’s active, two when it’s not. And it was, I guess that’s the part that it’s really important to know why we’re doing this, is I heard it was a request of the neighborhood. But I would say that the neighborhood wanted security to help support the interactions that you were saying. But if there’s no people on the property, like if we were gonna have them there with guards monitoring it, that sounds good.

But if we’re asking people to get off the property and guarding that, then I am not supportive of paying for this security when everybody else around them does not have paid security by the city. Comment from staff. Thank you, Chair. And sorry for weighing in, I know there wasn’t a question, but if committee wished, we could come back at the council meeting with an adjusted figure.

If we reduce the staffing levels on the security side, work with London Cares and what that looks like, if that would appease committee is to adjust staffing levels on the security front, but I’ll take direction from committee on what we do from here. Councilor Stevenson, having her from staff, is there an amended motion that you’d be interested in making? There will be, I do have an amended motion. But this part, this piece really is important because the 602 Queens is a new venture.

We set it up, we funded it just at the beginning of this year. If I remember they opened up. It’s been a lot of problems and we are gonna publicly say that we are gonna spend $350,000 on security for that property. Most of it after hours when there is no one there.

So I would like to know from staff how I would sell that to the public as it being a benefit to them. Because that’s really what we’re talking about, right? Is that this is supposed to help the neighborhood, that it was part of the walk around and the survey and the response that the neighborhood wanted security. But I’m not sure they wanted security to clear the property after hours.

I’ll go to staff, but also realize that it’s our job of council to recognize and represent our votes as we deem fit to the public and why we did such things. And just really keeping the questions of, is it something that requests from London cares? Is it requests from the residents? Or how many residents are asking for it?

Or has had a decrease in issues around the property, Councillor? One thing to that. Yes, it’s my job to speak to the residents. But this is being presented from staff, asking us to fund it.

And I’m saying I don’t see why the public would be wanting to do this. I mean, and so I’m asking staff to help me understand so that I can sell what is being put before us to staff. Thank you, Chair and through you. It’s a very good question.

So this is a combination of what’s a request of the organization. So from their staff, from their management, as well as it resonates with what they heard through the neighborhood engagement. So it’s both. It’s not simply there was a survey and all the neighbors said we want this.

But it is a request of the organization. And primarily because you’re right, as you mentioned, there are more staff, more engagement, more activities, more programming happening during the day, during operating hours. Individuals know where that location is. And in the absence of higher staffing levels, with the doors being open, there tends to be congregation of people who are showing up just on that site.

It can get quite loud. There can be altercations, there can be issues. And that would be, I would assume, going on a limb, very much a nuisance to neighbors. That if it was unsecured or there was no direct oversight, knowing that the staff that are working there are both in the building and going out to do outreach through the night.

And that is why the organization is said to address those issues of people showing up off hours, after hours on the weekends, setting up encampments, having altercations, there might be noise. This was a measure they were going to take and because of the reduced staffing levels in those hours, the two security guards was the recommended approach. But again, happy to take recognition. Yep, Councilor.

One last thing on this and then I will come back. But I’m a little confused on this because I know at the Salvation Army Center of Hope, they were desperately wanting security because they have such a volume of participants as well as we’ve got King’s College, University students coming in, predominantly young women, a lot of staff, and I believe it’s a very, very high call rate with the police and the ambulance. So they had requested security there and my understanding was we couldn’t fund security so it was being managed a different way. This is outright security so I’m just curious.

And the problems and the altercations, I’m curious as to where staff think they go when the security keeps them off of that particular lawn because there’s no way for them to go. So those encampments and all those problems and everything end up showing up all through the neighborhood and then they come back again during the day. So I do wanna hear that question from staff and I also wanna say that I won’t be supporting security for 602 Queens. I really think that we need to, I’m asking those who are the experts in this area to show us how they are gonna manage these issues with the hubs.

I want them to show us right there. How can it be good neighbors? How can we make it work? Why are we taking a property that we pay a lot of money for and we are not allowing the tent encampments there when we’re paying for security for that space?

Like it just really boggles my mind because now we’re paying for security for where there’s nobody when we’ve got, like it would make more sense if we’re gonna pay for security, why don’t we let them stay there so that the guards can manage the altercation. So my, I would like to hear from staff on that staff. Thank you and through the chair, I can give you a little context in history on the security conversation and the requirements of our federal and provincial funders. Security has always been an administrative cost under the CHIPI program, which is a community homeless prevention initiative previous to the homeless prevention program, as well as our reaching home funding.

So historically we never funded security. If agencies wanted to have security, it was included as part of their administration costs and the contracts that we had, we didn’t directly fund security. COVID changed that. With the social services relief fund and some of the funding from the federal government, security was then allowed as an operational cost as part of COVID and COVID funds only.

So now that we’ve exhausted, I move through the provincial programs for the COVID related costs, security is now considered to be considered at a min expense. And so historically we would have funded the center of hope during COVID with some security through the social services relief fund or reaching home, as well as a number of our other programs and sites. And as we transitioned out of security, we still see there’s clearly a demand in our community and through community partners for that. We are looking at other options and have those conversations with organizations around peer-to-peer support models.

Could we look at enhancing housing support or different types of support workers on site to try and limit the need for security? But it is a work in progress at this point. Thank you. I’ll just note that I have no other speakers on my list.

I’ll go to Councilor Raman first and then I’ll recognize Councilor Pribble and then I’ll circle back to Councilor Stevenson. Councilor. Okay, Councilor Pribble can go first. It was a tie of hands.

Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. On Horton Street, as far as I know, it is 10 beds during the day and 10 beds during the night, if I remember correctly. And if it is, I would like to, I know Mr. Dickens, you mentioned that you’re gonna go back when you heard your question regarding the security guards to London cares to find out more in terms of the reasoning behind it.

So I would like you to add Horton Street on it as well, please. Just if you can include that in. Sorry, Mr. Dickens.

Sorry, Chair, through you. Go back to London cares and ask them about Horton Street as it relates to security. Okay. I don’t know.

And two other things is on the page 59, when we have the allocation. And it was you also, Mr. Dickens, that you mentioned the unallocated that the funds, and I just wanna make sure that I understood correctly that those funds would be used for the first three to five hubs as well. Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Yes, the increase in the HPP allocation gave us an opportunity to look at where we could make those investments and directing some of those funds towards the operation of some of the hubs is something that we’re you’re marking, as well as helping support standing up that entire system, be it through the highly supportive housing or the hubs. Okay.

Thanks for problem. Thank you very much. And last question it has through is this table as well, and it’s the federal money. And I know the 6.7 million as it states here, it was the one-time funding which was still from the COVID relief fund in the previous year.

So that would make it something like over a million federal money. Is that what it was previous kind of years in the range of $1 million from federal government? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair. Yeah, our annualized reaching home funding in our current program is just under $1.2 million. That’s a problem. Thank you, no more questions now, thank you.

Councilor Roman. Thank you, and through you. Just to follow up on some of the questions that have been asked, my understanding was this is coming before us because of potential service level of reductions if we didn’t fund this. Could you please provide more context to that?

Thank you, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair. As part of our work with organizations on the yearly contracts, as you’ll note on Schedule A, every program has a single source or RFP, a procurement number that we work with through our purchasing.

So every service has been procured through the purchasing policy. Many of those approvals have additional years extensions, and so all of our programs have a variety of end dates on their current procurements with the city. So as part of our yearly work with those organizations to extend or renew or create additional contracts, we do provide an allocation based on what Council had approved as part of that initial procurement process. And so we provide that allocation to the service provider.

They then submit a budget, which our team then meets with them on to go over any details. We do note that we ask them to stay within their allocation where possible. And then we then meet and provide the draft copy of the contract to the organization. If they sign it and have no other further questions, we execute the contract and then start initiating payments, usually in two installments.

This year, as part of our conversations with the organizations, a handful of organizations identified some challenges that they would have meeting service level standards within their existing allocation. So our team paused to ask all the other organizations if they were in similar situations, and many of them, as you see on the schedule, came back and said they were. So our team has been working with each organization, negotiating and chatting about what their needs specific needs are, receiving budgets, back reviewing those, having conversations with the organizations around some of the questions we have. As I hear tonight, there is always a lot of questions that for the budgets, and we have a number of questions ourselves when we review them.

And that’s what came out of the schedule, A. Mr. Raman. Thank you, I appreciate that.

I just wanna follow up on part B regarding that additional security cost. So the processes that London cares would then utilize those dollars to hire private security. And so this is where I’m a bit challenged. I see that we have a number of private security being used throughout the city.

I’m just wondering at what point do we have a further conversation as a city about our security needs in general, and whether or not those need to be in a house needs instead of external needs? I think that when I see the amount of city facilities right now that we have external security, I know that Brampton has their own security that I think feeds in through public works or civic works or somewhere within their structure, I can’t remember. But I do see that there could be value there. And then I also, I mean, personally having witnessed, I won’t speak of a particular name of the security company, but having been in a situation where there was an altercation in front of security that are at a city facility, having realized that their approach, their ability, I shouldn’t say their approach, but their ability to actually intervene is quite minimal.

They can pretty much do what a private citizen does, which is called police. And then we still have the issues that we are in the challenges that we’re having with response times right now with our emergency services. So I am challenged with this piece of this request. However, I will say that having met with London Cares, I heard firsthand from London Cares as to why they said they needed that additional security and what they were experiencing.

So I see the value, I just, I’m wondering if, and I don’t know that would come out of this committee, but I do feel like another layer of this is that a further discussion needs to be had about how we are doing private security in the city of London at a later date, not a budget submission, I promise, but at another time in the future. So that’s just my comment on that. But I’m just wondering again, from the London Cares perspective, what I heard was very solid rationale as to why they needed additional security. So perhaps maybe any additional context that you may be able to share from their perspective as to why that’s needed, thank you.

To staff. Thank you and I appreciate the comment and that consideration, I think it’s a question. Our teams in the system will have to address and my apologies through the chair. We’ll have to consider and look at, right?

I did mention on a previous answer around peer to peer support models, around additional support staff to be able to have some of that intervention training or different intervention training and de-escalation training. And I think it’s worth a community conversation and service system conversation about it. The rationale that we provided from London Cares was they were seeing a significant increase in aggression and violence on their site, both during the operating hours and post operating hours. So overnight there was quite a congregation of people in the morning that really prevented access to the site and for the operations of that space.

So that was sort of the rationale that they provided to us as part of the submission in addition to what Mr. Dickens had previously noted around the community engagement conversation. Thank you and I will make note that Ms. Wesley Plowers has confirmed that your security question would come through CAPS, Councillor Raman.

Thank you so much. And my final question, so I don’t wanna conflate what’s going on at this location at 602 Queens with what would happen at a hub. But I think that there is that belief that they’re very similar. But I just wanna get a sense in terms of numbers ‘cause my, again, visit to London Cares, thanks to Councillor Frank for helping arrange that.

The conversation was around, I believe, higher amounts of people visiting on for breakfast, for lunch and for daily drop ins. So we’re talking about smaller numbers, though, when we’re talking about hubs, then we would see at 602 Queens is that fair to say in terms of numbers of occupants. And I know we are also experiencing quite an increase this summer, which is, to me, part of the reason for the contract amendment is to address need. So I’m just wondering if you might feel to speak to that a bit more, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, you’re right. There is greatness conception around what the hubs will be versus what is at 602 Queens Ave. Those are not two of the same things.

And one of the fundamental differences is that 602 Queens Ave does not have any bets. And it’s not a space that today would be equivalent to what is being proposed for hubs. The hubs that are being proposed and will be brought forward to SPPC next week will walk through the criteria around proper management of a space and indoors, outdoors, what that looks like. Also the size of the space, 25 to 35 bets, for example, which is very different than what is happening at 602 Queens Ave.

You’re right, where there’s large volumes of individuals coming to get basic needs and food. Roughly on average, London cares is serving between 250 to 300 people a day, which would be fundamentally different than what hubs are, hubs are more consistency, a space where people can stay. While there may be some respite beds, it is intended to support smaller numbers of individuals as opposed to large-scale drop-in, come-and-go, less interactions. Although that serves a very significant purpose for basic needs, the hubs would be very different than that.

Councilor Pervil, and then Councilor Stevenson. So to chair to the staff, I certainly would love to have the answers from London cares as well about the security of the two locations, but one of the concerns that I have now is that these accrements are from April 1st till March 31st. So we are now into April, May, June, July, for about four months. And I just don’t know what was the commitment from us, if there was any bridge contracts or any commitments from us.

Let’s say if we were to wait and turn it down, I wanna make sure that we are fair to the agencies in terms of there was a commitment and we cut it off now. So if you can tell me what would be, what’s, if my understanding is right, or if you can correct me, thanks. Thank you for that to staff, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair, just looking for a point of clarification, do you mean our annualized contracts or contracts related or there was requests for security? No, I meant the annualized that at the end, the lines 18 and 19, because that’s, there’s the bottom two lines are the security for both. And again, they are from April 1st, which we are four months down the road now. So the annual ones, yes.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, the system conversation around the workforce development table will help inform some of the work we do in 2024, 2025 with contract negotiations. It’s gonna help, I expect set some standards and some consistency across our community for training and such.

So we are going to look at the needs of those organizations at that moment in time when we issue our allocations in November. And if we need to come back to council to continue or expand the services, we will do that. For the security piece, I think London Cares has, footed, has been dealing with that within existing budget and has identified a shortfall to address that. I think part of the conversation we’re having with the hubs will help inform what the next steps are for security beyond December 31st.

Councilor? No questions right now, thank you. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you.

I wanna walk back my comment about comparing 602 to a hub because I understand that there’s, I’m not wanting to feed that at all. I do understand that it’s different. And so I just apologize for that. I wanna walk that back.

And, but I wanna be super clear on my point. And I really want my fellow counselors to hear me. In the report, it says that additional security is requested to address the increased behaviors and aggression of participants and to support concerns raised as a part of neighborhood engagement. And Mr.

Dickens just said that they feed, London Cares feeds 250 to 300 people per day. And my understanding is most of those do not have a place to sleep. And so, and it corrected me if I’m wrong. So I saw what it looked like for a while when it was basically an encampment and now with the security guards there, there are not tents there.

Like I said, except for the boulevard on off hours. They’re not traveling far. I mean, they’re in the neighborhood. And so I don’t know how we are going to say to the public that we are paying, that we’re using taxpayer dollars or government dollars, however you wanna call it, to fund security, to ensure that the London Cares property does not have to deal with what everyone else is dealing with and is going to be forced to deal with.

I think we get to reconcile that. What I would like to do is refer, be back to staff, to sort of look into that whole safety issue a little bit further and come back with what can we do as a city to support the safety concerns. And just be a little bit more reflective on that and really come with answers so that if we are gonna move forward with this and fund it, we can really explain how it’s gonna help the neighborhood and why here and not in other places. So I don’t know how to word that, but I would like to refer, be back to staff for— Just thank you.

A question to staff then is the amount noted in B, part of the contract amendments in A, just making sure the numbers aren’t intertwined somehow and schedules behind the scenes. Councillor, if you just, Councillor Stevenson, you just repeat your draft wording, the committee clerk is clerking. Thank you. To refer the allocation of 374,210 back to staff for a more comprehensive review of security concerns.

Or I’ll defer to staff on how to word that. But I would like it, I do not wanna approve this. I would like to refer it back for a staff report on security concerns and how best to address it. Maybe we need a lot more than this.

The staff realizing the clerk is typing seriously. Through you, Chair, I’ll answer your question. Changing Part B would not change Part A. Part A is the full funding of all contracts up into the security costs.

The security costs are separated out as its own motion as it comes from its separate funding source as well. As far as the wording on the motion, not sure what that review would entail other than perhaps. And I don’t think Mr. Latiser is on the call.

But perhaps it’s some sort of security audit or security review. I would want to look to some experts to help understand what that looks like. But again, I think maybe committee might have to workshop the wording on this one. Yeah, maybe I can help.

Or maybe I can help. So what kind of review you’re looking for? A staff report on that cost and what problem it’s addressing, how it’s solving it, and why those two locations. What are we doing with the problem if we are, ‘cause it specifically says that it’s addressing the neighborhood concern.

So I’d like a staff report just explaining that because at the moment we’re being told we need to go back to Lenny Cares to find that out. So I would like that information in a report. Okay, the committee clerk is gonna read back their take. So the amended wording is a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210.

We referred back to the civic administration for a more comprehensive review of security concerns and a report back at a future meeting of the caps. Is that on point? I think maybe the more comprehensive review needs to be something we come up with separately. So in this, it’s gonna say that first part with the amount that we’re requesting civic administration come back with a detailed staff report explaining the value and the reasons why.

Like, I don’t know how to word that, but a staff report on that funding as to why a business case for it. So maybe that’s it, a business case for that. It’s $374,000. Also a seconder would be needed for this motion as well, but do you have a question regarding to this or something else in the go?

No, it’s actually comments related to the senelty. I was there twice in this building and there was twice both times the security was in action. One, it was because of the fight between two people and once because on Queens off West today’s premises, someone was building a few months ago at 10th there and the security guard went there actually. And they said, no, you cannot build it here, but you can move it to the premises of 602 Queens.

So I just wanna make that comment that that’s, by certain, I will certainly support this motion because I would like to see more detailed report as well. Thank you. So you’re seconding. Are we ready to read?

We’re not ready to read it yet? No, I just recognized Councillor Ferriero. He hasn’t had a chance to chime in and he’s in the virtual no man land. So Councillor Ferriero.

And thank you through you. I hope you guys can hear me on right now. Yes. All right.

So I’m listening to the conversation. I would be interested in getting more information. I’m just concerned on how long that would take. I just wanted to go to staff before anything and ask.

If we were to get a full report, I would believe that that would be delayed for a while or that would delay this funding for a while. I just wanted to know there would be a shortfall, there could be a potential shortfall in the interim and we wouldn’t have security at these locations if we were to delay it by too much. I did hear Mr. Dickens talk about possibly getting a report back for the council meeting that’s coming up next week.

So I’m just trying to consider these all together before going to the vote. So I just wanted to know, would there be a stoppage of services if we were to delay it? And would you be able to possibly have some type of report, maybe not a full report, come back for council for us to vote on for that? Mr.

Dickens and Mr. Cooper, how fast could reporting be and to what degree of fullness and is there any security concerns if we take a delay and make in this decision? Thank you, Chair. So money cares their ability to continue to pay for security services, maybe you would in all likelihood be impacted by this deferral or delay.

I don’t know if that means security stops tomorrow. I don’t know if that means security stops in August, but there would potentially be an impact to their ability to continue to fund security services. Without security onsite, it would no doubt provide some safety concerns from a health and safety perspective from their employee base, as other Councillors have pointed out, there have been incidents of violence onsite, London Cares has had staff assaulted and end up in hospital onsite, prior to having security. With security’s presence, those instances have decreased.

I don’t have the numbers in front of me to back that up, so I’ll walk that back. If we were to return with a business case to committee on the value add and the reasons why security is needed at this location and the Horton Street, by Tuesday’s council meeting would be pretty tough to do, but what we would do though is that report would probably itemize all of the significant occurrences that have been submitted by the organization to the service manager probably prior to security onsite and since security’s onsite, and we would try to evaluate it based on occurrence numbers and security, I wouldn’t have a value audit for what that means for where people go and what the community thinks and beyond that. So it would be very rushed and perhaps very narrow in scope by Tuesday. So Tuesday could potentially be the itemized occurrences as reported of security versus non-security numbers, just for clarification and I’ll go back to, sorry, Councillor Ferri will get the follow up.

Thank you, through you. So that’s my concern. I don’t wanna see any stoppage of the services ‘cause I am concerned with a safety of all parties at these areas. And I understand that maybe a full some report is not feasible to come by next week.

So if the mover and the seconder are willing, could we maybe make a little bit of amendments to the motion as it is and look and specifically put in an itemized report that Mr. Dickens is speaking of to come back for the next council for a decision then, just because I don’t wanna see any stoppage of those services. And that would get me to vote in favor of this amendment to the motion. Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson then as the mover.

Thank you. I just, I don’t think I’m being clear. I absolutely see the value that this security provides 2602 Queens right now. I’m not, I don’t wanna see how it’s improved with security.

There’s no doubt in my mind that it is. What I’m saying is I want to hear from staff in writing. Why are we going to pay for security to move the problems from 602 Queens to the rest of the neighborhood? That is my, that is my, it’s not really, do they need it or is there violence and altercations?

There absolutely is, I get that. But to have security stand there and make sure it’s not on their property, to make sure that they don’t deal with the defecation, the vandalism and the violence. When I need, I need to understand why the city would pay to disperse the problems into the neighborhood. That is gonna be a very hard sell for me.

And that’s the part. So I’m not, I’m not looking for an evaluation and audit, a list. I want staff to explain to the residents surrounding that area why we would pay for two security guards in the off hours to ensure that the problems move into their neighborhood. Okay, I’ll note that the committee clerk has reported that the wording is ready to be read back to you, but now hearing those comments isn’t sure that it meets what we’re now hearing, but I’ll turn it over.

Through the chair, what I’ve captured is the following, that the matter of a one-time funding allocation of up to $374,210 be referred back to the civic administration for an itemized report back to a future meeting of the caps, including security costing justifications. So referred back to civic administration, do explain how it addresses the concerns raised as part of the neighborhood engagement. So that’s coming right from the staff report. So I just want clarity on how it addresses the concerns raised as part of the neighborhood engagement.

That’s what it says in the staff report. I get the other part. I have no concerns about that. I just want to be able to explain.

Do you hear neighborhood, what here it says neighborhood, raised as part of neighborhood engagement. So those concerns, I just want staff to explain that. And I actually didn’t pause to let staff answer the question of 250 to 300 people who come there to eat, do they have a place to sleep? And if not, where do they think these individuals who are causing such problems to need this level of security are going?

Hey, the committee clerk has said, if you refresh your E-Scribe mentioned wording is in there for your review for the mover and the seconder. And then I’ll go to staff for any insights on the question. Are the mover and seconder okay with the wording? Yes, I like the wording.

The seconder is good. No, actually, I would like to make an addition. And my addition is actually for me because I did see them engage during the day. For me, I would like to add their international, rationale beyond their staffing during the weekdays and weekdays.

You need to repeat that, please. As part of the neighborhood engagement and the staffing rationale. So we add as part of the neighborhood engagement during the non-business hours. We add that on to the end.

Repeat it one more time. So part of the neighborhood engagement and staffing rationale during the off hours. One more security staffing rationale. So security is important word there.

It’s not their staffing rationale. It’s the security just to make sure. Hey, it’s been reloaded. If you hit refresh, we’ll be able to see it.

Councillor Ferra. And then I believe Councillor Frank, do you wanna list? Yes, okay, Councillor Ferra. Thank you and through you.

Okay, so going back to staff for this. Again, my concerns is the timing. And if the possibility of losing services for a time period between figuring this out and voting on it. So I just wanted to know back to staff, how long do you think it would take if we were to vote on this for a report to come back the way it’s worded?

Mr. Dickens, recognizing staff capacity and timelines of council committee and whatnot. Thank you, Chair. Certainly it’s a priority.

So we will make the Tuesday deadline if that’s what committee endorses is for report back. We will make that happen. I think the challenge for us is not the timing. The challenge for us is being able to satisfy committee’s desire to address, explain how this does address the safety concerns.

What I will have is a combination of some anecdotal evidence from firsthand, from security and their engagement with neighbors, from staff and their engagement with neighbors. I won’t have time to conduct an assessment of the neighborhood to get their feelings of how this adds value. So it will no doubt raise as many questions as it does provide answers. Yeah, we can make the timing.

I’m more concerned about the content. But some information will come back. Councilor Frayer, your hand’s now down. It’s up.

You have a follow-up before we go to Councilor Frank. Okay, proceed. It’s just a quick follow-up. If, okay, so I understand the timing and the staffing restrictions and just how spread out we are right now.

But any type of report coming back, considering if you have look empirical evidence or you have some anecdotal evidence, that would be good. I feel like that’s what we’re looking for. But if we could get it back, if the mover and the seconder are okay, if we could write into this motion to have something back for the council meeting, then you would see me voting on it. But that’s really what I wanna see.

‘Cause my concern again is the timing of everything. So if Mr. Dickens says that he can get that report back or some type of report that would answer these questions, I would like to know if the mover and the seconder would be amenable to put that into this motion. I think Mr.

Dickens already said he will have something for council on Tuesday. And at that point, you can always make the decision if you wanna move forward or wait for further reports. Once you see with that report in an overview of information as, so that would be my recommendation. Mr.

Dickens has noted that you will have that for Tuesday and we can make that decision at council and have that discussion of any remaining or new questions in that space. Does that satisfy you at this moment, Councillor Ferra? If we’re gonna be voting on it at council, so we do have the possibility to get the information back and not have any stoppage of services, then I would be okay with that. Yes, Mr.

Dickens is nodding. He is good. Okay, you might need to repeat the question. So I do have, Councillor Stevenson is saying a question has gone unanswered that she had posed.

So we’ll circle back to that. As it might have been missed during the wordsmithing and then Councillor Frank is next in the list. Thank you. The question was the 250 to 300 people who are served meals there.

Do we know how many of them have shelter in the evening? And if not, where do we think that they are sleeping if we are keeping, if we’ve got security, keeping them off of that property? Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Chair. So some individuals that access that service and the meal program is the Sisters of St. Joseph. So you used to operate on Dundas Street in all these villages and moved to that location.

I do not know the makeup of the clientele that access the meal program there. And anecdotally, experience perhaps would tell us a number of those individuals stay in emergency shelters, couch surf, some may be housed, and food security is an issue for them. Also meals are bringing individuals in so that they could access also primary care and other services that are available at that location. And a number of them would absolutely be unhoused.

To answer the question of do I know where they go when they don’t have a place to live is reflective in the fact that we have, between 40 and 45 active encampments in our community. And we’ve been very forthright with this council and this committee on the challenges and the increase in number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. So that is probably where the people that are not in shelter, not couch surfing, not housed or staying is self-resolving somewhere in the community that they feel is safe for them to be overnight. So I think maybe my question isn’t clear and— Sorry, we have specifically for wording then.

Maybe, aren’t you asking if they are— No, no, no, no, we have two security guards there, evenings and weekends and overnight. Because if we don’t, there’s a lot of people there causing a lot of trouble. So when we have security there, keeping them off that property, what is the rationale between, you know, all we’re doing is paying to ensure that that particular property does not deal with the issues. So if we knew that if we had security guards there, not allowing them to sleep and we knew where they were going and it wasn’t a problem, that would be fine.

But if we don’t, then we are literally ensuring that other people manage the problem and not that location. So my question really is though, this solution, and maybe I get to, maybe that’s the, what I’m asking for in the staff report, is to explain how this is a solution that isn’t just moving the problem to everybody else. Because we are the representatives of the taxpayers of the everybody else. So that’s really my question, 250 to 300 people.

And we’re not allowing them to live on that property, which is another question, why do we not let them live there? If there’s no place else for them to go, we pay for that, we’re paying a lot of money for that property. I’m also gonna note we’ve been on this topic for almost an hour on this one. And yeah, I’m still chairing at this moment.

And in my opinion, we’re asking questions that aren’t directly pertaining to where this money is going to be going of this, there’s no claim that this security is gonna find housing for 250 to 300 people. So I’ll go to staff and Councillor Frank is still waiting. And then I think I saw Councillor Pribbles hands. And then just for committee, when this item’s done, I’m gonna ask your permission to go onto items for direction as we have people requesting delegation in the gallery as well with us this evening to staff.

Yeah, so through you chair, if the question I’m answering is, why not let them camp on that site? So this location is private property. So yes, there’s a lease that’s paid and rental agreements that are paid, but it is private property. So there would need to be some sort of support approval from the private property land owner for that to happen.

That’s kind of the basic answer. I hope that helps. Okay, so I’m really questioned. So Councillor Frank, and then I’ll recognize Councillor Pribbles.

Thank you, yes. I just wanted to echo Councillor Ferra said this chair. As I also agree, I don’t wanna see a gap in services. So happy to have more information next week and then have the discussion there at council.

I do feel like we continue to move the goalposts on agencies in the community. I think I had heard a month ago that people were upset that there are people on that property milling about, hanging about. And then I think Letting Cares is trying to address that with some security. And now that’s also not good enough.

So I’m kind of getting, I think frustrated on behalf of some of the agencies that it seems like the goalposts continue to move for them. I think the long-term solution we all know is housing for everybody, of course. And we have many different plans to try and get that underway. Happy here, new ideas for trying to accelerate housing, get more funding for us to build more housing.

I’m always happy to discuss those solutions and alternatives. But I do think it’s a tough spot for agencies who are trying to do good work, trying to protect their workers. They have a legal obligation to make their workplaces safe. So again, I don’t wanna see a gap in services and happy to get this information at council for a decision.

Thank you, councilor Ferra. Sorry, I’m looking at Jerry, sorry, councilor Pribble. And so to chair to the staff, let me talk about business case next week for me. I don’t know for fellow other councilors, but for me, the feedback from London Cares explaining or responding to these two points, certainly sufficient.

And one of the concerns I have, as I said, I was there twice during the day, and both times there were incidents and only one person and during the night we have two. So anyways, I don’t think for me, from my perspective, I don’t wanna take a lot of time from the staff. The feedback from London Cares will be sufficient as long as it’s answered those two points. Thank you.

Thank you, councilor Stevenson. Thank you, last comment on this part, and then I’ll ask my other question is, I agree with councilor Pribble. I don’t need anything long. I just want the verbal reasoning.

And in response to the moving of the goalposts, I don’t believe that that’s true at all. The goalpost is a safe neighborhood, and there were problems there, and now we’re paying for security, and there’s nobody there. If we’re gonna have two security guards there every day, every evening, all night, and on weekends, at least they could be guarding somebody rather than making sure they go into the neighborhood. That’s just my thought.

My question is around the unity project. So on its number— Sorry, just a question. Is this relating back to the part B motion that’s on the floor? No, no, no, part B.

This is back on the original socially. So I’m going to suggest that part B’s on the floor, the speakers listening to be exhausted that we vote on that motion, and that once I was taken care of, we’ll have everything back on the floor to go to the other questions that haven’t been asked yet. If I may. The reason that I’m asking my fellow counselors here to support this is to support me in speaking with the residents in that area to just explain this to them.

I’m just looking for nothing that’s gonna take a lot of time, but staff has said that they need to ask London cares, and I’m just asking for that explanation so that I can make a wise decision and then explain it. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that the residents are frustrated not long ago, two weeks ago or so, the mayor and I did a walkabout in the OEV area, not far from here with Councilor Stevenson and members of the LPS.

I understand why the neighbors are frustrated. I don’t think we can reasonably expect our staff to have answers tonight on London cares perspective. I think we’re trying to get answers to the same question that staff just don’t have, and any answers that they would give would be speculative at best. I think we all have to come to an understanding, and I will say I genuinely understand why Councilor Stevenson feels very passionately about this, because in her ward, and I’ve seen it with my own eyes, I think it would be fair to describe a portion of her ward as ground zero for this crisis.

Unfortunately, the answer to her residents right now is there is no immediate relief to this. There is no magic wand or silver bullet. We will take steps, we will try and mitigate. I think the fact that since security has started, we have seen an improvement in the physical perception of what has been happening at that site.

I too though have seen on my way into City Hall, because I come down Queens and I have seen the tents in the boulevard and I reach out to CIR as soon as I see that, because that’s certainly not safe to be for either those utilizing the roadway or those with tents or tarps or whatever set up in the boulevard, literally inches from being in the roadway. But I don’t think we can expect our staff to provide any more information than they’ve provided to us already tonight. If Mr. Dickens and his team are able to provide a little more information by next week, I’m happy to receive that next week.

Even then, I don’t think we will have a, well I know we won’t have a perfect solution because the perfect solution is years away because as it’s been said, the real solution is housing. And even if we had a magic, if Ms. Cher had a magic to quote an earlier committee meeting, if Ms. Cher had a bag of pixie dust that could just be scattered and create new housing units as she walked along the street, it would still take months for enough housing to come online and she doesn’t have that.

So I do hope that certainly we’d be open to receiving some more information from staff next week, but I don’t think, and from London Cares, frankly, because if they come back and say they don’t need to at certain hours, great. If there’s a savings there, happy to hear that. But I don’t think we can really expect any better answer tonight than what we have. So I hope we can make a decision, give our staff an opportunity to go back and bring a little more information to us next week, happy to hear it, but then when that information comes to us, we need to make a decision because I don’t want to stop engine services either in terms of security because I think we’ve seen value, some value in the security investment that’s been made there.

We can question how much value, but I think we have seen an improvement on the site. So I hope that we can, you know, there’s a number of other important items we do have to deal with tonight, and I don’t want to say that we should dismiss this because it is an important conversation for sure, but I don’t think we’re going to get any more answers tonight. So I think we should make a decision whether we want to make the decision to not get any information and just approve this now, or whether we want to wait till next Tuesday and get some more information then, either way, I hope that we’ve heard enough now that we’re ready to make a decision and deal with this matter in an expedient manner. Thank you.

I have no hands online and chambers, I have Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I think the amendment just asks for a little bit more information by Tuesday. I’m not asking for an answer tonight.

And although I hear what the acting mayor is saying, and I understand it’s taking up a lot of time tonight, this is a critically important issue. And when we say there’s no immediate solutions and we give the usual story about it’s not going to be solved overnight and there’s not going to be enough housing, we all get that. My question is, why is the city funding one particular location to ensure that they don’t have to deal with what everyone else is dealing with around there? Why them and not everybody else?

That is my question. Can we come up with a solution that actually solves the problem? Because I get emails every single day from the people who live around there. The ones that are causing the problems that need the security guards are living in the municipal parking lots.

They are doing, I have videos, if anyone wants to see them, they’re doing drugs, they are defecating, they’re pissing in backyards, they are throwing things, they’re fighting, they’re arguing, they’re waking people up. So the problems that we don’t want to deal with at 602 Queens, which is a publicly funded private space, if we can’t deal with the issues, and I agree with the acting mayor, we can’t, then let’s not, and let the social service agencies at this property deal with what everyone else has to deal with, or come up with a solution, I would love a solution. So that is my request, is that people support the amendment to just get a little bit more answers from staff by Tuesday. Thank you, that exhaust the speakers list.

The wording is ready and you scribe with the mover and the seconder, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through the chair, and I’m sorry to interject. I know that you’d like to move along. What I’m hearing are two different things.

I’m hearing what is a question and a motion, and I’m hearing a completely different question in response. So I’m not sure that the request for the information is actually a request for this information. I think that there’s an additional request, additional conversations that need to happen, obviously, that is outside of the context of this question. I personally am satisfied with the conversation I had with London Cares about why they’re in need of this allocation at this point to make the decision.

It’s great that more information will be coming through committee or coming to us potentially through this motion. I mean, more information is great, but ultimately I think we’re having two different conversations. This is not about why we’re not funding private security to then walk the streets of the city of London, because that is basically what was just said. So I want to make sure that the parameters of what I’m voting on, what is in front of me right now, is more context to the one-time funding allocation.

Personally, my understanding of security contracts is very limited, but there may be some issues around the fact that two security guards are needed at night because that’s the provision of the contract. For instance, I’m not sure. Perhaps that’s more information that can come. Again, the contract may stipulate that for private security to be there.

They have to be there 24 hours. It might be terms of contract. Look, there’s lots of those things I think could come, but that doesn’t stop. I think it allows me right now to make the decision I need to make at this time without that, but I do think we’re having two different conversations when we refer to the comments versus what’s in the actual motion.

Thank you. Thank you. I would concur with your insights on that. Did you want to hear from staff specifically?

We will be back or for them to reiterate what they will bring back in brief on Tuesday. Okay, Mr. Dickens, for Tuesday, your deliverables to council will include the following. Thank you, Chair.

The deliverables will be as following. We will engage directly with London Cares. We will get a sense of how these measures are currently addressing the concerns of the community, of their staff and of their site, but we will also come back with rationale from London Cares on why two staff, two security guards are required overnight, off hours, as opposed to daytime. Again, anecdotally speculative is that overnight is when the camping starts and it’s entrenched and it becomes a significant amount of work and challenge in the morning hours through that main thorough way and corridor.

So, but absolutely, I will report back with comments directly from London Cares on the rationale for the off hours, as well as how this is going to address concerns. Thank you. So if you’d like this report from Mr. Dickens on Tuesday, it is a yes vote on this motion.

If you do not want this information, it would be a no vote. Councillor Stevenson. I appreciate this might be trying some people’s patience, but I’m feeling pretty disrespected by this, the laughter and the comments. I’m standing right, sitting right here, when you say you think I’m asking a question different than what I think I don’t think I am.

I’ve asked for specifically what is on this amendment, which is all that I want there. And I’m also asking my fellow Councillors, when Tuesday comes and we vote on this, that we consider the fact that we’re being asked to spend $375,000. Mr. Dickens just said that if we don’t have security there overnight, there’s a lot of encampments and cleanup to do in the morning.

That is what the businesses and the fellow property owners are having to deal with. So if the acting mayor says we don’t have a short-term solution, and I agree we don’t have a magic wand, then let’s not be selective about who we pay a magic wand for. That’s what I’m saying. Security while they’re up and running, I absolutely support it.

On off hours, I’m asking council when we get this information, next Tuesday, to really thoughtfully consider why we’re paying for security when there’s nobody there and we’re not doing it for anybody else. I’m saying what the acting mayor said, there isn’t a short-term solution fine, there isn’t a short-term solution. Let’s save a lot of money and build affordable housing or actually take care of people. Following the question, there’s no more speakers in the list.

I’m saying the vote, the motion carry five to one. Thank you. We have item 2.4 to still deal with on the consent, but oh, sorry, yes, absolutely. That was just on B, my mistake.

So that’s A, B is amended or replaced. C and D on the floor, taking questions. I’ll start my speakers with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just a quick thank you to the committee for indulging me on that amendment, I appreciate it.

I had a question regarding the unity project. In this schedule, there is $25,000 towards 40 room hotel lease costs. From April 1st to May 15th, the portion that was not previously covered due to hotel cost increase. That what I’m reading is an answer that I got back from staff today.

So I’m just curious if staff could explain that because I know when we paid the 750,000, it included those interim costs. The staff, Mr. Cooper? Thank you and through the chair, the initial or the original bridge costs, I guess, that were approved by Councillor in the air for a unity project went till April 30th, I believe.

So there was a 15 day gap given some permitting items they were working at with the city. So they couldn’t move until May 15th. And so that is the additional cost associated with that. Councillor Stevenson?

Thank you, that makes sense. There was a comment on Twitter that I saw that I just wanted to clarify with staff around the York Hotel. I wondered if there was any update on that. There was a concern that maybe the city had condemned that property and that there might be some risk to the city in terms of costs.

I don’t know if there’s any update or any information from staff, it might have just been a comment that came from left field. Just was this the city’s Twitter or— No, no, just for context. Okay, just for context, Mr. Dickens?

Thank you, chair. Yet the speculative commenting on social media is, we have ended our agreement with the York Inn, that unity project moved out of the York Inn, they had relationships with the business owner, there was cost increases, there was planned renovations. In fact, that was much of the urgency to relocate was some plan work that needed to happen. In fact, unity was also ambitious to leave that location for a number of issues as well.

One, sir. Last question on this unity project. In doing some research and stuff on homelessness funding, I did notice that in December 2021, unity project was issued $500,000 out of the reaching home federal funding that we got. It was several million dollars that we got gratefully from the federal government.

And 500,000 of that went to future land or building costs. And I did notice when I was at their AGM, that there’s $500,000 in investments in their financial statements. So I was just curious, like when we keep getting these asks, we happily supported 750,000 for the pallet homes and for the work that they do. But I’m just, I wondered if staff are following up on that.

Do we have any obligations around what happens with that half a million? And the reason why maybe that’s not being used towards some of the costs right now to staff? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you and through the chair. Yes, the $500,000 has been flowed to unity project for a purchase of property as per that agreement. They’re still under agreement with the city and they’ve met the terms for funding to flow and we do meet with them regularly on their status of their capital campaign project. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you and through the chair. But the reaching home money, like we’re in a housing crisis and a homelessness crisis. And that money was given to us to deal with a crisis. So I’m not sure how we have like, why there was an ask of 750,000 for the pallet homes if we’d already given 500,000 for capital type equipment.

Like I said, given the crisis that we’re in, it’s hard again to explain to the public why that money isn’t being put into action. Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you Madam Chair.

The $500,000 was for a purchase of property. The pallet homes was purchase of those units for that existing site. So the proposal is up received by unity project back in, I guess the 2021 was related to their capital campaign for a new organizational space. And that was what was supported by council at the time.

Councillor, follow up? Yeah. So do we have a commitment as to when that money, like when there’ll be a property purchased by them? Is there a time limit to staff?

Thank you. And through the chair, I meet regularly with the executive director of unity project. This is on our list of things that we talk about. I know that they are moving forward with due diligence on various aspects of that.

And I want to tread carefully on the confidentiality of the conversations we have with the executive director. So I can just share that this is a topical conversation in every monthly executive director conversation I have with unity project. So final question on that then is when the pallet project funding was being talked about and it was being presented to council for the approval of the 750,000, was it considered at all to ask them to use that money, given that we’re in a crisis situation and we need to help as many people as we can right now. And so A, was it discussed by staff or with them about them using that money and two, just curious as to why council wasn’t informed or we reminded because it does matter.

We are accountable for that money and how it’s being spent. Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, I think the conversations we had with unity project, obviously there is work a foot on the property and the purpose of why that $500,000 was already spent or already allocated to that organization.

And at the time there are two separate projects and the additional funding would have impacted, any shift in that funding would have impacted their ability to get where they’re at today with their conversations. So that’s as detailed as I can, I think I can be here. You know, I can look to have some further conversation, I’ll get some additional discussions, points with the executive director on my next meeting in early August and we can go from there. Councillor.

I said I was done but I got one more. Are there, is there a listing of organizations that have money put aside for long-term capital projects or is that an isolated case? Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Dickens. Thank you. Both of you.

Thank you and through the chair, it’s an isolated case. There were three projects approved as part of that COVID additional investment for the capital projects. Yet Losa Family and Healing Services organization with an indigenous led work to implement the capital piece of the Gewitoshcod plan is the only outstanding fee. But again, I have regular conversations with the executive director on the next steps to utilize that capital funding for the implementation of their Gewitoshcod plan.

So that’s the only other outstanding capital investment. Okay, I at the moment have no further questions or comments and it’s gonna be A, C, and D that I would need a mover and a seconder for. Moved by Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Pribble. Still seeing no further questions or comments, ready to call the vote on A, C, and D.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. Thank you. With committees indulgence, I would like to move item 2.4 to the bottom of the list as it has not been dealt with yet and move on that we have no scheduled items but we do have two items for directions and people have been in the gallery with us this evening. The first item would be 4.1, the revised process for the city board representative on museum London board.

We do have representatives, the executive director from museum London with us tonight as well as the chair of the board. If we have questions of them, it’s suggested that we grant them delegation status as we currently have no council member on the board. So looking to see if we grant them delegation status this evening. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Raman, calling the question on that.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries, six to zero. As a mic in the front and just as for technology as well, they’re coming to the front on that side of the council chambers. You have up to five minutes. I know you promised to be brief, but it allows you to introduce yourself to committee and it’s recorded so rest of council can look at it later.

And then since you’re a delegation, should anyone on committee have a question of you, we will be permitted to ask you. Well, thank you very much. Thank you Chair Palosa, members of council. Pleasure to be with you this evening.

My name’s Sarah Padfield. I’m the board chair of museum London. I’ve had the pleasure to serve in that role now for about the last two and a half years and have certainly served in a role with the museum through a period of time of quite a bit of change at museum London. In addition to going through recruitment for a new executive director, the museum has gone through a major overhaul of our governance documents, introducing a new set of corporate bylaws that now make us compliant under the Ontario Not for Profit Corporations Act and as well probably and most importantly have undertaken over the last year or so a very comprehensive strategic planning process and have launched our new strategic plan, which is really based around honoring and amplifying our interconnectedness both as a catalyst that we believe the museum serves in the community, but a broader community resource and organization that wants to be part of a vibrant city of London.

And we’re really excited about that strategic plan, which we’ve provided to you. I think, you know, we relative to the governance change, we’ve certainly enjoyed a very long and important partnership with the city of London. You are our most important partner when it comes to our strategic collaboration, as well as alignment around the goals of the city and how the museum as an organization supporting arts and culture can be critical to that achieving that strategic plan. We’ve enjoyed relationships and having council members on our board over the last number of years.

We want to recognize Chair Palosa who served for a couple of years in her early appointment. This process that we’re changing really is as a result of some of our governance overhaul. And it was just suggested that rather than have an automatic appointment process as articulated in the corporate bylaws of the museum, we move the appointment and the nomination of all board members into a policy document. And that’s what was included for your consideration and information this evening.

Obviously, we’re very happy to answer any questions. And, you know, we’re very excited to welcome a council representative to the museum London board table and look forward to working with that individual once we get that nomination secured. Thank you, Ms. Patfield for that.

For committee’s information, there’s suggested wording loaded into eScribe, realizing the member of which they seek, if we did it tonight, only those in chambers right now would have an opportunity to serve. Whereas this would form, I’m gonna let the clerk read it. It would be an opportunity that all a council has an opportunity to put their name forward. Through the chair, the motion that’s suggested is that the matter of a city London representative, city of London representative on the museum London board be referred to the strategic priorities and policy committee for consideration of an appointment.

It being noted that the members of council will be advised of the opportunity. And the members of council would have the information within our package as well to look at what would be entitled as your duties that the museum would like you to fill within the board and the community and their events. And they also just had a wonderfully successful summer launch party of their exhibits, which had around 300 people at it, which is the most I’ve ever seen gather at the museum outside of up with art. You’re gonna correct me, Sarah, is that what’s up?

Yeah, it was over 500 actually. Okay, I left when it started getting too peeply. So I guess my cap out was 300. Thank you.

Seeing as they are a delegation, they are open to taking any questions or comments from counselors in chambers or online. I will start the speakers list with Councillor Trovester. Hello, I went through this in a lot of detail and I think I’m really glad to see that this is opening back up to a city representative and I think you’ve really done an excellent job setting out a lot of criteria here. My question is, is this open to members of council or just people who are nominees who are not members of council?

It wasn’t clear to me whether that was specified or not. I’m sorry, could you repeat that? That’s my error. Yes, are you seeking somebody who’s a member of this council or specifically somebody who is not a member of this council but a nominee from the outside?

‘Cause I could read this- It’s a council appointment, not a public person, resident at large appointment, is that clear? Like council in general, any serving of the 14 counselors or the mayor, not a citizen appointment. Citizens are welcome to serve on the museum, let on board and are greatly appreciated in their talents but they have a different application process. Councillor Stevenson, okay.

Sure, if this is for the museum or for staff so maybe the chair can help me. I too am happy to see this open up and I have a position on it and I did read through and I see the detail in it and all the rationale. I’m just curious as to why the restrictions and is that open to other boards and commissions to put restrictions on the process of how we appoint people. Could you expand versus like?

Well, I’m just, like I said, I read through it and I understand and I’m just wondering, is this something that other boards and commissions are gonna start doing as well? I know London Hydro has a slightly different process and so I’m just wondering if this is the start of what is going to be happening or is this a specific museum London? Yeah, I could say that from the last term of council, this appointment came through in 2018 just like how all of our other agency boards and commission appointments did come through. Just the museum at that time was still in the middle of their by-law policy review and we’re ready to bring that forward for a council appointment until it was all placed in order which is now done and gone through their governance and they are ready to accept council appointment.

Is that enough clarification? Okay, and I did serve for all four years last time and it might have only felt like two but they had me for the whole time and it was, Sarah’s waving. I think she’s probably saying don’t send me back but no, it was a great board and as you’ve seen their policy and governance is all updated as they are also provincially mandated and some other by-laws need to be updated as well in a unique organization within the city for funding partner arrangements. Looking to see if there’s any other questions or comments, I have none online, none in chambers.

The updated wording, I guess it really isn’t updated but the wording suggestion for it could go to SPPC for all council could have an opportunity to serve on this board as loaded in e-scribe. I would need a mover and a seconder for it. Moved by councilor Pribble, seconded by councilor Ferreira. Our delegation to make sure that you had no further questions or comments.

Perfect, they’re good. Ready to call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, that concludes that item and this will move forward to council for their whole consideration along with your information within the package for they would know what they’d be signing up to serve and do.

And just for clarification, it would go not to the SPPC that’s coming up next week ‘cause that council has to prove it and then it’ll be circulated. So it’ll be a few more weeks until you have somebody. Thank you. Okay, that moves us on to the second item under items for direction, being the Thames Pool Condition Update and Repair Options.

I’m going to go to staff for an update on this item and then we will start our speakers list, Miss Smith. Thank you and through the chair. So as you are all aware, Thames Pool has experienced significant infrastructure damage due to its location near the Thames River floodplain. In April, council directed civic administration to report back to this committee with an updated condition assessment of the pool and identify the scope of necessary repairs and associated costs to reopen the pool.

In addition, you asked that civic administration provide the Thames Pool Report that was intended to identify the likely causes of the Thames Pool failure and the proposed potential solutions. So the report before you today provides the following information. It provides you with an updated condition assessment of the Thames Pool done in the last few months. It provides you with two repair options.

These repair options provide baseline repairs and mitigation efforts with associated timelines and costs. So these two options focus on like for like repairs, meaning Thames Pool would be the same configuration with the same features and orientation as currently exists. The report also provides you with some risk and mitigation strategies for each option and then the proposed next steps depending on the direction provided by council. So with Ms.

Barbona and I today is Ms. Stewart, our director of fleet and facilities, Mr. McGonigal, our director of recreation sport and Jamie Lopez. Jamie Lopez is the senior project manager of aquatics from design and engineering.

And he is with us today to answer any of your questions. So we’re happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

I will start my speakers list with Councillor Lewis. I just go to committee first and then certainly as the word counselor, Councillor Frank will be recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am happy actually to yield to the word counselor first.

I know that, you know, all committee chairs and I appreciate it all. Okay, thank you. We will then. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. Yes. Really appreciate the opportunity to speak first and just wanted to share some of the commentary that I’ve been receiving from the community. Of course, this only came out of last week.

So I was able to write up a blog post and share my Facebook and socials sent out to some local residents and I have been receiving some communications, not as significant as the first time this came around back in March, but still receiving a variety of different opinions both on socials and via email. And it is interesting because I am starting to get a bit of a split. There’s a lot of people that have a strong emotional attachment as we know to the pool that really want us to see it saved under any circumstance. There’s some people that identify maybe the location’s not great, but let’s do a repair and then find a long-term location.

And then there’s some people that have shifted and are willing to see us forego the location and look for some long-term solutions. So based on the communication I’ve been receiving so far and again, the original communication from the community in March, personally, what I’ve been looking at is going with option two, which I want to lay out maybe for discussion with this committee. That one is a slightly more expensive one, but ideally a longer-term solution, moving the, I wanna call them tunnels, sorry, pipes. There you go.

The pipes from the base of the pool to the sides. And knowing though that, and I have been saying on media interviews I’ve been doing, recognizing this is not the long-term permanent location because of the groundwater, the flooding issues, and the reasons why it’s currently sitting in disrepair. So I wanted to put that on the floor for our committee’s consideration. Again, there’s two options outlined from the staff, but I’ve heard from the community fairly significantly that they would like some sort of swimming opportunity within walking distance to the downtown in Old South, and hoping that this can be put in place ideally for 2025.

It’ll have been at that point in five years that the community has not had a pool within walking, biking distance. And so recognizing that if we do this, ideally we could get up by 2025. This would be the last investment we’d be putting into this facility, and then looking down the road at long-term solutions. And really I do see this as a bridge to that long-term solution.

So an opportunity for people to live in the core and in Wortley to have aquatic opportunity nearby while we look at the long-term plan for this area. So I wanted to perhaps put out that perspective to frame it. And I did have one question from the Old South Community Organization for staff that I sent along a little earlier. So just hoping through the chair to ask that, which was, I’d want to constituent ask about the links that were linked within the town’s report, and that they noticed that there were four mitigative projects recommended in the past by consultants, and that people are wondering why they weren’t included in the 2010 rebuild and design.

So hoping to send that over to staff. Thank you to staff, whichever one is lucky enough to get this one. Perfect. Through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question.

Sorry, into the microphone, we can’t quite hear you. Sorry. Thank you for the question through you, Madam Chair. If I was understanding the question correctly, I believe it was within the second report that Mr.

Lopez prepared for us, that they outlined mitigation measures. And I believe that Mr. Lopez would concur with me if I suggest that the sentence at the end of that list that said this pool does not fully meet requirements in terms of that addition to that sentence. So if we go back to it, it’s increasing the thickness of the pool tank.

So indeed, Tem’s pool has an average eight inch thickness, which is two inches thicker than minimum that’s required in an outdoor pool. So that was implemented. We do have hydrostatic pressure mitigation. There’s four assemblies within the pool, but given the conditions that we’re now dealing with and the increasing height of the groundwater, we need additional relief ports.

Number three was gravity drains in the pool. We currently could not use gravity drainage because the actual deep end of Tem’s pool is almost at the static level of the river. So there’s no, there’s very minimal fall to be able to use gravity drainage away. So we would have to redesign that.

And number four, the method of underwater pool dewatering, it’s the same sort of issue. It’s a relatively flat site. So it’s difficult to have gravity fed drainage. And if we put a pump on it and there was more than 10,000 liters per day, moved through that system, you’d need a dewatering permit from the Conservation Authority.

And then number five, of course, we know that the pool is far deeper than four feet. So those were somewhat implemented, but given our understanding now of the site conditions, we’re suggesting that there needs to be a greater emphasis on those mitigation measures. I think does that satisfy what you believe the questions from Oscar would be? Perfect.

Okay, I will now go back to Deputy Mayor, Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I have to preface this with some comments and I am going to put a motion on the floor. When this came to us back in March, the low cost repair was 375, the higher cost repair was 600 and the full mitigation measures were 4 million.

Now we’re at 1.92 million for the cheapest repair, 2.2 for a slightly more expensive repair, neither of which will have any warranty or guarantee of any length on those repairs. We could in fact undertake repairs and in the spring of 2025 have a flood and be right back to where we are with no benefit from all that money having been spent and the still not having a pool. The report also indicates and I know that there had been hopes that perhaps 2024 at best we’re talking 2025 and more likely 2026 for the pool to be back in service to the public. We have to make the sound, the prudent financial decision here.

It is the tough decision. It is not going to make the community happy, but we cannot continue to put bandaid repairs into this pool. It is just not the right option. However, I do want the residents of the community to know that I recognize that they want amenities in their neighborhood and there is no quick replacement for a pool.

There’s not folks, it takes time. I also want to really, really caution any community members who happen to be listening to this comment that it is not helpful when you say this is shoddy engineering or shoddy workmanship. The city when it contracts out has guarantees in their work. We look for deficiencies.

We follow up with the contractors when deficiencies are identified. Sometimes environmental factors cause things to break and that is what has happened here. And we don’t have to love it, but we can’t blame the people who did the work in 2010 because the pool is now broken again in 2023. When you look at the history of this pool, 1959 full rebuild, another full rebuild in the 70s, major renovations and repairs in the 80s, major renovations and repairs again in the 90s.

This is the wrong location for a pool and we should not put additional dollars into it. What I would propose though, is that we take the lowest repair option cost and we recognize that the residents deserve some amenities in the neighborhood and that we direct those funds to provide so we proceed with decommissioning the pool. But then we direct those funds to provide some new community amenities. And I’m gonna suggest that we, I’m gonna put the following motion on the floor.

I hope that I’ve got a seconder and then we can have some discussion about it. That civic administration be directed to A, proceed with the process to decommission the Thames pool. B, that they undertake a community consultation with regard to implementing new amenities in Thames Park, including but not limited to the possibility for pickleball courts, basketball courts or other amenities. C, that they undertake a review of a new spray pad with Thames Park or inwardly on the village green as options in consultation with the community on a preferred location.

D, that they also undertake a feasibility study for the potential location of a new indoor pool opportunity, including Murray Park, Roan Tree Park, or other appropriate city owned properties within the same general geographic service catchment area as Thames pool. And then just in E, that parts BC and E, so this is the consultation in the new surface amenities, the spray pad and infeasibility study, that those not exceed a combined budget of $1.92 million, consistent with the lowest cost temporary repair option for the current pool outlined in the staff report. And I did throw in an it being noted because it’s important to that it be noted that the costs associated with part A, the decommissioning of the pool, related to any sort of demolition decommissioning of the existing pool are not part of that budget envelope. So rather than spending money on a temporary repair, we give the community some new amenities and we undertake a feasibility study to see if there are other locations that we already own that could be the future home of a new indoor pool.

So that’s what I’m proposing, and I hope I have a seconder for that. And then we can have some discussion around where that may lead us. Okay, thank you for that. I will note to those online and the wording’s up on the screen for those in chambers.

E-Scribe, if you refresh, has the suggested motion within it as per Acting Mayor Lewis, a seconder is required. I believe I have that in Councilor Pribble. Hey, Councilor Pribble says yes. Starting a speaker’s list on the motion that’s on the floor being A through E.

Councilor Ferreira, your hands up. It is, thank you. And through you, I’m happy what the Acting Mayor is saying because I am also on the same page here. I’m really worried and concerned that we put this money in to this pool and we have another flooding event.

And we find ourselves spending our money and looking into looking for a new location for the pool. So I do like the motion as it looks. I do need to read it fully to fully support it, but it’s looking good right now. But I’ll read it after these comments.

I just wanted to go back to staff just to give, just so I can on the record show the reasoning of why I would be supporting a motion that looks like this. So I think it was option two, the more expensive option where we have the drains coming off of the bottom of the pool and the return lines coming on the sides of the pool. And I did see some, in the report, I saw that the hydrostatic pressure pushing up on the piping below the pool pushed it into the pool and that’s why we saw the drain coming up. So knowing that with option one and option two, the drains are still at the bottom of the pool.

We could still have these hydrostatic pressures pushing up and ruining the drain lines and not affecting, I guess, the return lines, but we would still have that issue. So that would be a first question that I’d like to kind of throw out there and just get a comment on that. I do have some other ones on that too, but maybe I’ll just stop here and see if that reasoning is correct. To staff.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would suggest that my friend, Mr. Lopez, might be best positioned to answer that if that’s okay by you, Councillor Ferris. It’s not, yeah.

Whoever can answer the question, please proceed. Good evening, through you, Madam Chair. So the drain lines, yes, would be below the slab and remain there. They would be susceptible to some hydrostatic pressure.

The main concern is the smaller pipes, the return lines would have a larger impact being down that low by removing them from below and attaching them to the side walls through a pipe clamp system. They’ll be part of the pool tank themselves. The large drain, I believe it’s a 10 inch, don’t quote me on that, I believe it’s a 10 inch line. So it is basically resting on the bottom side of that slab and would need the whole system to, excuse me, to move with the system in order to do any damage.

Councillor Ferris, you satisfied? For that answer, yes, but I don’t have a question. Yeah, next question, I won’t go too long. I just wanted to just get this reasoning down.

I did see that there was some suggestion, I guess like a separate well, not the site well, but a separate well to kind of hold excess flows of water if we see that the water table is a little high. So, but I did see that was mentioned, but I didn’t see that in any of the options. And I feel like if we were to say, repair the pool with whatever option, but I would personally be more comfortable with throwing that in with, I think it was a French drain or something. I’m not sure what it was called, but I’m sure staff knows what I’m talking about.

I feel like that should also be put into this, which would increase the cost by so much money. I think it was like two or 300,000. So that would be something that we should put in as an insurance policy, but yet it would make us cost, it would cost us more, but at the same time, it wouldn’t help us for a very significant flooding event and we could still lose the pool. So these are like, these are some of the reasons why I’m just kind of, I’m kind of juggling.

And I’m, again, I’m worried that we put this money into this pool and we find ourselves not even using it. It gets pushed out to 2025, not getting, not being in use depending on people coming in and being able to do the repairs or could get out to 2026. And if we do have that flooding event in the meantime, which it seems like it’s highly likely, we could find ourselves in the same situation that we saw in 2010, where we are doing these repairs on this pool, putting the money in, and then again, mother nature comes through. And, you know, us humans, we’re having trouble learning that, you know, we just need to move aside and maybe put the pool in a new area.

So I like the motion that the acting there is put on the floor. So I’m gonna read it fully, but as it looks right now, I will probably be supporting that. So let me just read through it and I’ll let you know. Perfect, thank you, Councilor Pribble.

Thank you, I just would like to make a comment and sort of chair to the staff as well. I like this motion a lot and I’m not gonna repeat what the mayor said, but in terms of the no guarantees, no guarantees and lots of money invested. But I really think, as he mentioned, this is a great opportunity for us. And not just in the ward, where this land is, where the pool is, but also across the river, downtown Ward 13, we have the mainly two generations, which are the seniors and young people that are asking for additional recreational facilities.

If I look at it strategically, I really think that we used to have tennis courts there. And in terms of what was said, pickable tennis courts, running track, walking track, a basketball courts, I really think this would be a great place to have it. And I hope we can explore it. And I hope the staff can come up with some other land nearby where we can have an indoor facility.

And the other thing is waiting two, three years for now with a commitment. I really don’t think it makes sense for us anymore. Let’s look at another site. Let’s look at a long-term vision.

And let’s address these two things separately. Temps Park, recreational facility, a swimming pool, indoor long-term picture. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I kind of like Councillor Franks. (laughs) I feel as though staff wouldn’t give us two options if they were just crazy off the wall repairs. I mean, there’s no guarantees in life.

I mean, I don’t know what the issues were with the dam, but I mean, we can do things and they can not work out. And $2 million, like we spend a lot of money on stuff here. Temps Pool means something to the city. It means something to Londoners.

I tend to be practical when it comes to spending money. And we get to invest in the things that really have meaning for the city and meaning to the residents. And so unless this is like a super risky repair, I’m inclined to go for that. So at this moment, I am not inclined to support this.

Thank you. I’ll just do a follow-up to staff on that. As Executive Assembly Member Semari had said, that it was as directed by Council at the April 4th, 2023 meeting to update us on the condition assessment, the pool and to identify the scope of necessary repairs and the associated costs and timelines, realizing there’s been prior reports on that. Were the prior reports recommending repair or decommission?

And just like to the council’s point, is the staff’s recommendation or is this you bringing, staff bringing back to the committee, the work that we asked you to do? And this is what it looks like. Thank you. And through Madam Chair, on April 4th, 2023, that’s when we brought our report at that time.

Civic Administration recommended the decommission of the pool at that time. Council asked us to explore options one and two, to do a temporary fix or repair to the pool. And so this is what we are bringing back, these options in the report. Mr.

Lopez, our engineer does make a recommendation if Council wishes to go forward with approvals and he can speak more to it. He recommends in the report option two. Thank you. Was there a follow-up, Councillor Stevenson?

I have Councillor Frank next and then Acting Mayor Lewis and then Councillor ramen. Thank you. Yes, just wanted to follow up on a bit more information through the chair to staff. I’m wondering in your assessment of looking to where an indoor pool could be located within an ideally walking distance to downtown and Wartley.

What kind of timelines would we be looking at for finding a site, designing it, building it? What is the usual process for that? I’m wondering if you could just in vague terms outline what that timeline would look like. Average timeline or best case, worst case?

Councillor Frank will take the timelines that you can provide whichever way they go. So thank you through the chair. I think a time period and I’m trying my best to give you something and so I believe that the best estimate is probably in a four to six year timeframe in terms of identifying a site, going through the design and the consultation with the community, coming back to council to make sure that a source of financing is identified. It would currently be an unfunded project at this time.

And so that depends whether we can deal with that in one of our annual update years or whether that comes back to a future multi-year budget discussion. So I think that’s the best estimate that I could give you at this time. I’m happy for Ms. Stewart or Mr.

Lopez to correct me based on their expertise. But that would be my experiences to date. Would other staff like to comment on the process and the timelines associated with it? Seeing none, Councillor Frank, a follow-up?

Thanks, yes. I think I just wanted to reiterate, I appreciate the alternative motion that the acting mayor has put together. I do think it addresses some of the concerns from some of the constituents. And I feel like that’s the difficult part is, there’s no unified voice currently on this issue in Whartley and in Ward 11.

Again, overwhelmingly, a lot of emotional attachment to the Thames pool and a strong desire to maintain the location and have it open. So I still personally would be pushing for option to, given that a new indoor pool could take four to six years. And really, again, the main driver, I think in this community is they want a walkable aquatic facility, more than a splash pad. Although I think a splash pad would be nice, but they are seeking some sort of pool facility.

So long term, again, I think the community is starting to come around that the location is not viable. But given the four to six year time frame for an indoor facility, I think people would like to see the pool brought back and then concurrently have that process underway for the final location of a pool in the area. Thank you, Acting Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I want to go back to the question that you asked because I think we need to just be a little more clear on that. The option two that is in the staff report before us today does not supersede the original staff recommendation that the pool should be commissioned. It is in fact, if Council chooses to go with repairs, this is the option they recommend. And I just want to confirm through our deputy city manager for neighborhood wide services.

I’m still trying to get that title, right? Through our wise deputy city manager, that in fact, the original recommendation for decommissioning was still based on that being the best financial decision for us. It is only the direction of Council to come back to staff, to back to us with repair options that has led to an option to recommendation. Ms.

Smith, realizing staff always does, as they’re directed to do by Council. Thank you. And through the chair, in the report we submitted earlier this year, there was a series of guiding principles that led us to make the decision that we brought forward to Council at the time. And one of those was on financial stewardship, public funds.

And I’ll turn that over to Ms. Bourbon to speak more about that. Thank you. And I will note at that time when staff to bring that recommendation forward for the community, they did say that they are Londoners too.

It sat in them as well, and they do use that pool to recognize the impact that it has in the community. Ms. Bourbon. So I think through the chair, really from our original recommendation, using those guiding principles, that was the recommendation that staff had put forward, noting that this was a very incredibly challenging decision.

The Council directed us to go look at alternatives. So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve provided alternatives. And financially, one of the things when we look at the stewardship of the funds, and what it is we’re spending the limited resources that we have, this is one of those things that not being able to guarantee how long it will be.

And noting what other resources and other challenges will come through, MYB, that perhaps this may not be the most prudent use of the funds, recognizing that there is also a community expectation. And Council has to balance those. So that is certainly up to Council. We hope that we’ve provided all of the information for Council to make the best decision, ultimately on how they want to proceed, noting that, unfortunately, this is one of those things between the fiscal prudence and managing the community expectations that may not necessarily meet.

Thank you. Are you satisfied with that? That does answer that question nice and thoroughly for me. So I just want to, and I hope we’re almost ready to come to a, I know Council Ramen still on the speaking list, but I hope we’re ready to almost get to a decision-making point.

What I will say is this, I recognize four to six years sounds like an incredibly long time. Residents in the Argo area waited 20 years. So four to six years seems like a light speed move by comparison. However, we are at least two summers away, even in the best case scenario with repairs.

We’re still two years away from the Thames pool being able to be used, more likely three. And that is based on a best case scenario that we have no more flooding events, no more hydrostatic pressure breakages, which could end up leaving us with a direction to repair tonight. That means in six years, we still don’t have a functioning pool in a worst case scenario. And we’ve done nothing to start talking about providing the community with other amenities.

I recognize that there is an emotional attachment for many Londoners to this pool. When East Lions outdoor pool was being decommissioned and the decision was made to move to an indoor facility there, there was community attachment and angst about losing their outdoor pool. Then lots of memories were made there. Not a single resident in my neighborhood today would say it was the wrong decision to move to an indoor East Lions community center.

Not a one, including those who were vehemently opposed to losing their outdoor pool and thought we should find another location to build an indoor pool and keep the outdoor pool too. Not a one of them would say today that that was a mistake. A new generation of Londoners will make new memories in a new location if we start the process today to give staff the opportunity to start doing the work to undertake a feasibility study. Those future generations of Londoners will enjoy a new place just as much as previous generations have enjoyed the Thames pool.

And in the meantime, these other amenities that we’re talking about can be implemented in the neighborhood much quicker than four to six years. It doesn’t take four to six years to build a basketball court. And in fact, maybe the community might even want to talk to Mr. Morgana about a basketball court that in the winter can be an outdoor ice rink because that works at East Lions.

Maybe some pickleball for residents who want to pick up the latest hot craze that could be available next summer or the summer after for them is a much better option than waiting four to six years and potentially still having no pool. So we can make an emotional decision or we can make a rational decision. So I really encourage colleagues to make the rational decision on this one. I’m not suggesting that we don’t provide the neighborhood with amenities.

In fact, I’m willing to spend the 1.2 million that the cheapest repair would cost to 1.92. Sorry. Thank you, Councillor Frank for catching that. Cutbacks happen fast.

Yes. New Merrick dyslexia setting in. But I’m willing to spend that money to give the mother amenities and to start the ball rolling on a feasibility study. That to me is the best option moving forward and I hope colleagues will support it.

Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, the clerks have sent you an email in response to something you sent earlier just to flag that. And I have Councillor ramen followed by Councillor Ferrera. I do see your hand.

Thank you and through you. I just had some additional questions as it relates to the motion. I do recognize the need for consideration of amenities in the geographic area. But we did note in our discussion on the Thames pool that this is a pool that serves the entire community.

And I do also note that this was one of, I guess I would say a very small list of facilities that were able to accommodate swim meets and other competitive elements as well of our swimming program which we saw letters from, you know, Olympian Maggie McNeil on how important this location was because of the competitive nature of this space. So while I’m supportive, I am supportive of the decommissioning of Thames pool, I will say that because of the reason stated in the report, the staff recommendation, the UTRCA recommendation as well. I don’t, I wondering if perhaps we can touch on the competitive and the sports element and somehow address that within this motion. So I’m just wondering if through you chair, if I can ask staff to comment on that at all.

And then I have some other questions. So thank you. And that’s a very good question for the chair. So in the past, we’ve offered what a summer swim meet once we made a year happens at Thames pool.

The majority of our competitive swimming happens at the Canada Games Aquatic Center. And right now you’re right, it’s a lane swimming in a 50 meter pool. It is quite popular with a certain clientele in the city of London. So right now they are using the Canada Games Aquatic Center.

They do enjoy the two months out of the year when they can go outside to swim 50 meters. Unfortunately, that’s not happening now, but they can do that at some of our outdoor 25 meter pools. So I can turn it over if I’m missing anything to Mr. McGonagall.

I have a head shake now that it looks like you nailed it. But oh, one thing. Through the chair, Miss Smith definitely nailed it just to add some contextual pieces there. Competitive swimming is actually the least utilized activity at Thames pool.

They equate to about 100 hours over a 10 or 12 week period, recognizing we can run multiple activities in that pool so we can generally run over 100 percent capacity. There is only one swim meet that takes place there and it has not taken place there for a few years. And the group seems to be very content with the Canada Games Aquatic Center. The Canada Games Aquatic Center was built and is intended for competitive swimming and sport participation.

Outdoor pools are generally community based recreational amenities as opposed to competitive swimming because with a short season there isn’t a lot of training opportunities in outdoor pools. Follow up, Council. Thank you. And I appreciate that context.

And I do understand that you know it wasn’t a significant amount of time, but it was it was definitely a memorable amount of time that was spent in competitive swimming at that location. And it did offer that outdoor location for competitive swimming. And I do know that there you know is is is ample opportunity to expand our market share and competition and our ability to host competitions at the Canada Aquatic Games, especially if we had some additional scoreboard and other possible ways to track those meets better. So you know I appreciate the the motion here from the acting mayor.

I’m supportive of what’s in here. I’m just wondering if we could be a bit broader in how we look at about look at what how we utilize some of those funds. And I agree that it would be great to look at pickleball and basketball and other amenities. But I do think that this was addressing a aquatic need.

And so having some of that those dollars potentially go back into aquatics this whole aquatics pace for aquatics just joking won’t say that loud. But the opportunity for some of that money to go towards aquatic programming in some fashion I think should be considered as well. And I’m wondering if the acting mayor would consider including the word aquatic into that be part B. Thanks.

Councilor could you just read out what part B would look like to you with the word aquatic? Sure. Undertake a community consultation with regarding with regard to implementing new amenities in the Thames Park including but not limited to and then where it says or other aquatic amenities outside of just the Thames Park I’m saying within other facilities. And again I’m pointing to the fact that this is was you know an aquatic space that had a competitive element to it that we are losing in the city and we have a facility we can consult with London Aquatic Club and ask them as well in this what are some of their aquatic needs what are what are some of the potentials that we have to to you know help support the aquatic legacy that we have in the competitive element that we have here in the city and is there a way to do that and support that within any of our existing amenities and I’m not saying for a substantive amount of this amount of budget but something to consider in the consultation piece.

Thanks. I would highlight too I’m not sure if it’s been noted with staff at all with the loss or with the downtime of this facility I don’t know if it’s impacted our ability to attract any aquatic events or bids realizing there could always be some opportunities there with tourism London of what’s the need that other aquatics or the tourism’s hearing that we can maybe host more things to have a bigger financial return on our investments. So I’ll just throw that out there just because Councilor Acting Mayor Lewis serves on tourism London and has longer on that board than I do that he might know some insider information from past meetings so I’ll go to you to respond to the Councilor’s comments. Thank you Madam Chair so through you I am not aware of any aquatic event bids that we have failed to be successful on in terms of lack of facilities now through this is through the tourism London board so whether other opportunities were lost that were not brought forward for decision by tourism London certainly that may be what I would suggest to the Councilor though not that I don’t hear her concern my intention with the 1.92 million is that this is what it would cost just to repair this pool which is the what I would call the the major amenity in this neighborhood I would certainly be open to having a discussion with the Councilor and and she knows that I’m a swimmer so I I’m not opposed to getting more aquatic events in the city I can’t host them in my pool but if we need to make some changes at the Canada Games Aquatic Center or other locations I and I’ll go through our staff on this as well and see what their comments are but I would suggest that part of that would have to go through either the Parks and Rec Master Plan evaluations but I would suggest that if it is specifically related to sport bids that one of the options might be to bring through to tourism London for their portion of the municipal accommodation tax funding where some improvements could be made to facilitate bid success that way so I think there’s a discussion to be had there but I would see that as a part from the funding that we’d be allocating to the the community that’s directly impacted by the closing of the Thames pool.

Thank you not sure if staff wanted opportunity being one of our other Sheryl’s in our lives if you want opportunity to comment on that or other things behind the works and then I will recognize that I have Councilor Ferre and I do see visiting Councilor Trousa as well. Thank you and through the chair thank you for the questions on that and actually Mr. McGonigold recently met with the London Aquatic Club to talk about priorities and what they see as we look to continue to do life cycle renewal and enhancements to the Canada Games Aquatic Center and it also works closely with tourism London with respect to sport tourism. In addition to that through our Parks and Rec Master Plan and our future builds there is a pool identified in the future for Northwest London so at that time still working with the London Aquatic Club and looking at what are the priorities what is the capacity in our community already is it is it more feasible to enhance what we currently have or to build new so we have been in those conversations with the London Aquatic Club and tourism London.

Okay Councilor Ferre. Thank you and through you Councilor Raman came really close I’m touching what I wanted to point out but Ms. Smith’s team they came up with this aquatics opportunity for the Thames pool closure which was basically taking individuals from the community and providing transportation to other pools in the area and I just wanted to know if the mover and the seconder would be open to maybe adding something like that in the interim while we do the work that we need to do to find a new location facility build it and put a pool in if we could also maybe put that outdoor aquatics opportunity and extend that throughout the time just so we can continue that so the community members who do like to use the pool and are using that transportation service can continue to. I would certainly be amenable to adding another clause and perhaps what I would suggest is so we have A through E currently I would change E to F and add a new clause E that says continue to work with the community to provide transportation opportunities to other aquatic facilities and then in the new in what is now F the re-lettered E I would include the parts B, C, D and E so some of that budget could be used to transport people to other aquatic facilities while we have no other options for them but I think that’s a reasonable ask to make sure that we’re continuing to provide some options for folks in a neighborhood without a pool to go and access a pool.

Okay I appreciate that you’ve made it contingent upon being used within the same financial constraints and budget should it be approved looking to your seconder to see if Jerry is Councillor Pribbles good with that yes the clerk is just finishing updating that wording in E scribe for you Councillor Ferra was there a follow-up to that or it’s being done and you’re pleased. I appreciate it you know just the financial prudence of coming out of this motion I think is exactly where I’m aligning to you know I’m looking at this as though let’s say I had to point something million in my bank account I wish I did but if I were to be in this situation paying for this pool out of my own pocket knowing all of the flooding events and and the fact that you know it’s there’s no way to know that it would be able to last and it could be even lost during construction is why I feel like this would be the way to go so I do appreciate the motion on the floor and I appreciate the mover and the seconder making those amendments just to continue the aquatics opportunities for the community members in the area just so we can have something in the interim so I’m supportive of the motion thank you thank you Councillor Troso. I want to ask a very quick question about funding for a an aquatics event that would be considered a tourism draw and from what I understand before that would be a possibility and I think the municipal accommodation tax was was mentioned as a source of that do I have that right so far miss Barbara thank you through the chair so the municipal accommodation tax is collected 50% goes to tourism London to spend on the support of tourism events and the 50% that is retained by the city of London goes to our tourism capital infrastructure fund which is to support the funding of capital items that would support tourism in the city of London in the city’s capital budget. Councillor?

So could yes so so so so could the construction of of an upgraded pool that would be able to support some of these events be considered something that would be eligible for either the tourism London half or the city of London half. Ms. Barbone and I’m tourism London I believe directs their own funding and has not council directed just for clarity. So through the chair the city of London portion and I do not have the exact number in front of me as to what the balance is but is certainly one of those items that would support things in the capital plan so the creation of a pool because it is also going to be a community amenity we’d have to look at how much it’s certainly not something that is contemplated or funded so I would anticipate that there would need to be a consideration through the multi-year budget there is not sufficient funding within the tourism reserve fund held in capital for the city of London to fund the entire amount but certainly there could be a portion if it was upgraded to fund specific things as part of that that could be contemplated as a potential funding source.

Thank you. Sorry this hour grows later just smile more at everybody and they know it’s the call for last questions or hands on this. So the updated wording is an e-scribe. Deputy Mayor Acting Lewis person if you just want to make sure that it’s all good with your EF rearrangement before I call the question for we don’t have to go back and redo this and then for committee when this item is done as we still have several more to go this will conclude items for direction but we still have deferred matters an item in camera and we still have item 2.4 to circle back I will be asking for a 10-minute break when this item is done.

So so the short answer madam chair is I’ve I’ve read the revised language the short answer is yes that meets the intent the follow-up to that is I would like to get to the snacks that you ordered for us so I am also amenable to a short recess so I think we’re ready to proceed with this one. You’re good. Councillor Prill is good with the wording since he’s good. Councillor Stevenson you have a question or comment you have none okay calling the question then posting the vote the motion carries five to one.

So we seem to have consensus of 10 minutes and it could be a hand mode of a 10 hand mode oh my goodness a hand vote 10 minutes brief recess one of us desperately needs it okay I was told we’re good I will see you back at let’s just call it 640. Councillor Frayer could you just put your screen on for a moment so we know that you’re still with us and Councillor Trelsall wants to know that there was no food waste tonight from your food order he’s taking care of that for you. Okay so we’re coming back into session that moves us back I was going to loop back into the consent finishing up with that being item 2.4 being the primary care recruitment transition into practice and retention program funding request. I did circulate in advance a part D I wanted to add so as I add a part D I’m going to hand the chair to Councillor ramen part D will be voted on and then we’ll go back to the whole everything on the floor I’ll take the chair back over and we can proceed with our questions and comments.

Councillor ramen the chair is yours. Thank you and through you well thank you recognizing that I have the chair and that you’d like to be put on the speakers list to move a amendment. Thank you I’m going to be removing part D the recognizing in this report that and having spoken with Deputy Mayor Lewis for the east end that within this report this report states that there’s 3.25 family physicians for every 10,000 residents and that’s in contrast to the rest of London where the rates are at per every 10,000 residents there’s 8.4 physicians to serve the residents and that the new provincial guidelines expect physicians to set up in groups of six or more this new requirement paints a grand picture in London as per report as only 32% of family physicians have access to the team based care which would be the larger medical office base is available so my motion that I’m looking for your support in tonight is that part D would be that civic administration be directed to review opportunities through the rethink zoning process to facilitate the establishment of team based family care facilities not withstanding our policies locating major office uses in the downtown core and consistent with the new provincial guidelines expecting physicians to set up in groups of six or more for team based care I believe this is as we’re already redoing our rethink zoning and this has no budget impacts as we asked staff to do it and staff did have an opportunity to look and review this motion beforehand so I will move that and I believe I have a seconder thank you and I see deputy mayor Lewis has seconded the motion do I have any questions oh go ahead oh sorry acting mayor Lewis go ahead as long as you don’t call me late for dinner which I wasn’t thanks to councilor plows and making sure there was a sandwich um so um I’m happy to second this um and I’m just going to say that this is actually going to be only part of the main motion that I actually am supportive of um because this is actually within municipal jurisdiction to look at um and I do think that uh certainly within the east end when you look at the um the zoning that’s around and the properties that are available um and the office use restrictions that the London plan has um in fact I recall uh giving an exemption to the office square footage for a medical uh dental facility in ward seven uh prior to council ramen’s arrival here on council we have the same challenges in the east end and so I do think that that is one area of municipal jurisdiction where we can help with this is uh through the rethink zoning process and how we look at medical offices and teams because six doctors need a lot more floor space than one. Councilor Stevenson go ahead thank you I will just quickly concur with the acting mayor this is the only part that I’ll be supporting tonight thank you any further comments okay councilor trussa I would like to limit my comments right now to the question of what is within the jurisdiction of the municipality because I know there’s been some concern raised about that and in my opinion the entire motion is within the proper jurisdiction of the municipality if you want to get a if you want to get a legal opinion to the to the contrary you can get that but generally speaking um most broadly we’re we’re operating under section 10.2 single-tier municipal uh municipalities may do certain things under the municipal act so single-tier municipalities may pass bylaws respecting the following matters six health safety and well-being of persons now it seems it seems to me um that everything that’s everything that’s within this um this this this measure comes within um that and if there is some if there’s some provincial measure that else that I would want to hear what it is because generally speaking there would have to be something much more specific where there would be an actual conflict um the fact that there is overlap between a provincial area of jurisdiction and something that’s stated in the municipal act doesn’t create in and of itself a conflict so I just I just want to um I just really want to urge uh and I’ll raise this at council as well and perhaps ask to go into closed session but uh I do I do think it’s important not for us to undercut and limit what is within our broad scope and authority people need family doctors and if that if that’s the case I do think that we uh we have a very strong argument here that it’s within one of the heads of the municipal act under health safety and well-being of persons and that’s all I want to say thank you thank you uh other speakers on the site on the amendment okay seeing none uh council approval uh currently I’m in support of the a and the and the d b and c if I look at it and there’s one municipality that’s uh I think it’s Kingston that’s uh funding this on their own but if we did find some partners and partners from private sector and hospitalist as well I would be much more willing to it as we have a whole community approach but not completely just us so I would love to hear the feedback from the staff thank you councillor and what I will say is right now we’re dealing with uh just the amendment and then we’re going to deal with the main motion so can we address that during the main motion and not the amendment certainly yes thank you okay seeing no further speakers at this time we’ll deal with the amendment to the motion and uh we’ll get that ready for you for a vote closing the vote the motion carries six to zero thank you and I’ll return the chair to councillor plosa thank you um previous madam presenting officer excellent job and I’ll start my speakers left with councillor preble staff have gotten a sneak preview of his question do you would you like it restated or are you prepared to answer at this time you’re prepared to answer so I will go to staff for the answer then I’ll go back to councillor preble to see if you have a follow-up thank you chair and through you I will just note that including the city of london there are seven partners currently involved in this plan and this proposed project that includes Middlesex County London Economic Development Corporation the Schulich school of medicine and dentistry london health sciences center St.

Joseph’s health care london and the Middlesex hospital alliance each contributing monetary contributions to this project the project is uh under the leadership of the Middlesex london Ontario health team the Ontario health teams provide a bit of a new way of organizing and delivering care that is more connected to patients in their local communities there are sort committees awareness there are 57 Ontario health teams across the province the Middlesex OHT has been working on a primary care recruitment and retention strategy and they have modeled this after other municipal partnerships where municipalities play an active role in creating a welcoming and hospitable community for doctors to move to but also to retain the school of medicine and dentistry is a training arm not a recruitment arm but it is part of this plan is to actually retain doctors from moving out of the community and moving to other neighboring or communities in Ontario so hopefully that helps Councillor Pribble certainly does thank you for the answer and I will be supporting staff recommendation thank you sorry could you repeat that last sentence or that I will be supporting the staff recommendation based on the information I just received okay next on my speaker’s list I have Councillor ramen followed by Acting Mayor Lewis thank you and through you so I had a number of questions as it related to this report and so I hope that staff might be able to help me address some of those but perhaps they may also be questions that would require some support from LEC or other partners so my first question was we were provided with information around other cities that have these types of programs and I recognize and have done my own research on a few in surrounding communities as well as to the types of programs they have including Sarnia but it doesn’t really say other than what’s the setup of that type of program it doesn’t really say what the results are in terms of how many doctors had they successfully recruited with those types of programs I’m just wondering if you might be able to shed some light on that mr. Dickens thank you and through you chair don’t have a lot of information on that I do have some Sarnia as you referenced indicated they had recruited net new 35 new family physicians but that was over a multi-year period Elgin County St. Thomas they run a bit of a grant program to incentivize people to stay and to relocate to their area and again over a multi-year period about eight years they had issued 36 grants we have reached out to Hamilton Kingston and Chadam looking for some more detailed information as well thank you I before I go back to Councillor ramen if any more detailed information comes forward I assume you’d have it prepared for council should this be asked at that time there was a yes Councillor ramen thank you and to follow up so Health Force Ontario did a deep dive into recruitment and has their recruitment essential documents marketing information social media campaigns all etc etc that’s provided on their website um Health Force Ontario basically outlines how we should do physician recruitment how to engage with your municipalities around this this topic in particular when you look at the recruitment strategies and having a little bit of knowledge about recruitment practices in what I do as well um you know I I would say that they’re pretty typical you’re either recruiting doctors because you’re trying to attract them to your location by some marketing around what’s special what’s desirable in your community so looking at community desire ability um or you’re you’re you’re also trying to recruit them based on opportunities for education advancement um set up of location and other things like we talked about are you talked about just now around financial incentives so um I think all of those things sound great and there’s a lot of tools I know there’s also an association of physician recruiters that are operating Canada as well um but to me one of the challenges with all of these strategies and approaches is it doesn’t help us to address the supply issue which is completely out of our hands a hundred percent entirely um you know we have a top-notch family medicine program here in London we have in our in our in our catchment area we have you know a program that churns out a large percentage of family doctors each year um if the recruitment strategy was only to look at well why aren’t those doctors staying here that would be one thing and I don’t think that we would need a recruiter to do that um if it was to um look at for instance let’s say locums people that do locums here uh and to look at whether or not physicians that are doing locums here specific to family medicine why they’re not staying again another recruitment opportunity but don’t think it requires potentially an entire staff person I I see the value of providing some sort of an incentive to have to attract family medicine uh doctors to our city whether that’s through we talked about zoning but I think a CIP could also be considered if possible in specific areas or some other um measure to incentivize a clinic in a particular area um but I I’m not sure that the recruitment piece to me is as um as it is it would have the intended result that we’re trying to to get um and you know I also personally can attest to my own experience having been through one of these recruitment processes as a spouse of a physician um but a specialist um you know there I understand how these processes work and had we the opportunity with a very large increase in supply of family medicine doctors I think that those approaches would work but being that there is such a limited number of family medicine physicians right now um I think that what we will do in what communities that are engaging in these practices are doing is we’re all fighting over that very limited supply um and as we continue to do that yes we may be able to attract some physicians to our community but uh I I’m not sure that we would end up with the net new for the $80,000 a year that we’re looking at each year for the three years uh that we’re asking us to kick in for that’s just one of my comments I would say that I think this is a municipal issue I think there’s opportunity for us to do things like advocate better to the government for uh provincial uh to the province and I have to say I’m I’m um I think it’s promising that they’re allowing repatriation or looking at repatriation strategies for family doctors from the United States that are Canadian but trained in the US they’re trained abroad and then went to the US do their residencies and are now trying to repatriate back to Canada to do some sort of attraction strategy that way again I don’t think that takes an entire recruiter um to do that as well um so I do think there’s there’s lots of opportunities for us to look at how to utilize dollars but I’m not convinced that that the staff portion of it is the way to do that so I’m wondering if there were other opportunities considered whether it’s just straight out incentives to family doctors that are willing to stay whether it’s additional gr expenses to have those those types of conversations as a region even uh with with the province or um if there were other considerations that maybe I haven’t mentioned thanks mr. Dickens um thank you and through you chair I can’t speak to the I can’t speak to the extent of the other considerations that happen through the the group through OHT that has been designing this work I do know that they are trying to draw best practices around spousal supports and bringing the entire family along what that looks like and and engaging on the access to technology side and easing the administrative burdens of a family physician trying to set up shop in London and partnering with other medical centers and and so really looking at the entire picture not just the independent physician but also looking at the practice you know understanding how things work in this area and also assisting with that as as far as um some of the numbers and looking at um some of the outcomes and if we would achieve that there was and I’m sorry I’m trying to call this up in real time here my apologies chair um the OHT has been looking at this over a number of years and they were able to pull some data as far back as 2019 where of the 75 residents like graduated from the family medicine residency program 55 of them trained in Middlesex London and of those only 20 have family practices in Middlesex London today they use it as a comparator to Windsor and Chatham and their regional sites where 14 of the 16 grads remain in practice in those communities today and they point to the fact that Windsor and Chatham have active recruitment plans and programs in place so that is some of the rationale behind us so again can’t speak to the to the extent of other models that were explored other than primary care practitioners are part of this group primary care delivery partners are shaping the scope of this and the evaluation component of this and setting the targets for this program so they’re actively involved in this industry it’s it’s not a city led initiative but they are looking at other models that do exist in Ontario where municipalities are tapping into that limited and finite number of physicians that that exist whereas we currently are not sir thank you through you um just to follow up on that I believe that Windsor and Chatham have an agreement with the medical programs at boat at the University of Windsor which has a um uh locality uh clause so they actually give preferential spots to local residents uh to be able to take that so they’re they’re I’m wondering if maybe we can look at their data specifically around whether or not those that are staying in their community or from their home community already because that tends to be a big criteria component for family medicine um I’m also wondering um you know if we can look at uh other types of incentives um you know there used to be a time that um when we were recruiting somebody for a for a specialist position here in our community where we would partner with similar to what we’re doing here where we would partner and we would attract them by way of financial incentive by way of the you know universities used to provide mortgage relief universities used to do lots of things to establish chairs to to do more of that recruitment now we’re talking about it more on the municipal side then we are on the educational side and I think that we have more levers in the community to do this and I like the idea of this partnership and the table meeting to have these discussions but to me it’s not a staff position it’s a strategy in putting that money towards more of a strategy that’s just my opinion thanks thank you acting mayor Lewis thank you madam chair uh so uh I’m gonna uh start kind of where I left off um in terms of the clause D is is within our jurisdiction um I don’t frankly care about a legal opinion um I I am stating this as a political opinion health care service delivery is the responsibility of the Ontario government not of the city of London of the Ontario government it is not the London health insurance plan it is the Ontario health insurance plan uh the federal government and the and the provincial governments have a funding sharing agreement under the Canada health act the federal government has a role to play in health care the Ontario government has a direct role and responsibility on health care service delivery the municipality of the city of London has no such responsibility we can take that on we can take on all kinds of things the province do and willingly download services from the province until the cows come home they’ll happily let us pay for things that they should be doing because it means they don’t have to and we’ve seen that in other areas um throughout uh the time that I’ve been here but before I’ve been here too um and once you voluntarily accept downloading the province will never take it back up um look at the uh situation with London Middlesex community housing and the downloading uh and the results of that downloading over decades because when the responsibility was downloaded without the funding the city couldn’t keep up what we are in here in my opinion is a race to the bottom we are going to have bidding wars and municipalities constantly upping the ante because as Councillor ramen very correctly stated there is a limited pool of these family physicians so um and I didn’t uh have the numbers in the report opened in front of me on the presentation but we’ve seen some numbers in this presentation and I’m just going to very quickly refer to a couple of these so the city of Hamilton annual budget right now 180k Kingston 250k to plus 35k sarnia lampton spending 100k so if we put in uh 80 grand each year for the next three years in a pilot project and we start to because this is what we’re doing folks poaching family physicians from other jurisdictions in the province for the most part uh then they’re just going to put in more money and then we’re going to have to put in more money and then they’re going to put in more money and then we’re going to have to put in more money again um of course primary care providers want to be incentivized to locate in the community it’s in their best interest uh to do so in fact I’d say they have a pecuniary interest in making this recommendation um this city has done this once before so I do want to to take a moment um to ask through you madam chair to staff um there was a city of London recruitment program under former mayor uh amoree to seek help how many family doctors did we recruit per thousands of dollars spent on that what were the results when we tried this last time uh mr.

Dickens if you have specifics if not an overview uh thank you and through you chair yes we’re aware that there was a previous uh recruitment position it was housed inside as city staff not a direct comparison to this model uh not even a I would argue a direct comparison in terms of the scope however I don’t have any of the intel on a 2003 program uh from that time so um and I want to recognize as well that staff did say that they’re trying to get some other information um and we heard 36 in elgin middle sex over eight years um but I think council ramen really owned in on an important point uh particularly around chadam kent the physicians that are being retained or or incentivized to stay or coming from the medical school in Windsor are there because it is their home community what I would like to know uh as we get data from these other communities is uh where did these 36 that elgin middle sex uh obtained through this recruitment come from where they taken from the GTA where they taken from London where they taken from Ottawa because they’re coming from other communities uh maybe some of them came from the US maybe uh not I don’t know but that’s part of the problem is we don’t have that data and I’m not going to be supportive of spending $80,000 a year uh hoping that uh we’re bringing them from another uh jurisdiction be that the US or or another province versus we’re robbing peter to pay paul by now we’re going to go and recruit some of those 35 doctors that sarnugot now we’re going to incentivize them to come here so now they’ve incentivized twice um i’ve real real concerns about this race to the bottom and I come back to this as a provincial responsibility you know the report emphasized uh the ratio of of patients to family docs in east london i’ve been representing east london for five years i know it’s a challenge but you know what i tell every single person who calls me looking for a family doctor call mpp armstrong because she is elected and paid a salary as an mpp to represent you in the legislature and to advocate on health care matters and education matters and other matters that are the responsibility of the provincial government to deliver so respectfully um i don’t see any province of ontario funding in here i have not heard this issue raised uh by east london’s mpp in the ontario legislature so why is this landing on our desks another opportunity to come to the city because we’re the front line it’s easy to walk into city hall and and meet with some staff and deliver a report it’s a little harder to to get through to somebody at the ministry of health who’s going to give you the time of day and listen to an idea um but that doesn’t change where the area of responsibility lays so i am absolutely uh willing to receive this report there is not nearly enough information in it for me to accept clauses b and c i do think that the the best part of this is the clause d that councilor palosa has proposed because we do have some ability over zoning uh measures um council roman referenced the cip’s um there are facade improvement grants but maybe there’s some other um measures in our cip review that we need to look at specifically around uh incentivizing uh renovations or locations so that a place has the physical plant needed to be a treatment team location that i think would be within our responsibility to help but i don’t want to get into a race to the bottom with other municipalities taking doctors from one community to the next just upping the ante on the incentives over and over again without knowing we don’t know where these doctors are coming from so i am absolutely opposed to this i will not get into a bidding war with other communities over family doctors thank you um councilor trow so i do see you just one moment please um i would need a mover in a second order put a b and c on the floor because we will need to deal with it in some matter this evening at committee and the clerk can certainly call portion a separate from b and c is that’s what i’m hearing um at least from one member no just second so when we get to it we’ll have a mover for a mover seconder for a and then a mover and seconder for b and c um didn’t open anyone at committee wanted to do that now uh councilor freira has moved are you can you just move them all david or councilor freira because they all need to get dealt with either way you can vote yeah through you i can move them all okay councilor freira but did you i looked away from the screen which means i couldn’t see you uh no worries through you i can move a b and c thank you and a seconder for a b and c thank you um and like i said we’ll pull them apart as we want when we get there second councilor stevenson was the seconder councilor freira was the mover and councilor trow so is next to my speakers list and then i’ll look to see if there’s anybody else very briefly i was only going to speak once but i have to respond to some of the things i’ve heard this is not a race to the bottom this is an attempt to create some echo excellence at the top given some very special and favorable conditions that we have in london ontario right now london ontario is is a real anomaly because on the one hand we have some of the we have some of the strongest world-class medical research institutions we have some of the best we have one of the best medical schools yet we have we have this demonstrated need in our in our population and we are not taking care of their health safety and well-being and to the question why is this landing on our desk you’re quite quite right the province is not dealing with this but if the province is not dealing with something and we have the ability to do it especially given some of the advantages that we have here in london ontario um we have an obligation we have an obligation to do it and um at first i was skeptical of this if this was just going to be a bear recruitment project from l_e_c_ but then i looked i looked into this in more detail and the partnership that is being proposed here is is is really truly outstanding and while it’s true that there may be some going back and forth between different jurisdictions certainly if we don’t do it we’re not going to be on the good end of it so with the council meeting uh when this comes up regardless of how this motion turns out tonight i’m going to be strongly supporting this and i think it’s well within our jurisdiction it’s well within our responsibility and if the province is not doing what they need to do shame on them but that’s not a reason for us not to be doing it thank you thank you councilor provol thank you sir the chair uh i was first uh prepared to only support a and then afterwards d when i heard from the staff the partnership with the other organizations i’m still in the same supporting uh all all four of them and the reason why is first of all i do believe the strategy is going to be not developed by us but i certainly believe as partners and chosen lhc that the strategy would be developed by them and if i look at the investment of eighty thousand dollars per year even if it would have to save one life in a year it’s really i want to see what’s going to come out of it i’m okay to invest eighty thousand dollars a year of taxpayers money i know i have two personal uh two personal maybe i’m a little bit biased because i have two personal things that happen to me that i know of two people that i believe that if they had a family doctor they would be still around us but again bottom line is i’m okay and willing with the partnering with these partners i think it’s let’s give it a shot and let’s see what comes out of it and the strategy absolutely was what i heard here from my fellow councilor it is a must by belief it’s not going to be developed by us but it’s going to be developed by the experts that will be partnering with us so one more time i will be for eighty thousand dollars a year for opportunity to gain family doctors to london i’ll be supporting a to d thank you thank you for that that exhaust my speakers list and we are set up in the system to call a counselor ramen we’d like to thank you sorry um just one final question i guess uh and then comment um in this we’re looking at a physician recruitment program um although it does say in the report that they looked at all health care um looked at recruitment or recommended recruitment of of all primary care um health care workers but i mean this could have been an np recruitment program it could it could have been uh broader to other health care and i’m just wondering why the target was also physicians and not other allied health uh or nps or or others um specifically as we have vast shortages mr dickens thank you and through you chair this came out of some of the priority setting uh through the no sex london o ht and looking at primary care so under the umbrella of primary care one component of that is the physician physician recruitment um but they have uh other initiatives through the o ht mandate and prior uh prioritization around primary care in general and what that looks like in terms of their uh regional approach and and also including uh nurse practitioners and the like so i follow and um uh can you just maybe provide i and i didn’t see it uh outlined in the report um which family medicine or the ontario medical association or other organizations were also communicated with as to what they thought was best practice and recruitment because some of these strategies as i see it are very similar to the recruitment strategies we may use to bring a potential resident to the city so um you know that idea of you know trying to talk to them about why they should choose their residency here why they might be a good match to hear um and and the amenities that are available to them and their families when when they do look at that um are very are very similar so i’m just wondering again what in the end you know we’re really looking at from what i see at the strategy um how we attract physicians that are not already here versus physicians that are potentially already in our family medicine programs mr. Dickens through you chair i’m sorry can you just repeat that question one more time i want to make sure i get the answer right yeah or if the counselor wants to break it down sure i’ll break it down a little bit more i guess i mean i i think i i’m just i’m just you know again frustrated of it by not not by the report but just the situation uh we find ourselves in i mean if you look at it here in our community alone we have a ton of potential family medicine uh physicians um sitting in classrooms at western and banshaw and uh you know taking on other jobs in our communities because they can’t get certified uh to work here and yet here we are talking about paying uh someone as as a recruitment role to then do this this job uh for recruiting others from other communities in other places to our community so um sorry if that wasn’t clear um so what i’m trying to assess i think at this point is um within the team base model and within this uh family health care uh team-based facilities how do we foresee that recruitment working are we saying we’re only going to recruit physicians from outside communities to come here to be part of these existing family health teams as a strategy or are we looking to um other types of strategies that might just bring single family doctors here outside of the team base model perhaps mr dickens uh through you chair thank you for the clarification um so it’s a little bit of both hand um with trying to align with some of the provincial direction in terms of family health team practices um and really looking at um locally trying to identify while they have identified but building upon the identification of the number of uh family doctors that are set to retire um and looking at um inheriting those family practices so looking at the number of um uh doctors that are across London and Middlesex that are over the age of 60 eligible setting uh sets of retire could retire and looking at where we can retain existing doctors to stay in the community and inherit those family practices but also um retain new graduates um I don’t think the plan goes as far as two doctors that are not currently practicing medicine or that might be teaching and still have their license but retention is a big part of this so if there’s an effort to uh ensure that doctors in the community are in fact stepping into those vacancies and actually stepping into opportunities uh this program would look to match those opportunities for them and match them to family practices where there is a vacancy and coming to the community or looking to start your own practice and not having a team-based uh medical care plan in place this program would aim to help them establish that uh team-based care that was it for my questions and comments from committee I was in the post process of calling a alone which is to receive the report in presentation so opening the vote closing the vote the motion carries six to zero thank you the next portion to be voted on is part b which is approving the fund of eighty thousand per year and c together that they’re authorized to undertake all the administrative acts required that’s been already moved and seconded calling the question on b and c together closing the vote the motion fails two to four hey that concludes our consent items that moves us on toward deferred matters in addition deferred matters in additional business on your added agenda there is one already pre-submitted one which is the seventh report of the animal welfare community advisory committee and they had made requests for um staff which staff was aware of and fine with we just need to pass it through committee so need a mover and a seconder for that advisory committee’s request moved by Councillor Stevenson seconded by Councillor Ferrera questions or comments seeing none calling the question closing the vote the motion carries six to zero hey that was the item that was submitted in advance looking to committee members to see if there’s any deferred matters like it’s not deferred matters but additional business Councillor Stevenson thank you I’m going to look for some guidance on this is awkward maybe slash delicate um but in February um regarding the women’s shelter I had asked for the budget information for the 679 000 and so what I’m why I’m bringing this up is to me it’s important for the public to know and also for us to get clear as a council and as a city government sort of what the policies are because when I go through this community and protective services and all the details that are here and all the contract details that are here for so many other areas in this homelessness funding it’s been very difficult to get details so when I approved the or I voted yes to the five million dollar winter response and there was the breakdown of the totals in no world did I think that was the only information I was going to get to access so I made a request um for the information and I received an email back saying that legal had said that I needed to file an amphibo request for anything that wasn’t already a public document so that and I received that from two departments within a week so that is telling me okay I don’t have access to anything that the public can’t see without filing an amphibo request I filed one April 17th I asking for the London cares contract for the winter response I received it July 4th but it doesn’t have any financial information so it’s an over three million dollar contract there was also a small sixty four thousand dollar one I received the budget spreadsheet for that in and then I’ve just received an email today from our city manager and because I thought that you know there should be some some financial information available was that either missing or what was the explanation and so I was hoping today I could bring a motion forward to get that in camera at the next council um but at the very end of this email actually I have it pulled up here um it’s a long email so I’m not going to read it and I just want to be clear that I can read this last paragraph it’s just about policy but that the email back to me today from the city manager says the very last paragraph says my understanding of the information you received by emfipa is that while financial information was included in the submission and reviewed it was not included in the actual contract amendment therefore it was not a responsive record to the request and it was outside the date requested so the date that I requested went to march first of 2023 so that means it was outside of like we’re talking about the last 30 days of the winter response and the last like 10 days before the new women’s shelter opened so and it says additionally that record document was created and submitted by lending cares therefore this record is not a city of london record the clerk’s office advised that the requester will need to make a separate request for the budget if the requester makes an additional request clerks would need to seek approval from london cares to share this record document noting that it is likely to produce a redacted document so my concern is as we move forward with the whole of community response and all like even this two million that we just did another two million today I want like I’ve been doing this since february trying to get below the high level number and like I can file another emfippa asking for this budget but it’s saying that basically I’m not going to get it unless that it’s not a city of london document I mean I don’t understand how procurement policies aren’t such that there’s a financial document there I’m a little confused so I and I don’t know how to do this I’ll just interject then I believe we have is there legal in the room that could give advice on how to either successfully enter another emfippa looking for the information if it is going to be somewhat available if this is an item we should be going in camera for that guidance or more specifics can be given on how to proceed so looking to legal for information on this thank you and through you madam chair to the counselor my understanding of the emfippa process this would typically normally be processed by clerks but given that you’ve submitted an emfippa request they would be able to assist you there are appeal mechanisms that arise when a request is filed if the information received isn’t what you consider responsive to the request that was filed and similarly the clerks department I expect would assist with modifying the request such that it would capture other types of documents okay I will know that we do have the city clerk as well on the line I’m not sure if michaels available to give or mr shulters is available to give insights on how to proceed with this one as this one is a a new one for me too as a committee chair so okay his camera is coming on um mr shulters please proceed when you’re ready you’re muted or not connected or something that makes you super silent nope not that yes you’re always welcome to come down in chambers if you’re upstairs uh maybe okay you’re coming down perfect so we’ll just wait a moment uh while he commutes and I will just let committee know as well that after this item we do have one item in camera to go into and then that will conclude our evening together I do I do I love your company um in addition to this one item of additional business is there anything other coming up from anybody so we’ll just wait for the city clerk thank you okay thank you for joining us i’m just gonna hear me now i take it uh yes so uh misobvious is uh quite correct there is an appeal mechanism through uh through mfipa we would be happy to assist the counselor with navigating that my apologies i just ran down the stairs i’m somewhat uh short of breath um as far as the uh the information goes there’s a process that’s followed the rules are applied under mfipa regarding exemptions regarding uh what information is within our control and conduct custody and what is not so we follow that uh to the t um as far as the information that uh may be requested again we can help scope we can help uh craft uh a request to ensure that uh reflects the wishes of the counselor counselor stevenson yeah so that like i said i i’m looking for guidance as to is this a governance issue like where does this go to be like is it can counsel like i think the public needs to see the contracts i i know i realize i can get them in camera but the a contract between the city of london and a charitable organization for millions and dollars soon to be a hundred million dollars potentially um is there a mechanism to discuss that or to make requests of staff or okay i’ll turn it over to either mr. Dickens or mr. shelters how you could both reply and take turns that’s fine too just the most comprehensive information we could provide the counselor uh thank you and through you chair so um take the clerk shop for a second so information that’s shared in camera would not be able to be shared publicly for the public to see uh the other item on our part is that it was a contract with london cares absolutely uh their subcontract to safe space and the situation is a record of london cares it’s not a record of the city i think that’s what the clerk’s office was responding to or the city manager was responding to that it would not be a city record um that’s i’m a little out of my depth here so i can pass it over to clerk to clarify that thank you if the clerk could clarify that um and also um the custody of information that you mentioned um he has the first that i don’t know that’s just like as mr.

Dickens is alluding to that it’s not part of it’s not our information it’s actually london cares information we might be in breach if we share certain things or how much we can get so i’ll just let you elaborate that’s essentially uh correct uh chair um information that is uh wholly within the care and custody and control the city of london is one thing if it is not if it is third party information uh there’s a different application of uh of rules and criteria and then i get a follow up um as well but you’d mentioned there or the council would mention too like an application to london cares um is that some that goes through the city’s clerk office or you go direct to london cares with that information request this is um so there’s two different things there is a subcontract to the women’s shelter i didn’t even ask for that i did not even ask for that i asked for the contract between the city of london and london cares the fact that we can’t see the subcontract contract is another big issue when you start to look at what we’re putting forth in terms of the whole community i’m just talking about the contract between the city of london and london cares it’s for 3.8 million dollars i believe and there’s you know 12 lines of services and we’re basically being told that the financial document the piece that goes with that contract is a london cares document that our procurement policy does not require any kind of substantive budget as part of that contract because there’s a spot right in the contract where it says budget and the 64 thousand dollar contract had an excel spreadsheet which would have been again that so as we move forward like the reason why i’m doing this late is because the timing is really important i think as we even think about agreeing to seventy ninety million two hundred and you know quarter of a billion dollars if we can’t see the budgets for capital and operating if if we don’t if those are not city of london property and the public can’t see them i think we need to be very open with them before like i think the public wants to know that and and i and wants to understand why this area seems to be different than other areas because i see all kinds of information so i just needed to put it out there i’m not sure what to do with it um if this is all it is that’s fine but if there is a mechanism for us to be clear is the city council can we discuss this can we make a request what committee would that go to i’m i’m in your hands here in the counselors uh questions of how more detailed information could even come forward in the initial reports when we’re making budget decisions and how the rest of their comments now as well mr shultist sorry there was some clarification in the question i’m not entirely clear on the question yeah that’s fine whatever the counselor asked if you have any insights for it or do you need more clarification direct from the counselor uh what it can say is that uh the request was not a request that i specifically dealt with uh that was dealt with by one of the clerk’s office uh so i’m not overly familiar with uh having first-hand knowledge of of the contracts or what documents were reviewed but i can undertake to review that and follow up directly with the counselor if that would be of assistance before counsel. Councilor Stevenson? Yeah and just being clear this one matters to me because it was $5 million under delegated authority for the winter response and i think the high level view is not enough for the public it’s not enough for me um but then it’s also as a standard practice and policy is the high level you know even what we got today $2 million just one line a descriptor this long and is that that’s all the public gets that’s all city council gets there is no access to anything else i just want to be clear on that that when i see these this is it this is all we get the city of london does not have any documents that we get to access they’re belong to somebody else i think we get to be clear i i wish to be clear on that and those questions are still specific about the um i’m talking about homelessness and housing funding so we just approved i just voted yes to two million dollars in increase with hardly any detail and i’ve been doing that since i got elected thinking that if i were to ask i could see the details i’m finding out that may not be the case i may not be voting yes to spend two million dollars if i don’t have more details than you know eight words to staff is there a way to get more detail information when it comes as per how the budget’s going to be spent or is it really just the really high-level stuff seems to be the question from the counselor like are you gonna have access afterwards mr. Dickens through you chair i’m not sure i have an answer for you tonight like in terms of connecting with the clerks and legal opinion on what a standard practice is for contracting and reporting bringing forward a capture port with every organization’s line-by-line budget items for their costing uh is not something that’s been done you’re right um but i would happy to convene with uh mr.

Card and and understand where we need to take this for sure thank you i’d really appreciate that especially as we embark upon this enormous costing project i think we need to understand before we say yes to anything what the what we can expect thank you uh counselor treso i think it’s important to recognize through the chair that and the the mfipa regime is statutory and there’s certain jurisdictional requirements in it um the mfipa regime only applies to certain types of records and if a record is not within the custody and control of of of of the of the agency there is no discussion with the head or with city council or with or with the city solicitor about about about violating the basic premise of the jurisdiction of mfipa now maybe i’m getting too technical about this and i’ve been around the block with a couple of mfipa requests with the city over the years but i can i can tell you we we have designated a head and we have designated a head to whom we we have the head typically as somebody who works in the city clerk’s office but not the city clerk and we designate to the head all of the statutory authority on behalf of a fipa so i think it’s really as it’s really unusual i think to be making a request to to city council to figure out if there’s some way of bending the rules now it might be that legally it might be that legally these contractors who enter into contracts with the city the city might legally have a custody and control over those documents but the problem for that and my big big big concern about a city councilor pursuing this is really the way this is going to be determined is the the mfipa commissioner is going to make a decision and then there’s judicial review and i don’t think any member of this council wants to find themselves in a situation where they’re in where they’re in litigation as an unsuccessful applicant let me just finish uh with with with the city councilor because that that is that is clearly a conflict and i think that we have to understand that in making that delegation to the head we have as a council and in fact the city clerk doesn’t have a lot of jurisdiction over the head either because the the head is a statutory i’m using the head as a um statutory person they they have a lot of authority here so i really think that we can’t change the rules because we bring it to city council and it would be nice for the public to have the information i just think we have to be very careful about this thank you i will recognize um i don’t believe the councilor’s taught speaking about bending the rules but just rather access to information what’s in the public realm and can actually be expected in our procurement policies and when we do our rfps and what can come back to us councilor stevenson yeah no thank you i want to be really clear i’ve had excellent service in terms of the mfipa like the communication everything has been excellent i have zero complaints about the mfipa process i don’t mind spending the five dollars i don’t mind waiting it’s the city tax dollars five dollars i did put it through the expense um but i i’ve had no problem with the mfipa process my concern is that i am being told that a three point eight million dollar contract was signed with no financial schedules as part of that contract so maybe it’s a procurement question maybe i don’t know but i want to know is that true is that what we do that what we see is all there is i i want to know thank you um and i believe mr sultez has uh joined us this evening and said he will follow up on that request is he was not the one who personally handed it handled it and uh we’ll get back directly to you with more information so i have no doubt that would be done by our staff behind the scenes um and knowing that you had no more information giving you to this evening does that satisfy your additional business i am tonight okay okay looking to committee see if there’s anything other additional seeing none we do have one item for closed session we will need a few minutes to shuffle the chairs around but we’re just going to stay in this room since the public gallery is already vacant so just stay oh we need a motion to move into closed move by council roman second by councilor stevenson hand vote okay it’s going to open an e-scribe for moving closed session for the one item for personal matters identify individual as listed on the public agenda posing the vote the motion carries five to zero okay um we’re coming back out of closed session i turn to councilor roman thank you and i’m happy to report progress on the item that we went in camera thank you that concludes our confidential and our entire agenda for the 12th meeting and the community and protected services committee i’m looking to committee for a motion to adjourn moved by councilor stevenson seconded by councilor preble a hand vote of all in favor that motion and carries, have a wonderful evening.