September 12, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2023-08-24 ACAC Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the 5th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on August 24, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Business Licensing By-law Amendment to Schedule 2 Adult Entertainment Body-Rub Parlour - 609 Clarke Road

2023-09-12 SR Business Licensing By-law Amendment - Adult Entertainment - 609 Clarke Road

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the revised attached proposed by-law BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023, to amend By-law No. L.-131-16, being “A by-law to provide for the Licensing and Regulation of Various Businesses” to reduce the number of Adult Entertainment Body-rub Parlour Owner licences authorized under this By-law from six (6) to five (5) and to delete “Map 6 – 609 Clarke Road” from Schedule 2A of the By-law;

it being pointed out that M. Walker made a verbal presentation at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.2   Vehicle for Hire By-law - Amendments/Information Report

2023-09-12 SR Vehicle for Hire By-law Amendments

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 12, 2023, related to the Vehicle for Hire By-law:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on September 26, 2023, to amend By-law No. L.-130-71, being the Vehicle for Hire By-law, including increasing the vehicle age limit requirements of all zero emission vehicles and hybrid gas-electric vehicles and accessible vehicles;

b)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee with respect to: increasing the age of gas powered vehicles in service from 10 to 12 years, report back on concerns of increasing the age limit requirements of all zero emission vehicles, hybrid gas-electric vehicles and accessible vehicles from 12 years to 15 years and other concerns raised during the public participation meeting (ie. vehicle inspection frequency, the consideration of forming a vehicle for hire task force and an environmental scan of other municipalities related to vehicle inspection frequency, including a specific inspection schedule directly related to age of vehicle and all regulations related to the age of a vehicle;

it being noted that the communication, as appended to the Added Agenda, from K. Al Tarhuni, Mygreen Taxi, with respect to this matter, was received;

it being pointed out that the following individuals made verbal presentations at the public participation meeting held in conjunction with this matter:

  •    G. Tabidi;

  •    F. Bander;

  •    K. Al Tarhuni;

  •    M. Abbasey;

  •    H. Savehilaghi;

  •    Paul;

  •    M. Wni; and,

  •    Y. Fekre. (2023-C01)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

Motion to open the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to close the public participation meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to refer the staff report, dated September 12, 2023, with respect to the Vehicle for Hire By-law, back to the Civic Administration.

Motion Failed (0 to 5)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Community and Neighbourhood Safety and Security Concerns Options for Agencies, Staff, Volunteers and those Accessing Services

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated September 12, 2023, related to Options to Address Safety and Security Concerns:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $174,210 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue and 448 Horton Street locations BE AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED;

c)    the additional programs identified to support safety and security in the Old East Village area, including additional Coordinated Informed Response programming and street cleaning to be accommodated within existing Housing Stability Services budgets BE ENDORSED; and,

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

e)    detailed services and cost breakdown for the one-time funding of $174,210 BE PROVIDED prior to the Municipal Council meeting of September 26, 2023;

it being noted that the Community and Protective Services Committee received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    M. McMahon, Thames Valley Family Health Team;

  •    D. Wiseman, London Health Sciences Centre;

  •    B. Mitchell and L. Sibley, Canadian Mental Health Association;

  •    C. Lazenby, Unity Project;

  •    J. DeActis, The Salvation Army Centre of Hope;

  •    S. Courtice, London InterCommunity Health Centre;

  •    M. McIntosh, Regional HIV/AIDS Connection; and,

  •    Sister M. Ritchie, Sisters of St. Joseph. (2023-S14)

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to approve part c) of the clause.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to approve parts a) b) d) and e) of the clause.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Request for Funding for Soil Remediation - Vision SoHo (West Block)

2023-09-12 Sub. Request for Funding for Soil Remediation - Vision SoHo

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the following actions be taken with respect to the request from members of the Vision SOHO Alliance for funding for soil remediation; it being noted that a conditional grant of $13,876,000 was approved by Council on August 3, 2022 for the Vision SOHO Alliance to provide up to 400 affordable housing units:

a)    an increase to the conditional grant BE APPROVED, with the amount of such increase to be determined by the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development and not to exceed $3,900,000 and the approval of the increase is subject to the following conditions:

i)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance, working with the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development or designate to establish a final value and volume for the removal and disposal of unsuitable soils at the Zerin Development Corporation, The Chelsea Green Home Society, Homes Unlimited (London) Inc. and London Affordable Housing Foundation development sites;

ii)    the submission and approval of updated proformas from members of the Vision SOHO Alliance;  

iii)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance commit to filling up to 50 additional units from the City’s waiting lists;

iv)    the members of the Vision SOHO Alliance providing all engineering reports and/or technical analysis related to the removal and disposal of unsuitable soils for review and acceptance by the City; and,

v)    the provision of a strategy for the distribution of the funding and additional waitlist units between the Vision SOHO members;

b)    subject to the conditions above, the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development BE AUTHORIZED to enter into the previously approved Contribution Agreements with the affected members of the Vision SOHO Alliance and once the amount of the increase to the grant is determined, amend the Contribution Agreements to support the increased conditional grant as the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development deems appropriate;

c)    the source of financing for this request BE APPROVED as capital project SH3000 (Municipal Housing Division’s approved Roadmap to 3,000 Units funding), noting that Finance Supports confirms there is sufficient budget in this capital project to support this request, and also support the original $13,876,000 grant, as noted in clause a), above;

it being noted that the communication, dated August 24, 2023, from G. Playford, with respect to this matter, was received. (2023-E05)

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion to move in camera for advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to this matter.

Motion Failed (2 to 3)

6.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:56 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, 9 minutes)

Good afternoon. This is the 14th meeting of the community and participative services committee. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Densnajbech, Haudenosaunee, and Lachpawak, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit 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 everyone’s information, all members of committee are present in chambers being myself, Councillor Stevenson, Pribble, Ramen Ferreira, and Mayor Morgan is not with us this evening as of yet. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact CPSC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425, and we are working off of the added agenda for this evening. Looking to committee members for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Seeing none, consent, we have one item tonight, being 2.1, being the fifth report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, looking for someone to move and second this item. Moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Pribble, looking to see if there’s any questions or comments.

Seeing none, calling the question. Building the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. It moves us on to our public participation, that meeting that’s not to be heard before 405, but we do do a staff presentation first. With us this evening, for item 3.1, being the business licensing by-law amendment, to schedule two, the adult entertainment body rub parlor at 609 Clark Road.

We welcome staff Ms. Musico tonight. Mr. Catolic is away, so I’m turning it over to you to please introduce this item and any of the other staff compliment you have with you this evening.

Thank you very much and through the chair. I would like to introduce Ethan Ling, who will provide a summary of the report before you this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, I’m gonna interrupt.

Can you just move your microphone closer to you or like? About that. That’s much better, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

I’m here tonight to provide some background to accompany the report that was included in the agenda regarding the deletion of an adult entertainment body rub license location from the by-law and to reduce the number of available licenses citywide from six to five. The adult entertainment body rub parlor known as Sweet City ceased operating in December of 2022 when the owner and operator licenses were suspended and subsequently revoked. Since the expiration of the license in January 31st of this year, there’s been no application for renewal, nor any inquiries regarding the status of the body rub parlor that licensing has been made aware of. As the business licensing by-law states, the total number of adult entertainment body rub parlor licenses shall be reduced as licenses expire without renewal or as the owner licenses are otherwise surrendered or revoked until there are five licenses.

Therefore, staff have prepared the necessary by-law amendments for committee to consider deleting the 609 Clark Road location and subsequently reducing the number of licenses to five. In order to make an amendment to schedule 2A, the Community and Protective Services Committee shall hold at least one public meeting to allow the proponent and any other member of the public to make written or oral submissions regarding the application, which this meeting constitutes. Following the public meeting, the committee shall make a recommendation to council regarding the proposed amendments and City Council shall make the final decision regarding amending schedule 2A of this by-law to delete 609 Clark Road from the by-law and to reduce the number of licenses from 6 to 5 by amending section 4.1 of schedule 2. It should be noted that yesterday I was contacted by the owner of the plaza at 609 Clark Road where Sweet City previously operated and he stated that he has no objection to the removal of the map from the by-law.

So long as it had no further impact on his zoning, he was not certain that he would attend tonight’s meeting and this is the only person that I have spoken to or heard from since the letters were mailed and the meeting advertised in the Londoner on August 24th. Finally, yesterday, a small amendment was recommended by legal to the proposed by-law to provide more clarity and direction for clerks to ensure that it was section 4.1 of schedule 2, the licensing by-law that was amended and presumably not another section 4.1 in the by-law and that’s everything. Thank you. The committee clerk has acknowledged that she has that specific wording and it’s loaded in the system when it’s time.

So at this time, we will open our public participation meeting, go to anyone in the gallery who would like to hear. There is no one online this evening. When the public participation meeting has concluded, we will close it and then go to committee for questions, comments, and then a motion. So looking to committee for a motion to open the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Raman, calling the question.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, up to zero. Thank you. At this time, I would like to turn to any members of the public here this evening to speak in regards to item 3.1 being the potential by-law reduction for the body rub parlor. There’s four makes up in the gallery.

I would ask anyone interested in speaking to please make your way to one of those microphones and you will have up to five minutes to address the committee. Thank you for joining us and you have up to five minutes. Thank you, my name is Meagan Walker. Sorry, just one second.

Can the microphone? Is it okay? Can you start again? Yes, my name is Meagan Walker, is that working?

It’s not quite, let’s try another one. I’ll go to another one. Sorry, Ms. Walker.

Can you hear me now? That’s much better, thank you. So my name is Meagan Walker and I am an advocate for women’s rights and particular to this issue, I have had as my area of expertise working with women who are in the commercial sex industry and who are trafficked. I do support the recommendation on the floor, however, I think council, my recommendation is that you think a little broader, a little further and take this to where it really needs to go.

As many of you may know, the protection of communities and exploited persons act, criminalizes the purchase of sexual services in Canada while providing sellers with immunity against prosecution. Basically the act makes prostitution illegal. Every time prostitution takes place, regardless of the venue and offense is committed. Businesses that profit from prostitution transactions are illegal.

The following activities have been found to constitute an act of prostitution, if provided in return for some form of consideration, lap dancing, which involves sitting on a client’s lap and simulating sexual intercourse, masturbation of a client in the context of a body rub parlor, whether the client climaxes are not and sadomasochistic activities provided that the acts can be considered to be sexually stimulating and gratifying. In most cases, acts for which consideration is provided that take place in a private room or in a club and that are sexual in nature but do not involve physical contact between the client and performer, such as self masturbation, excuse me, also being found to constitute prostitution. As such, body rub parlors are illegal and are often referred to as illegal brothels. Prostitution is both physically dangerous and also harms women, particularly in the commercial sex industry psychologically.

Women are often lured into the commercial sex industry by traffickers. Sweet city owner Abe Viraga was convicted of six counts of sexual assault. I have worked with exploited women and girls in London across Ontario and across Canada who would describe being sexually assaulted by an owner or manager as normal in the commercial sex industry. An outcome of the city’s strategic plan is that the city will demonstrate leadership by taking meaningful action to address and eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls, including sexual violence.

If the city is truly committed to making London a safe city for women and girls, it needs to recognize the dangers present in the commercial sex industry, including illegal brothels and take immediate action to close them down. The city does have a responsibility to comply with federal legislation, which is a higher level of legislation than municipal or provincial. So I have information that I’m happy to share with you, but basically my message is that any activity on the part of council that continues to keep body rub parlors open is supporting illegal activity. And I encourage you to take action and make sure that doesn’t happen.

Thank you for your time and being here with us tonight in those words, seeing that you have notes and other information available. If you could send it to council like CPSC at London.ca or your normal contact, that way it can come on to the council agenda and be part of the formal record. Ask if you are interested in actually receiving a copy of the federal legislation. You’ve referenced it, so why not include that too?

Perfect, thank you. Thank you. Looking to any other one else in the gallery who wishes to speak on this, I am tonight and just confirming we still don’t have anyone else online this evening or by phone. Clerk has confirmed that.

Saying that the speakers in the gallery have been exhausted. Looking to the members of the committee to move a motion to close the public participation meeting moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Raman calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, looking to committee for any motions that you would like to make.

There is one part A that staff have provided in the package, looking to committee to see if you’re interested in that motion or have an alternate one formulated, Councillor Stevenson. If no one has an alternate motion, I’m happy to move this one. Okay, Councillor Raman, are you seconding the motion as prepared by staff? Okay, I have a mover and a seconder and Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Raman, looking to committee now for any questions or comments as this item’s now on the floor.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I support this motion and I’m in support of and thank Ms. Walker for coming and making her statements.

I did read an article in the paper about this week where Jennifer Dunn was quoted and it says, “This move is right in line with the city’s pledge to make London safe for women and girls,” said Jennifer Dunn, director of the London Abuse Women’s Center. “The demand for paid sexual services fuels the growth of trafficking and exploitation of women,” end quote. So I just have a question for civic administration because the women’s shelter that was funded through the winter response by an organization that supports and advocates for the legalization of prostitution and supports sex workers and my understanding is the shelter is actually not just for women but for women identifying sex workers primarily. I’m just wondering given like reading this, how we’re in alignment here.

I support the motion on the floor but I’m just wondering what civic administration’s view is on that, how what we were doing with the women’s shelter is in alignment with our safety for women and girls. I’m recognizing a point of order by Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I would say that’s a question for Council because it’s our strategic plan and our pillar.

So I would actually say that’s probably for us. Okay, thank you but the winter response was delegated to staff so I’m talking about that. Yeah, I’m gonna, I’m going to make my ruling. Committee could always challenge me after it that I support what Councilor Raman is saying as being out of order.

This motion before us is not in regards to the winter response. There’s nothing regards in this item on the floor right now in regards to the winter response. So that’s my ruling that it would just, your comments could be kept to the item on the floor. Thank you, but I guess I just want to be sure that as I support this motion that I understand because we were doing something contradictory with the women’s shelter.

So I’m looking for clarification before I vote. Yeah, I don’t believe it to be contradictory. This is what’s on the floor. Say space doesn’t serve just women and it’s an organization that supports those living in doing survival sex work, which I would say is different, some other things.

So just looking to keep your comments to the item on the floor. If you wish to challenge me, would have a vote on if my vote is upheld in my ruling or overturned in which case your questions be allowed to proceed, and you could always proceed with staff offline or bring something on the next agenda asking those questions or for specific direction as we did hear other comments on prostitution this evening. Okay, so just to be clear, you’re supporting Councilor Ramen that my point is actually for Council, even though we had nothing to do with that winter response? This item on the floor has nothing to do with winter response in my opinion.

I’m asking that we just keep the conversation tight on regards to the by-law for removing an adult entertainment body rub parlor license. Okay, so how can I put this on the agenda that we can get clear on what Council stance is regarding paid sexual work? Could I ask Mr. Dickens if you’d reach work with the Councilor outside of this meeting to prepare any draft wording necessary to help with the next CAHPS item or someone on your team in regards to safe city from women girls in winter response and safe space?

Ms. Livingston. Madam Chair, I wonder if I could be helpful ‘cause it’s actually a conversation that’s much broader about a specific funding arrangement, but rather what are the actions that get taken to fulfill the strategic priority about a safe London for women girls, transgender people? So if there would be a direction for us to return with a report on what actions are being taken in relation to Council’s priority and direction, then I think that might give a foothold for how we are proceeding at a Council and staff level to fulfill that direction.

And then there can be questions about steps that have been taken in other places. Yeah, and I believe that wording can be brought forward at another future CAHPS meeting as there is past staff reports in regards to what we’ve done with the safe city from women girls initiatives over the last five years on Council in the funding that’s been allocated to it. So if I could ask someone on the civic administration and to help with some proper wording to get back the right report at the next one, as this definitely is an important topic in a very broad community reaching one throughout our community. Okay, so I’m gonna deem that that item has resolved itself.

Next on my speaker’s list, I had Deputy Mayor Lewis joining us as a guest as the unit committee as this business establishment is within Ward 2. Thank you, Madam Chair. And actually it’s slightly out of Ward 2. It’s this particular one is in Ward 3, but I will say as a former resident of Culver Drive, which is adjacent to this commercial plaza, very happy to see this motion coming forward.

And I say this because from a resident’s point of view, there’s been concerns for many, many, many years around this operation and the disruption to the neighborhood. I know that while I don’t want to put words in Councilor Cuddy’s mouth, I know that both he and I have heard neighbors attribute in recent years some of the problems arising from this establishment with interactions at the YOU Youth Shelter, just a stone throw away as well. And I wanna just also take a moment to thank Ms. Walker for coming tonight and sharing her thoughts with us.

Well, I’m glad that we’re dealing with this motion that’s before us right now to reduce the number of licenses today. I do think that there is a broader conversation around the issue of continuing licensing as they come up for renewals and the zoning maps and how we can further change this conversation. I’m quite aware of the fact that there is still an outstanding issue with an adult entertainment license on Dundas Street in my ward, where we are dealing with a concern about are we getting to the point where we’re creating a monopoly by reducing the licenses? But I think that we have to ask ourselves, as Councilor Stevenson raised about how these practices with private businesses align with our goals for a safe city for women and girls.

So again, thank you to our guests for speaking tonight. I know she’s very passionate about this and has been for many, many, many years, all the time I’ve known her, which feels like forever, but isn’t ‘cause neither one of us are that old. But nonetheless, I appreciate her coming and sharing her concerns tonight with us. And I really encourage committee to support this motion so that we can get this through Council and be down one less troublesome license in our city.

Thank you, looking to their members of the committee who wish to speak before I make some brief comments from the chair. Hey, just thank you again to Ms. Walker for what has been many years of service. I don’t want to say how long ‘cause we’re all too young for counting numbers like that, but the advocacy for yourself and those in the community who take on this work, ‘cause I know it also comes with the other side and hate and things that come with it.

An important conversation, as we’ve seen, as one of the first things I did on the last council was making the safe London for women and girls to stay in a loan strategic priority, to which it stayed as well for this term of council. And there’s still much work to be done. So thank you as we move forward in partnership with guidance from those in the community as we have those difficult and uncomfortable conversations that need to be had of the city that we want to build for this and future generations. So thank you for being here and I look forward to your written correspondence for all council can read it.

And with that, there’s no other further questions or comments that I see around the horseshoe. Okay, so calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

We have another public participation meeting that we will commence with a staff presentation overview as we’re not quite to the 4.30 yet to receive our delegates. I will also make note that there is an added communication within our package from my green taxi for your review. If you haven’t had an opportunity yet as it’s on the added. So turning to staff for the vehicle for higher by-law amendments information report.

Thank you very much and through the chair. I would like to introduce Mark Hefferton who will provide an overview of the report this evening. Thank you, Nicole. Thank you, Madam Chair and good afternoon members of the committee.

Sorry, can you just be a little bit louder? That’d be appreciated. Sure. Just move it right close to you.

My name is Mark Hefferton and I work as a development policy coordinator in the municipal compliance section. Today, I will be discussing basically two things, give a brief overview. First, some minor amendments to the vehicle for higher by-law. And second, I will provide a brief update about a recent AODA grant that has been received and how we intend to spend that grant before the end of the year.

It’s important to note that this report is not in response to a specific municipal council resolution. It is also important to note that this report is in line with the strategic plan, the 2019 to 2023 strategic plan. Outlines how staff can make policy amendments that are number one, keeping, in keeping with trends and best practices that have been successfully implemented in other municipalities. And then number two, to improve the effectiveness of our by-laws to enhance London’s competitiveness.

So we are recommending a couple of small changes to the vehicle for higher by-law. First, staff are proposing to extend the 10 year limit for zero mission vehicles for higher. So this would essentially increase the age or model year of electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles from the current limit of 10 years to 12 years. We believe that increasing the age limit for all electrically powered and hybrid vehicles for higher is intended to be a cost relief strategy and that it would incentivize vehicle for higher companies or taxi companies to purchase zero emission vehicles.

It is important to note that this initiative is part of the city of London’s climate emergency action plan. The CEAP has the goal of reducing community wide emissions to net zero by 2050. Another small recommended change to the vehicle for higher by-law includes basically a small point of clarification that both rear and side entry accessible vehicles or also known as conversions are permitted to operate in the city of London under the vehicle for higher by-law. The third and final point of the information report on today’s agenda speaks to the municipal compliance section applying for and receiving through the city manager’s office a $40,000 AODA grant.

We are proposing to allocate these funds in three main ways. Number one, to waive the licensing fees for 2024 for accessible vehicles. These will be paid in October of by the end of the year. So within the calendar year of October or rather of 2023.

Number two, to financially assist accessibility driver training and number three, to retain and support the 11 licensed accessible taxis currently on the road. Thank you for your attention. Thank you, looking if you could just clarify what you mean by financially assist the driver training. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We’re currently hammering out those details with our friends in the city manager’s office. It’s sort of being decided upon whether or not we’ll be doing it internal or external through a consultant. The latter is probably the most likely scenario. Would you be referring to the training fees for the drivers of these vehicles?

Ms. Musico? Yes, thank you through the chair. That is correct.

That would be the driver training fees for specifically for accessible driver training. And just to clarify, we would be looking to cover all the costs. Thank you. Looking to staff to see if there’s any final comments as I’m also trying to fill a minute before I can open my public participation meeting.

Thank you through the chair, not at this time. That wasn’t super helpful, but thank you. Okay, so at this time, you’re not staff. Counts, Deputy Mayor Lewis, sometimes we’re here enough that it feels like we might be, but just brief comments, ‘cause I don’t like to get into any of this unless it’s just unless it’s point of clarification from the presentation.

More of a technical question than a— Okay, let’s have it, then I’ll rule. Okay, I’m just wondering if staff can comment on why 12 years, as opposed to, I would suggest 15 was selected only because I know that the supply chain right now for new vehicles is extremely challenged, shall I say. And I’m wondering if, in consultation with the industry, if alternate years were considered. Okay, I’ll let staff give a brief overview of that before we hear from friends in the gallery tonight who might have comments as well.

Thank you, and through the chair, staff did ultimately give consideration to even removing the cap as safety for both the driver and the customer is paramount. We did conclude that increasing it to two years was the right thing to do. There have been many comments received from the industry and varying comments anywhere from a few years to, as Councillor Lewis just suggested, five, but we did land on to, again, mainly for safety concerns. Just for clarification, as you’re saying, safety concerns, these vehicles are still safety regularly, just like any other vehicle, regardless if they’re electric or not or hybrid.

Yes, thank you. Thank you for the question and through the chair. Yes, absolutely, and part of the vehicle for hire licensing by-law regime allows us to ask for inspections as well at any time in addition to the safeties that are required annually. Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re satisfied as I am now at 431, so looking for a motion to open the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, calling the question.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Thank you, so at this time, our public participation meeting regarding the vehicle for hire by-law amendments and information report is open. I’m invite anyone in the gallery here to speak on it. There’s four microphones, whichever one is your favorite or your closest to, please feel free to move over to it.

I will acknowledge you, you will have up to five minutes to speak and during the public participation meetings, you are speaking to us with what you would like us to hear or know or consider. It’s not really a back and forth Q and A with staff or with ourselves, so we’re listening, we’re hearing you, and then once the public participation meeting is done, those who are interested will take your questions and comments and ask what we would need to have staff before making a ruling on this tonight. So, anyone who would like to speak, you have up to five minutes, please proceed to a microphone if you’re choosing. And just for everyone’s information, there is no one registered on Zoom virtually or on phone this evening, so it’s just those in the gallery.

So, our IT friends will start your microphone, so you’re, okay, if you just introduce yourself with your name and then you’ll have up to five minutes. Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to talk to you all. My name is Jamar Tevidi.

I’ve been driving an accessible taxi for almost 19 years, so I’m just gonna talk to the last point that you mentioned. If you have the expectation of the cars every year, so why do you have a limit? So we should have the accessible taxi, no cap, no limit for the car. I could get a very good one, 2008 accessible cap, and put it in the road, be safe, and you expect it every year.

So, I would like you to look on the option of removing the cap for the year for the accessible taxi. Okay, you have lots of time left, if you want to say anything else. I have a lot, yeah, I have a lot to say. You still have four and a half minutes, so you can know.

The second thing is that we have been talking to the city for the last 10 years about supporting the accessible taxi drivers, because it’s very expensive to run these caps, it’s very expensive to maintain them, and it’s just like a regular taxi, right? So, it’s the city of London, we’re supposed to be accessible, we support accessible to help the people who can take voyager, right, who charge arm the legs. So, first time we sat down with the city, it was a few years ago, they say, we’re gonna have five dollars to the riders to support them with the taxi fees for the taxi support. Last time, two or a few months ago, they say there’s 40 grand, we’re gonna give to the driver to help them with running these costs, and we haven’t heard from them, too.

So, thank you very much. And if I could actually just ask you to spell your name for the record, ‘cause we just keep a public record of who spoke to us. Jamel Tividi, G-A-M-A-L. My last name is Tividi, Tom, Afro, Bob, I, David, I.

Thank you, the clerk has captured that, and I will also note that our guests at the public participation meeting are only allowed to speak once, so if you have anything else, you still have a little bit of time. If not, I don’t want to force anyone to keep talking, just you only get to speak once, so there’s no seconds. Thank you very much, thank you. Thank you kindly for coming this evening, and sharing your experience with so many years of being a driver for us.

Looking for anyone else in the gallery? Yep, just, we’ll start. This might seem to be the popular one, so if you just introduced your name, and please proceed. My name, Trati Bandar, F-A-T-E-H, my last name, Bandar, B-A-N-D-E-R.

I have two topics to talk about. The city in 2019, they brought that incentive to pay five dollars, and I don’t think it’s a politician stuff, I don’t know. They said after two years, they took it all, the city council, they didn’t approve the five dollars for each $19, it come 21. Now, the funny thing is, these four thousand they’re talking about is going like a circulation.

They bring it out and they take it back each time, and as Yamal said, Yamal is most of these drivers over 10 years driving. They don’t need to educate them again. Spirit, they can train people. So the program for the 40,000 should be divided by the 11 people working right now, immediately.

If you set 750 to remove the fees, how much from the 40,000 is 7,500 for 10 cars? So it’s still the money left. And once the budget goes, the money gets synced away. I’m not gonna come back to the accessible.

We talk about this. This car is very expensive. By 2025, it should be everything accessible. 10% or 20%.

The city of London is not ready yet. And I don’t know if they’re thinking they try to hide or they wanna do something. I think for the edge of the car, it should be unlimited, and they can make like two inspection a year, each six months. Because these cars has a little submit that the sheet for the cost.

The car, it costs over $70,000. Who gonna put the car for $70,000? So if we reduce it, make it 15 years, just make three instruction a year. We don’t mind that.

So this one, it comes in the hand of the driver to put more accessible vehicles. In the last three years, if they have the report, how many cars they added in the fleet? Nothing, zero in London. And we have three, four cars that are gonna be out of the road.

So the help, actually, the other company got for the incentive, say, bar a transit. Bar a transit each year is millions of dollars going. If you divide the millions of dollars, divide it by the people they’re using, bar a transit each, and they have to look at that to the city. Each individual, he get over $30,000 incentive.

Each individual, if I am not mistaken, if we can get to the report right now, the money they pay for bar a transit last year, you’re gonna surprise how many people using bar a transit, if you divide the millions of dollars for this, it’s gonna be a huge amount. So for us, we didn’t get a big zero. And these cars are gonna be out of the road. Actually, we spoke for the last two years to make our, we’re gonna move from the city rules, we’re gonna make our own company, private company.

If you go to the private company, they have three private companies in London. If I have to go to the hospital, I have to pay nine dollars for the trip. If the trip from the city hall to Victoria Park, you have to pay nine dollars. 30 seconds left.

So my suggestion is we have to look at this with serious matter. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. I’m going to go to the speaker next.

Yeah, I’m gonna be the last one here. And then there’s just one person over here. Okay, so just state your name and then proceed. Hello everyone, yeah, my name is Khalil Altarghoni.

I have already correspondence with you. I am the president of my green taxi. My green taxi is running now seven accessible cab. We are almost covering two thirds of accessible service in the city.

We were 10 accessible cab, like a few years ago. Now we are down to seven because whenever there is any van, have an accident and as it starts to last, there is no way to replace it with a hundred thousand dollar brand new accessible cab. I already sent you last night’s sheet about comparison of four types of accessible cab starting from 2022 down to like 29 or 2010 or something there. And this is quite clear there and the figures is in front of you that drivers cannot afford paying 50,000 or 80,000 or whatever there to add or to put or to run an accessible cab and while the other one, driving easy then have the same service and but with 10% of the cost of that accessible cab.

There is no way to do everything. Drivers are here for profit. They are not doing charity service. Tax industry also for profit.

They are not doing charity service. So I already passed some solution for you. We did some, this is the third presentation we do in this regard. We did once before with Catherine at the city management.

Two months ago we did over one hour with accessibility advisory committee, okay? And I think the file is already with you there about everything there, okay? And now we did something else more also from yesterday. The city is the government.

The city have to get heavily involved in this business. You have to look about those who are stranded. Now when I’m coming to you and driving accessible cab after log off and there is three waiting calls for accessible. Nobody is serving them.

There’s no NF caps to serve them. Those are sitting there for one hour or two hours. Some of them they are missing their even medical appointment and then they have to wait two, three months to get another appointment. Some of them are missing their plane or flight because of, especially if they are late night or early morning.

So let me put this practical solution. You can do whatever’s financing or incentives or something bad. At least we’ll go with the least. You can extend the age of the vehicle from 10 to 12 or 13 or 14.

This is the basic category. Then we go to the second category as that. If the vehicle is still good for service, mechanically save everything. Then you can let it go and, I mean, license at for one more year, every year by year and you can ask the owner to bring safety and inspection two times a year instead of one year.

So as long as the vehicle is good and pulling the rules, everything is lit. Okay, extend it as much as the vehicle is good. Usually when the vehicle is over 10, 15 years, the order himself will take it out of the road because it’s worthless to repair it. Now, this is second category.

If one of my colleagues here said, he found like a vehicle 29, it’s 2009, 2010 or something there. Those are private vehicles are owned and run by private people. Okay, so the parent died, so the inheritance or the kids, they want to sell it. Usually they are not exhausted.

These cars are run okay for short of time, low mileage, and they are very good condition. So driver can own it, bring it here, inspect it, and it’s sometimes even better than my own car. I just got it recently, okay, 2015, but it’s 300,000 kilometer. I paid $5,000 to fix it and still, okay, so some of those old age vehicles are way better than even in your one, which are heavily used.

So three categories, three categories, okay, be flexible to this one, okay, and help the driver so the driver can help your community while is trying to somewhere there to have no cap. Thank you very much. Thank you, I’ll also note that the communication which the presenter referred to of the cost of operation of accessible bands versus Dan’s is included in the added agenda package on page 16. Going to the next speaker in the gallery, please state your name and then proceed, you have up to five minutes.

Yeah, Matula, Basi, you’re working. If you just spell your name as well. Sure, N-E-M-A-T-U-L-L-A-H, last name of Basi, A-B-B-A-S-E-Y. I’m the general manager of your taxi link.

I think my colleagues in here covered pretty much where we have to say. I think the year of the car has to be extended from 10 years, I don’t agree just for electric. We don’t have electric cars on the road yet, but hybrids are not zero emission. They still put out the emission out there.

A year or two extension with mandatory safety for those vehicles, I would say if my friends are suggesting twice a year, I would agree with that. As long as we can have safe reliable cars out there to provide service, as you guys know, that the waiting time for new cars are, especially for hybrids or electric, are up to two years now. I personal myself about it to the Sienna hybrid. I waited two years before I get my car.

So, and we want to buy another vehicle and the waiting time was two years. So, I don’t think it’s feasible at the moment for us, with the special with the cost of living, the inflation is up in the roof to go buy new cars. We could go out there by used reliable cars with low mileage and use it for an extra couple years. I think it’s better for the public and better for our drivers.

And also keep in mind that insurance is extremely high. We’ve had some very difficulties to find cheap insurance. So, we have to deal with that as well. As far as the wheelchair accessible, my friends are right.

I think it’s very difficult to put a brand new car and run as a taxi. We try to explore options and the cost of the brand new vehicle wheelchair accessibility are close to about $100,000. I’ve gone to a few places and it’s not easy to finance those vehicles. I think if we remove the age restrictions, as they say, we can get used vehicles, then maybe even 10 years old with low kilometers, use it for years is better than buying a new car.

We could have more accessible vehicle on the road to provide service. We personally actually have a very tough time to service the city, because we don’t have enough cars to cover it. So, by having an option to purchase a vehicle that are reasonable priced, maybe 10 years old, as they said, private vehicles that they use it privately, maybe they’ll have like 40, 50,000 kilometers that we can go out there and buy those cars and use it here for another two, three years or four years, makes a lot sense. I don’t think that just the $750 will help us, what will help us is to buy a vehicle at a lower cost.

I’m sure I don’t follow up with these incentives, because we don’t own any vehicle, but we have owner operators that they like to see some sort of incentives when it comes to wheelchair accessible. It’s just not only the wheelchair accessible cost, but also we have to take into consideration the cost of insurance. The cost of insurance on vehicle accessible is more than a regular taxi. So, they’re paying more and insurance, more vehicles.

The city allow us to set up our own price. We do have different prices, I think every company has different prices for wheelchair accessible. I think we come up with one set of price for people, because people are not happy to see different prices. That would also help us.

And we like the city collector look into this, to see what are the options we have, how we can come together to provide the same service on 24/7 for the same price. Because right now, we cannot afford to subsidize those rights. My drivers wants more money, because they’re paying more for the vehicle, for the insurance, for the maintenance. That’s all I have to say.

I, if you guys take into consideration the age of the car for all the vehicles, I would appreciate it. Perfect, thank you for those comments, and for joining us this evening, I will return to this microphone. If you want to, or if you would, please state your name, and then you have up to five minutes. Sure, Hassan Sabihilagi, H-A-S-A-N, last name, S-A-V-E-H-I-L-A-G-I.

I am co-founder and general manager of Yellow London Taxi. Since 2005, I have been actively engaged in every single taxi by-law or vehicle for higher, by-law reviews. It is definitely a positive step for staff to bring this issue of taxi industry, particularly accessible cab services to the attention of authorities. But we are far, very far from proper effective solution, where not just concerns expressed by my friends at the green and your taxi link, when it comes to cost and struggling to cover operation costs.

What they say is accurate, and maybe it’s not even really enough and far enough for you to understand where we are standing. You know the world we are living in, and instability, economic instability, is making particularly small businesses suffering big time. When comes to accessible cabs, I think in 2008, if I am not mistaken, accessible number of accessible cabs were supposed to be above 20 for City of London, knowing the community in need of the service. Now, as it was stated, about 10, maybe 11 of them in total active and operating.

My friends pointed out about cost, and I’m not gonna get to that part. But when comes to safety, whatever we want to do, or the city wants to do, whatever direction is going to be taken, but public safety cannot be put in jeopardy. I’ll tell you, and it is perhaps a comment some of owner operators may not like it, and maybe my colleagues from my friends from the other taxi companies may not like it. If you put a 10, 12 years vehicle on the road that is constantly working, it’s not a private vehicle, it’s working on the road.

Most of them are with one driver on it, but long hours, these vehicles are active, they are heavy, they get depreciated very quick, and assuming we have 12, 13, 14 years vehicle on the road and having them inspected once or twice a year, and you are assuring general public, and those individuals getting right from those vehicles are safe, I think I challenge this destruction. That is, I mean, mechanical expenses and mechanical problems with this type of vehicles, even sedents, for information, we just had one example to me, it’s way too many, a vehicle being old enough at the last age, like last year, a year and a half left to remove them from the road, there are people they just don’t want to invest money in them. And for any taxi company keeping an eye on that many vehicle, on the road, in our case, over 100 of them, and with accessible caps being on the road 24/7, I mean, guaranteeing the, assuring the safety of these vehicles by inspecting them once or twice a year, I think it’s not realistic, it doesn’t provide the safety. And when it comes to safety and inspections, city is definitely not doing a good job at this minute.

I mean, recently I directly communicated and requested, instead of one single day for the entire taxi fleet, for inspections and it is only about three, four hours in one week, extended to two days a week. 30 seconds. But that doesn’t grow very well still. So inspection is a problem from the city and with the limited resources and maybe budget, I don’t know what the problem is.

But generally when it comes to safety, I think it’s something we are far from a proper solution. At the same time, what I suggest, dealing with all the points brought up today, I think a task force, organizing a task force, working on this in a limited time to come up with bringing all the parties together, putting some verbal, reasonable, effective solutions that including safety would be something good approach to take, thank you. Thank you. Looking to see if there’s anyone else who would like to speak in the gallery before we close the public participation meeting.

Welcome. If you can please state and spell your name and then after that, your five minutes starts. Hi, my name is Paul. I’m the general manager of UnitaCAB, E-A-U-L.

I just wanted to say I agree with what my colleague Nima says about the extension of the vehicles considering the rising costs and the limited supplier vehicles that not just accessible and regular CABs should be extended for at least a minimum of one year and be inspected so that they’re fully safety and a safety driver, thank you. Thank you. Looking to see if there’s any other further comments from, hey, we have one more, two more. Okay, so we’ll start with the gentleman in the far back.

If you can just please state your name and spell it and then your five minutes will commence. Yeah, hello everybody. My name is James Wanney, J-E-M-I-S. Last name is W-A-N-I.

I have been a CAB accessible driver for 15 years and whatever everybody else has been said, this is what the challenge that is affecting us. And I don’t know whether it’s doable or not. The insurance is really expensive, very expensive. I don’t know whether you guys are aware of what we are paying.

Please doable, can we purchase insurance out of Ontario so that we can get at least cheaper insurance, particularly with a cap so that we can have a relief? Those vehicles are, we are paying $1,600 a month. Cheapers, I believe, maybe $900 a month. How can we survive, we have families?

Please doable, please, please beg you to something about it. Let us purchase insurance out of Ontario so that we can get cheaper insurance. Regarding the vehicle aid, this is very important because as long as the car is not new, the insurance goes down. He was aware of that.

Putting us into new vehicles, doesn’t mean we are paying more for insurance and nothing left for our pockets. So everything that has been said for others, so I just thank you for this opportunity. Thank you for those comments. I believe there is one more president who wish to speak.

Perfect, you just state your name, spell it, and then your five minutes will begin. Okay, thank you, good evening. Sorry, you’re gonna come closer to that, Mike, or you can feel free to move it. Hang on to it, whichever you prefer.

Okay, good evening, my name is Yiman Fagre and Y-E-M-A-N-E, last name, F-E-K-R-E. I’m up here regarding the training. The city of London trained us. I’ve been driving 18 years, and I’m talking about a long time ago.

You trained us. So those people who, being trained by you, can train the newcomers. I don’t think the allocation of the money, it should go to training, but it should go to other means. And the other thing is, when I read these articles regarding electrical and hybrid, there is nothing here in London that no broker has a hybrid, as well as electrical.

A seal, we are using gas, and some of the cars, they have more years to finish. Maybe you might be talking about the future, and we’ll see what happens in the future. Thank you very much. Thank you for those comments.

Looking to, there’s only, there’s only, you’re allowed to speak once at a public participation meeting, even if you didn’t use all your time. Is there somebody else up there who you know who could make those comments for you? If not, I would say anyone who spoke today, if you want your comments in writing. They are recorded on YouTube, and counselors can watch the proceedings if they want to go back and watch.

But if you want to send in a letter of correspondence, it comes to all accounts in written form, at the CPSC@london.ca email address, and it’ll be part of the written record, and will come when we vote on all the items. I’m sorry, I appreciate that you’re running most of the cars, but I cannot give the if I’m in an extension, or I’d have to do that if we wanted every public participation meeting. Sorry. Looking to see if there’s any other speakers in the gallery, and confirming that there’s nobody online or by phone still.

Okay. Looking to committee to close the public participation meeting, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pervall, calling the question for closing the public participation meeting. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you.

At this point, I turn to members of the committee for comments and questions, and then I will recognize any visiting counselors, which there’s no visiting counselors online that I’m aware of. We’re just double checking, ‘cause then we just, not just, but then we have the pleasure of Deputy Mayor Lewis and Chambers with us. Okay, so there’s nobody else online. So starting the questions with Councillor Stevenson.

And then we’ll have time for everybody. Did you want David to go first? Is this, or we just didn’t want to forget David? Okay.

Okay, David’s okay. I’ll get to, so Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to thank the members of the gallery for speaking today.

I really appreciate hearing what you have to say. Taxis are a lifeline for a lot of people, especially right now with the expensive vehicles. Dear to my heart, my dad was a taxi driver for many years. What, based on what I heard, I would like to refer this back to staff to address some of the issues.

Mr. Raman, a question or a seconder? I’d second the referral. Okay, my question with that is realizing we’re trying to get everything in place that they don’t have to pay for October, that I don’t want us to accidentally refer it back and miss that date when their licenses come up.

And then I’ll go to Ms. Musikyo realizing our committee cycles to hit council can be a little bit tricky sometimes. Hi there, thank you through the chair. So the accessibility fund that was provided to be municipal compliance, what happened there is we, through staff, decided that that’s how we would like to disperse the funds or the money.

So again, what we decided was we were gonna wave the accessible taxi fees and then with the remaining monies we were going to help to provide accessible driver training. So we already have the money in place. You’re more than welcome to obviously make a referral back for us to maybe consider some other options. But last year, for example, we didn’t necessarily need to come to committee to ask how to spend the money.

It was just provided to the licensing division. So again, the accessible taxi license fees were waived. I don’t know if that complicates things or clears things. Just a second, I’m not so sure that’s where we’re going.

Okay. Okay, so the committee clerk has confirmed that if we put this to council, then it’s gonna miss the next caps and we won’t be back until the end of the year and all that funding will not be implemented. So looking to the mover and seconder being councilor Stevenson, if you are okay with their license fee being covered and it was just that other train portion you maybe want them to look into something else. I just don’t want to miss them getting their license fees paid for if you were okay with that.

Yeah, absolutely. I am perfectly okay with that. What I saw here, it didn’t say anything about the license and fees. So I thought that was just for our information that that’s what was gonna be happening.

All I see here is the vehicle age. Looking to staff to see if there’s anything more learned as this also ties in with the by-law and also to the councilor, we could even just, if your interest is just the age of the vehicle we can change that tonight. And that recommendation would go to committee and they could, or to council, sorry as a whole and they could uphold it or change it if you had a number in mind after hearing our presenters this evening. Well, I believe there was more than just the age of the vehicle.

There was a bunch of things mentioned tonight that I think are worthy of exploration. Can we approve if that’s what’s required for the licensing fees and refer the issues that were presented in the public agenda back to staff for a report? Looking to staff to see how you would bring that forward here in the councilor’s comments of making sure the funding was in place and then the other pieces coming back. Mr.

Mathers. Yeah, through the chair. So whatever direction committee wants us to take on this, we’re happy to do that. It is always helpful to have, if there is some recommendations as far as what you’ve heard tonight, so we’ve developed a policy and brought that forward to you for consideration based on what we’ve been able to pull from the public and what we’ve the background work that we’ve done as well.

So if there’s a specific exact, like a specific number or a change to the training that you’d like us to do, if you want us to come back, we can bring that to you. Or you could actually tweak it right now if it’s something that committee would wish to do. Councilor Pribble, you wish to weigh in. Yes, I do, and what I would like to do is, as the staff mentioned, that there’s the $40,000 grant, and I certainly would like to give a immediately green light so we don’t miss the October opportunity.

The two things that I heard from our residents or the operators was the limit on the limit age on the cars and also the number of inspections. And they actually even offered to have more frequent inspections as long as there is no limit or the limit of the age of the cars is prolonged longer. And there’s the part that I would like to go back to the staff if they could give us a report and potentially even look at other municipalities in Ontario and let us know what they are doing so we are potentially in line and visit this opportunity. But I think that the only one I would like to certainly give a green light to use the $40,000 for the taxi drivers.

I do know with the green that actually, also the two months ago when they did the presentation to our car and they were actually down even to six cars. So I’m glad it’s going up, it’s seven currently. So I don’t think that money is even gonna be used at 40, but let’s please use it and let’s go back to the staff for the other two points, thank you. I’m just gonna note that we’re carrying the weeds that something is half on the floor, half not, and being tweaked as we go, but we did have a public participation meeting.

So I’m indulging and we’re just working our way through this as it is an important matter and definitely Deputy Mayor Lewis and I, we’ve been following this since our first timeline council. So Councillor Ferra. Thank you, through you. Thank you to the delegates that spoke and I like the momentum we have on the floor with this motion.

I wanted to add a little bit maybe to, actually before I do that, maybe I should ask some questions to staff. I know the Deputy Mayor asked this question, but I’m just gonna ask it one more time. For the hybrid vehicles and the non-gas electric vehicles, the 12 year mark, can I just ask one more time? I didn’t get the whole answer on that.

Why was that date or why was that amount of years selected? Staff, Councillor Ferra, your mic, please. Thank you and through the chair. We did, I did mention that there was some consideration given to potentially removing the cap completely.

In talks with the by-law department that actually conducts the inspections, there was some concern about completely removing it all together. So we did come up with increasing it by a few more years. As I, again, as I mentioned, our main concern was the safety of both the drivers and the customers as well. But we are also happy to report back.

Councillor Ferra and then I got some weeds to get into. Thank you, through you. Let me get through my weeds first, please. Okay, so I see the safety concerns and we should have it inspected.

I feel like maybe it would be an option to have included in the event or the motion that Councillor Stevenson has to report back. Perhaps beyond the 12 years for the hybrid of vehicles and beyond the 10 years for the regular gas vehicles, maybe have like a yearly inspection that the owner operators can bring their vehicle back in to the team that inspects that. And then that would be covered by the operators and maybe just to keep the vehicle in service so long as it’s still safe and worthy to drive on the road. I would like to put that down to, if the mover and the seconder would think that that would be appropriate to add.

You’re going to be very specific in that wording when you’re done talking, just the clerk didn’t catch. Sure, just beyond the 12 years for the one category of vehicles and beyond the 10 years for the other category of vehicles once they hit that mark, yearly inspections covered by the owner operators of the vehicle to maintain the safety of the vehicle until inspections deemed that the vehicle is no longer worthy to be on the road. And I also wanted to ask about the insurance. I’m not, I don’t know too much about the insurance part, but I wanted to know with the request of looking into insurance outside of Ontario, I wanted to know if staff maybe would have any information that they could share regarding that, if that’s a possibility.

Staff, Mr. Mathers, if you want to. Yep, through the chair. So we don’t have any further information on that.

The focus of this report was really just looking at that change of the timing for certain vehicles. So if you’d like to change anything else related to this report, we’d happy to be able to take that back and report anything else related to the by-law. We can take that back, provide you further information, be helpful to be very specific as far as what items you’d like us to reconsider based on the commentary we’ve gotten, but today, all that we have before you is a change for that timing for certain type of vehicles. But if you’d like us to make a change that’s specific, we can bring it forward a by-law or a by-law with that change to council.

But it would be probably most appropriate to be just focused on this one item. If you want us to come back with other changes, then that will be coming at requesting us to come back with a future report would be helpful. Councillor, I will make my comments and I can go back to you. You just have one more.

Okay, one more, then I’m fine. Thank you through you. I was just asking about the insurance thing, but I would like to see in that report back from staff looking into the items that I just put on the floor, I’m hoping that the seconder or the move in the seconder would accept that. Okay, so this seems to be where we’re at and some of the issues that are before us.

Ideally tonight, what was before us from staff was to accept the by-law changes, which allowed them to operate their vehicles at 12 years instead of the 10. And we were to receive the staff report and it’s the staff report that went into what they’re gonna do with this AODA money, waive licensing fees, and that’s why we’re not seeing it in the by-law ‘cause it was part of the staff report. So what I’m hearing is we would like to direct staff to do refer it back, but we can take this report but ask for an additional report back that takes into consideration the things we’ve heard tonight being what Councillor Ferris said. We’ve made some notes of, and we can work on that wording, and then that way staff can also make sure that those license fees are taken care of ‘cause it was in their report, it’s a good report.

I’m just saying the report ‘cause we want another report. And this will come back to this committee when those other items you want are available. My question tonight is the by-law of the 12 vehicles, are we interested in that? We can ask for a report back of extending it on the 12, just hearing from some speakers in the gallery that some of the cars are aging out right now, and four is gonna come out of that fleet.

So if a report doesn’t come back until mid-next year and we haven’t touched the by-law, they’ve lost those vehicles in the meantime. So I’ll look to the mover in a seconder. You can go with the 12 and ask staff to bring back a recommendation for more, which buys us more time and it can keep Brian their vehicles, or you can certainly pick a higher number tonight if we wanted. Just a technical question.

If we do 12 and then staff comes back and recommends higher, are we needing the two thirds because it’s a decided matter of council? No, Mr. Mather says no. And we were asking for a report back anyways on more.

We can go to by-law itself just to validate that. Ms. Misicchio. Thank you, and through the chair, I also just wanted to clarify, so the proposed amendment in front of you this evening, it’s to increase the age limit from 10 to 12 for hybrid and electric vehicles only.

So if there’s any recommendation coming back, I just wanted to make sure that that was clear, that again, for tonight, it’s 10 to 12 for exclusively electric and hybrid. Okay, yes, understood. Councilor Stevenson. Right, so I’m open to changing it to 12 years for all vehicles with a report back because this extension, based on what I heard, isn’t going to do anything because there are no electric or hybrid vehicles.

So this by-law doesn’t help, but there’s a situation. There is, some and one provider just for clarity said they didn’t have any in their fleet, the other ones that they do have some in their fleet. Okay, so the majority. And they’re aging out.

The majority are. With two thirds were with one provider, who said that four of them are aging out in this next cycle, if the age isn’t increased, that was my understanding. So if we say 12 for all vehicles. It could cover some, we just don’t have a by-law wording for that.

We’d have to work on some stuff behind the scenes. Definitely possible. And like I said, where we do here at committee tonight, still goes to council to be ratified, looking to staff to see if that would. Through the chair, we’re in your answer.

You can tweak this resolution, change it to the wording that you feel is appropriate. We would then come back with a by-law to be ready for council, so that you’d have that support. If you think you’ve got some clear perspective on that, if you want more analysis, then you can refer it back to us. Or if you even pass this tonight, it will open it up for the electric and hybrid.

And then we can come back with a report. So there’s a few options for you. It’s really choose your own adventure. Okay.

So I’m assuming that the referral we talked about really is on the floor that we’re gonna do something tonight. As I say, not really on the floor. It’s not to be disrespectful that we’re working our way through the wording of approving the report, but we want more reports. And we would like to do some with the by-law tonight.

Councilor Raman. Thank you and three. So I seconded a referral of this matter, but I’m hearing that there’s a willingness to address this. I’ll pull my second on that then.

But I would like to address what I think we’re trying to get at right now. So the way that I read this and interpret this is that there are multiple problems that we were trying to address within this report. One of those is that we had some concern and discussion around the availability of accessible cabs in the city. That to me is a problem I want to address.

So what I’d like to do is I’d like to understand what tools are in our toolbox to address the amount of vehicles that we have that are accessible. How do we add more to the fleets that, and we’re hearing some suggestions. So I would like to, that’s where I’m comfortable referring back because that’s what I would like to see. The green component and the zero mission vehicles and hybrid gas electric vehicles, I’m in favor of the 12 year, moving that to 12 years, not an issue.

I’m in favor of keeping the 10 years of age on plated vehicles because I understand our intention on the climate side, which is why we have that other piece. So I’m looking right now to solve the problem and deal with the issue that I think that is part of what the accessibility committee wants us to deal with. Part of what we’re talking about is civic works as well. And part of what we’re talking about with LTC, which is we need more accessible options for people in the city.

How do we do it? Does staff have some ideas tonight or do they want to bring that back? That was a lot there. Looking to, sorry, that was all kind of good stuff.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, just in the spirit of finding solutions here, there could be the opportunity of having both the hybrid electric and accessible to 12 years. ‘Cause that’s one of the things that we think we heard was that the life and the value of these vehicles are higher.

So that could be something that committee can consider. Excellent suggestion. Councilor Ramana, follow up. Thank you to follow up.

Could we go to 12 years for hybrid and electric and what would be any consideration we need to give if we went to 15 years for accessible? Looking to staff. Through the chair. So we know we’re comfortable with the 12 years for a vehicle.

The 15, we’d have to look at a little bit more detail. So definitely would be comfortable with accessible for hybrid and the electric. I’d ask for more information back if we wanted to look at 15. Thank you.

I appreciate that. And always always, staff, this is the hands of council. And we’ve also heard from guests in the gallery tonight saying that sometimes an accessible vehicle that they get is low mileage, just an older year and is actually in better shape than a traditional one that’s had lots of use to residents. Councilor Ramana.

Thank you. So I’m comfortable moving the staff recommendation if you need a mover for that and amending to include accessible vehicles alongside the maximum of 12 years. So say, except for a zero emission vehicle and/or hybrid gas electric vehicle and/or an accessible vehicle. The clerk is typing fiercely.

Okay, so procedurally there is a referral moved and seconded on the floor. The seconder removed their second, but it didn’t matter because it was already moved and seconded. So first we have to defeat the referral in order to do anything with it tonight and make progress besides refer clerks have stated. I tried to argue, but it was pointless.

It was futile. I recognized my position. So in order to direct staff and get something done in time for any of this, we have to defeat the referral first. Can I change the referral to just, no, there wouldn’t be a referral?

No, just ‘cause a referral takes presence over everything we can’t tinker with it as well. So are you ready? So for clarity, we’ve gone with the wording of re-referring A and B to which then we can just defeat it all. Work on it?

Sorry, we’re clerking. So the wording is, if you reload E-Scribe, that the staff report relayed to the vehicle for higher bylaw, we preferred back to civic administration. So in order to proceed with our conversation, we’re gonna vote no on this. And then while we can do the changes, Councilor Raman suggested, we can ask for a report back.

We can do what we will with the bylaw, but we need to say no to this first. So calling the question. So in the vote, the motion fails zero to five. I don’t think a failure ever sounded so lovely.

So we’re back open that we can take motions. Yeah, so Councilor Raman was trying to move the staff recommendation. Sorry, so that was A and B and wish to make a change that it was the hybrid gas electric vehicles for 12 years and the accessible vehicles for 12 years. I believe is what I heard.

I see a nod, the clerk, yeah, we are still typing. Okay, so having heard the conversation, clerking and the accessible vehicle 12 years, we’re accepting the staff report. And then I’m gonna see if the mover is happy to remove a part C that staff report back on the other items that we’ve listed off tonight. So this conversation continue, which could also include increasing regular vehicles to 12 years.

And if any additional concerns of pushing those vehicles from 12 years to 15 as we heard. You read my mind. The motion’s being adjusted still. When it’s up, I will see if it’s what the mover wanted and what the potential seconder is maybe seconding.

So give us a moment. Okay, it’s been posted in eScribe. Part C be that civic administration be directed to report back to future CPSC on increasing the age of regular parts in service from 10 to 12 years reporting back on concerns of increasing age limit requirements for all zero emission vehicles and hybrid gas electric vehicles and accessible vehicles from 12 to 15 years. If there’s anything else I’ve missed through this conversation, let me know.

Staff might have heard some other tibits as we went that they could wrap back into report, but essentially this is what I’m capturing tonight. I know the words might not be as exquisite. That staff might have made with more time, but I do believe it captures the incentive, the ideas overall of where we’re trying to go. And I’ll take questions from committee as it has been moved and seconded.

So it was formally on the floor as long as the mover and seconder, is that it, Councillor Stevenson? Thank you. That looks good to me, but I would also like the report back to address some of the other issues that were brought up in the public session too. Can we just say other issues as raised at the public participation meeting?

Yeah, or we can add insurance pricing inspections. Sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis, do you have a comment? Yeah, just as a point of information for colleagues, I recognize that at public meetings, there’s a desire to address some of the concerns raised. Automobile insurance is purely provincial in jurisdiction that includes vehicles for hire.

It is not within the authority of council to regulate or change rules around insurance premiums. I understand it is a concern for the industry, but that is a matter that has to go to our MPPs and should not be directed to our staff. Okay, but inspections are within our one. So we will leave that one in as it is within municipal purview.

And the consideration of a task force? Okay, yes, and the consideration of forming a task force. Okay, I know it’s taken a while, but at least it’s a lot more precise than bringing us a report back. At least we know what our report’s gonna have in it when it does return to us.

I see a couple of nods from staff. Okay, it’s just being reloaded and posted as we did make a couple changes to it. Councilor Pribble? Second question, so the chair to the staff.

Question one or comment one. If we can really include, because I keep hearing a lot from the industry, if I do my business down the road in this city, if we can really have certain cities compare us to kind of number of inspections and the age. So we can have it for five municipalities other so we can compare it. So we know what other ones are doing.

Point one, point two, do we need to address the grant in this? Or so it’s paid, so the fees are paid next month? Do we need to address it? Or it’s okay without addressing it in the motion?

Okay, Councilor Mathers, congratulations. Mr. Mathers, and I believe by accepting the staff report, it does cover off the fee structure. And the words that we were capturing was that we would do a municipal comparison, has been added into Part C.

So just looking for staff’s feedback. That’s perfect, absolutely. So it’s not required to have consideration for the fee and the accessibility funding right now, and then absolutely that’s the correct way to do it at a jurisdictional scan, whatever you’d like the terminology you are applying. Okay, our wording is re-updated to add in Councilor Pribbles.

I should make sure there was no, everyone’s good but a friendly, okay, it was a friendly. Okay, Councilor Stevenson. Just a quick another thank you to the delegates who spoke into city staff for working on this. It is, like I said, literally a lifeline for people.

We’re a growing city until we get our rapid transit up and going fully with the cost of vehicles, the wait for vehicles. We really need to support this industry so that they can support our people. And I just wanted to say thank you very much to all the taxi drivers. It’s really appreciated what you do in our city.

Thank you, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, so I just read through this motion. I feel like some of the language should be tightened up, especially with the inspections and the consideration, the IE part in brackets there. And I specifically think that we should maybe throw in some language that speaks to maybe an inspection schedule around the end of near end of life of the 12 to 15 years, depending on the vehicle.

Just because safety is supposed to be a concern here. And as the vehicle does get older, safety concerns can, more issues can pop up. So the inspection schedule, I feel, should be in this language somewhere. Okay, I will go to staff.

As I believe they’re already on a set inspection schedule that they have to meet, and especially in regards to licensing. But if you just outline what it is, and if it increases with the age of the vehicle, or if it’s just a set inspection schedule. Thank you and through the chair. So the inspections typically occur at the time or I should say before the time of renewal.

So that would be annually. But under the powers of the license manager, we can also, through our by-law staff, ask for additional inspections at any time. But to answer your question, it is yearly. Okay, so to the councilor, do you want that in there knowing it is a yearly inspection before the license, and at any time staff can call an inspection?

Thanks, through you. If it’s a yearly inspection, I would assume it would be more efficient to have all the inspections within that one time where the vehicle is in. I was just concerned with the language ‘cause it just says IE inspections and consideration of forming a task force. And I was hoping that that inspection, the language they would be tied in towards the near end of life of the vehicles.

But if they have inspections every year, maybe at the near end, just to ensure that the vehicles, we’re going from 12 to 15 years. I feel like there should maybe be inspections in there, just because staff limited the lifetime of the vehicle to 12 years. So I feel like maybe there’s some unknowns between the 12 and 15 years. So maybe there should be an enhanced inspection schedule between that time.

Okay, inspections is in there, and a municipal comparison would make an assumption, but not to assume. When the staff report comes back to committee, could it also include whether municipalities are doing, and if there’s what they’re making for the requirements for inspections are, and that way we know if they’re running end of life that it is more. Okay, so I see nods from staff that that can be included in the municipal comparison. I will also note absolutely, Councillor Ferris, this wording is not pretty, as I said.

This is the joy of doing stuff on the fly at council and everyone not coming with their own written motions, but tonight this is where we’re at. So I’m really trusting staff on this one, as they heard the intention, and they would know that we will ask for another report back if we don’t hear what we want or not what we want, but the information we want, we don’t always hear what we want. Okay, Councillor Ferris, you satisfied? Yeah, if staff— Unless you have specific motion, you want to send verbally or in writing.

All I did have one earlier, but that’s okay. If staff has heard the discussion here, and they see what the intent is of this language, then I would be okay with the language for now. Okay, update that. So as we’ve been talking, the clerk has word to magic, clerk magic, and has put it in fancy words, like environmental scan of other municipalities, including other nice things that we’ve talked about.

So with an environmental scan of other municipalities related to vehicle inspection frequency, including a specific inspection schedule directly related to the age of vehicles and all regulations related to the age of a vehicle. Councillor Ferris, you’re loading, okay, it should be in there. So I’ll give everyone a moment to review it, as I’m hoping we’re getting to a final review of this of where we’re at, realizing reports coming back, and if people are super passionate, we can always change, not that I want to change anything at council, but we can always change things at council, and there are still other items on our agenda this evening. In regards to the wording, is they’re looking to see, I had a brief comment I wanted to make, nothing contentious, if the committee would allow me from the chair, just wanted to thank our presenters this evening, not only just for tonight, but for your advocacy and information to us.

So this is not our profession, our industry, it is yours, and we rely on your information to be partners and make things work in the city. As I said, Deputy Mayor Lewis and I have been following this issue for years, and we keep changing things and realizing sometimes it takes multiple rounds. I also appreciate the service you’re providing to those who need accessible vehicles, and I fully recognize for those on the London Transit Commission, our Boya Go services, the city share, cost share per subsidy of that ride is around $40. So if we have those who can have access to reliable vehicles, and trained professional taxi drivers to get them where they wanted to go on a schedule that they prefer, I am happy to be partners at the table and do what I can to make that function as well as possible, and realizing this is a continuing conversation and not a no means is it solved or a one and done.

Okay, so final call to committee if there’s any questions or final comments or if the wording is as created. Okay, I see thumbs up and I is not making eye contact with me, so I’m gonna consider that to be done and calling the question. Those in the vote, the motion carries five to zero. That concludes our scheduled items, so thank you to our guests in the gallery that I am concluded, and you will get the final decision at council on the 26th is when this comes forward, so if anyone has correspondence, please send it in before then, and thank you all and have a wonderful evening.

I am for direction, we have one. I’m going to look to committee, we still have two items to go, you have not had a break, you’ve been wonderful, looking to see if you want to go a little bit more or have a brief break at this moment. Okay, a brief make 10 minutes. Okay, we’re just gonna do a 10 minute break, and then when we come back, we’re gonna start with the staff report as it was an added to get us all queued up for this next item.

So looking for a motion for a 10 minute break, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Raman, a hand vote of all in favor of 10 minutes. Okay, that carries, that brings us back at 551. Okay, it’s 551, we’re coming back into session. We’re on to items for direction being 4.1, the community and neighborhood safety and security concerns, options for agency staff, volunteers, and those accessing services.

We’re gonna start with the staff report, as this is an added. Also noting within the added communications, there are eight from the community and partner organizations. So turning it over to staff for the staff report, which begins on page 17 for those following and writing on the agenda and by no means to staff need to read the staff report to us. Feel free to give a summary.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I will aim to do just that. So the report that you see included in this part of the added agenda is the culmination of some work that has been done by numerous parties, including members of our neighborhood and community-wide services team and our social and health development team, in tandem with the agencies that operate the location at 602 Queens Ave, which is four distinct organizations, as well as London Cares that operates at a 448 Horton Street. Informing some of this work, it’s feedback we had collected through five council-directed community engagement sessions, previously this summer, but also more recently, where we had received a lot of feedback around neighborhood community safety and feedback related to those two properties as well. We’ve also enlisted the help of members of our community, sorry, our corporate security team, as well as London Police Services to provide some input on the recommendations you see here.

What we have been able to distill through these engagement, through this feedback, is a number of recommendations which help to ease the concerns of the organizations at 602 Queens Ave, which is to revert back to a previous July report in which civic administration was recommending contributions from the Reserve Fund to provide security on-site at those two locations through to December. So we’re recommending that that funding be reallocated again to keep the security in place through December, or until such time as there’s program changes or the funding should run out, as well as additional measures to address some of the feedback from various BIA partners and through other community engagements, which is a greater presence of the coordinated informed response team, including municipal law enforcement officers, in the direct and adjacent areas surrounding the property at 602 Queens Ave and all these village, so that we are recommending that we can find some of that funding through our existing housing stability services funding to keep those services or enhance those services through till March of 2023. And then we’re also looking to tap into work that’s already underway in terms of expanding and increasing the number of CCTV cameras that are being expanded throughout the core area, which will provide additional camera coverage, which was feedback we had received through this process across the oldies village coverage area. And we also recommend that we undertake the process of securing a third party contractor to provide some enhanced level of cleaning, garbage pickup, needle collection, and some pressure washing services, again, reflecting the feedback we received through this process.

We do know that as always, a number of service areas are involved in work and initiatives and priorities that impact the core area. And so future service level standard increases or to sustain service level increases, that work should really be tied to those other corporate initiatives, be it any updates that may come forward in the future related to core area improvements or the work of the health and homelessness whole of community system response or through the community safety and wellbeing plan and of course tied to the multi-year budget. So we feel like we are presenting committee with options here that indicate we can do things immediately right now in terms of security. We can do things pending the time it takes to do some recruitment to enhance those service levels for the coordinated informed response and address those municipal parking lot concerns.

And we can also do things immediately in terms of cleaning and camera expansion. So with that chair, I’ll turn it over to you. Thank you, so just for clarity, that was basically the items are referenced on page 20 of the added just being increased cleaning. We have increased security guards at each location and some of the CC PV costs as well.

Sorry, words are getting hard. Okay, so the associated security costs is both materials and HR. Okay, so for committee, there is a recommendation of A through D just to brought up to your attention on page 17, looking to committee to see if anyone would like to move that motion or any motions. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I’d like to move this motion plus the one addition that I had sent to the clerk. Okay, so just this motion being A, B, C, and D? Yeah. Okay, and you sent a motion to the clerk as the rest of the committee wouldn’t be aware of it.

Would you just say what it is? ‘Cause this would be a potential E. A potential E to just ask for the details of the breakdown of the 174,000 prior to council. Okay, sorry, just for clarity, $174,000.

$210, yeah. $210, what do you say? Yeah, 174, 210. So you wanted to— It’s one of the breakdowns, yeah.

The last was 200,000 for six months. This is 174,000 for three months. I’m assuming it’s the increased security at Hamilton Road to make it 24/7 as well, but I just think when the financial asks come from a governance place, I just wanna know what the details are for how we got to that number. Okay, so that’s before the next council.

Is that information available now? Or would you prefer me to remember that for the next council? Through you chair, we can circulate this to council and a note to council before the next council meeting. Okay, so staff seems to have no problem in those timelines.

So that’s an A through E, looking to see if you have a seconder, seconder by council approval. So A through E is on the floor. It is being saved and uploaded into E-Scribe now, knowing the only change is that note coming back from staff, looking for further questions or comments. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, so I’m sure that’ll be in the public record then whatever that comes forward, right? Through council, the details of the 174. Yeah, would that note be like an added communication relation to this number on the council agenda? Yeah, perfect.

Yeah, so I just wanted to say thank you to staff for and council, because I had asked that we take a pause and we look at how we could do this better. So I do really appreciate it. I like what we’ve brought forward. I really like the expanded CIR, and I really do appreciate the willingness at a busy time to explore options here.

I fully support security while the services are operating. I do not support paying security to shoe people off the property, the same human beings that are being served by the agencies, we’re shoeing them at a taxpayer expense off of the property with nowhere to go. I’m okay, I’m supporting it till the end of December, but is there a plan with the health and homeless to come back in 2024 with something where the money is actually helping people rather than just moving them? So looking to staff and if the reports will still realize there’s a lot of health homelessness type stuff going on too, if this stays this way or if the format will change of how we see some of this coming forward, Mr.

Dickens? Through you, Chair. So as we come back to the SPPC committee every month, you will receive a whole of community system response update and then that will be opportunities where there are strategic investments being made or requested to be made or presented to committee for consideration. So as we look at what the foundations of that whole of community system response is, a key component of that is community engagement, but it’s also those foundational pieces of wherever the hubs are located, there’s expectations around being good neighbors and expectations around programming inside their space and outside the space.

So those matters will certainly be reflected in the work that we do and that entire whole of community response in terms of how money is actually helping people. You will also see that as the evaluation and measurement framework is developed. So you’ll see how the money is actually helping people. Additionally, we continue to work through our business reference table as part of that system and seeking input directly from the BIAs and the Chamber of Commerce on strategic investments that should be made that we could recommend to committee to consider that directly impact and help businesses.

So we are trying to help vulnerable people. We are trying to help those that support vulnerable people and we are trying to help the businesses that are adversely impacted by the effects of this crisis. Councilor? Thank you.

In a couple of the letters that came from the social service agencies, it mentions that from January to August, the 602 Queen’s location supported 810 unique individuals. Approximately 25% of these individuals are restricted from other services in the community. And this, I know they called it a community hub at the time and we’re not calling it that now, but it opened in January and by April, they were in need of 24/7 security at that location. So I’m just, and I heard reference at one of the public engagement sessions about the lessons learned.

And I just wondered if staff could share some of the lessons learned from this ‘cause it was a new thing that was set up and we immediately had problems. So 810 people with no living space, right? No overnight beds, okay? And just for people following along, part of this is referenced on page 21 in the lower quarter of the page.

So looking to Mr. Cooper or Mr. Dickens? Thank you through you, Chair.

So just some one point of clarification. So not all 810 unique individuals are necessarily living on shelter, right? So through the services that 602 Queen’s have is the regional HIV/AIDS connection. You have the Thames Valley family health team, you have London Cares, and you have the Sisters of St.

Joseph’s, which offers a meal program and some other support. So there are individuals that access that space because it does provide a plethora of services. So we don’t want to assume that all 810 people are just living unsheltered on the streets. To your point though, there was a January to April is a long period of operating in this type of work with vulnerable populations, but there was an incident that occurred on that site involving a staff assault on the Easter weekend and a long weekend.

And from there, the four organizations made the decision for the health and safety of the staff that work in that space to introduce security. And that’s why that was introduced at that point. And some of the lessons learned, I just try to capture some of that. So some of the lessons learned are reflected in the hubs implementation plan that Council has endorsed.

And that is around the physical design and layout of the space, the locations of the hubs and where they should and should not be ensuring that there is fencing in place, ensuring that there’s adequate staffing levels and ensuring that, again, we’re serving 25 to 35 of the highest security individuals at one time and not large amounts of individuals in large open spaces as well with difficult sight lines. Thank you for that. And I appreciate the clarity around the 800. Although if 25% of them are restricted from other services, we’re still talking about 200 people that don’t have anywhere else to go.

And when we shoe them off of that property, many of them are moving into the municipal parking lot. So as I said, I fully support this, but on page 20, when we talk about a recommended response, I just had a few small changes I wanted to make. And I don’t think it falls under a motion, but the very first part when it says third party street cleaning and close proximity to 602 Queens have, I’d like it to say particularly the municipal lots, because those municipal lots right across the road from Adelaide is where a lot of the encampments are showing up, even though it’s zero tolerance there. In the next bullet, it says on the second line with an emphasis on the area in close proximity to Old East Village, and I’d prefer to take out the area in close proximity too, so that it says with an emphasis on Old East Village wouldn’t preclude West of Adelaide, but to just say with an emphasis there, because again, that’s the next biggest space where people seem to be shifting to.

Sorry, Councilor, I’ll just note that this is the staff report, which we don’t change. So your comments are completely in order. That wording isn’t in the motion, which is what’s on the floor, but making those comments on the staff report and asking for clarity back from staff that they can monitor those municipal lots, and that they would go a little bit outside that area. People move around, I’d assume that we’d go to those spaces, so please finish making your comments, and then I’m gonna go to staff to follow up on your points that you’re raising.

Yes, and if they could address too, that C says to endorse the additional programs identified. So that’s why I went to that page where it says recommended response. I’m assuming when C, the additional programs identified is referring to 3.1, but I could be incorrect. So I’ll just make my comments around these points.

Yeah, so that it take out the area in close proximity to and add and the municipal lots. There’s a whole bunch of houses that back onto those municipal lots that have a short chain link fence, and those families cannot let their dogs or their kids into their backyards due to the human feces, the needles, the clothing, all kinds of stuff that’s being put through. So I don’t know if it’s something to, I just put it out there that is, we’re looking at long-term solutions if it’s gonna take us a few years to deal with this. We need that zero tolerance and that municipal lot enforced, or we need some kind of cement wall or something else that will give people peace and dignity on their side of the fence.

In 3.2 next steps, it talks about the necessary cleaning and debris pickup. And I have mentioned to staff that debris is one thing, and we definitely have it, but there’s literally hazardous waste of needles and feces and urine. It’s more than just debris, and I think the language is important. And in terms of civic administration inviting a group to gather under 3.2 and next steps, I would love to be included in that.

It’s a difficult and challenging situation, and I get that, and like I said, I appreciate the pause, the willingness to relook at it. I fully support the expanded CIR. That’s great news for the community. There are a lot of other sort of suggestions and stuff.

Can we look at pinging the CIR as well to give them potentially more ability to maybe special constable status, to be able to enforce trespassing? I don’t know if that too is something that’s being looked at with the health and homeless, or whether I could bring that up under a core area strategy to explore ways to how we can best manage these next couple of years as things come into place. Okay, so a lot there. I’m gonna turn the staff to answer.

I’m gonna track what I noticed for questions, and then we’ll circle back to the counselor to make sure that we’ve crossed those off. Mr. Cooper? Yes, thank you, and through you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the comments, and specifically I’ll speak to the cleaning piece, the expanded coordinated informed response. So with the cleaning aspect, our teams are going to identify sort of a proximity in that area, and there is flexibility built in with the typical contractors that we procure for those types of services to include some of the more frequented areas. So that is generally a complaint base through our service London portal, where many of our inquiries and information from the community is received, and then our teams respond to those specific locations. So I feel like we have enough flexibility with the wording, with the existing wording, to be able to respond in the moment to those challenges that do arise on a daily basis.

With regards to the expanded coordinated informed response team, we would be looking at a dedicated team for this general area. We note Oldies Village here, but it is really based on our current breakdown of our contact resource management data points from our service on London portal. So we have a number of spaces that we visit daily. We have a number of spaces we visit two and three times daily.

So this would afford that opportunity for that team to be in that area more often, and be more responsive, and prioritize, that team would prioritize the inquiries that come in from that sort of Oldies Village Midtown kind of area in that Adelaide and Dundas core area. And I believe that just these 3.2 being, that civic administration will be inviting groups of Oldies Village area, social service agencies and businesses and neighborhood associations for a meeting, just clarifying if council will be going to aware of this meeting, and if council elective representatives are welcome. Thank you, Chair, and through you, this was intended to be an operational meeting in terms of how organizations are operating together and as a network and how they can engage with those business partners. But if that is a request to invite the council, I may suggest we invite both Ward 13 and Ward 4 Councillors as they may be impacted on this boundary line as well.

Okay, I see a nod from Councillor Stevenson, a nod from Councillor Ferre, so perfect. And what was the last thing that we— Yeah, yeah. Just to confirm too, it’s only public spaces, right? There’s no cleanup on private property, in terms of the three-day, is it just gonna be streets and public property?

And then is that just for the debris or including needles and paraphernalia as well? Okay, yes, so both. Thank you and through the Chair, I appreciate the additional question. At this moment in time, it was identified for public property, the lots, the roadway in other areas.

We can see how the first few weeks or months of this program unfold and see if there is a desire and a need for some of that additional service in that community, we know that there’s a number of the power washer aspect could help a deal with any graffiti issues or any of the human feces or urine issues that we are seeing currently, but at this point, the program was intended for public spaces. Okay, so I would assume that if the Councillor start receiving requests and feedback from private residents to forward those concerns to, would you be the correct staff person? Mr. Cooper, thanks.

Thank you and through the Chair, I do receive many, many emails in a day. Service London is ideally the best portal through our service London portal there for the referral of encampment or concern. We get copied on those emails, my team does, and we can do a temperature check to see how the community is responding to the existing services and where we see gaps or additional resources perhaps necessary to address some of the ongoing concerns. Okay, thank you.

Great to know that it’s just not service London. I guess them that your department is copied so you can see as the environment changes. Councillor Ferra. Thank you.

Thank you through you. So going through the report, I like the cleaning piece. I’m glad that the CCTV progress is on its way. I do have some concerns with the CIR piece, and that’s just because, as the Councillor said, I don’t want to be hurting anybody.

I don’t want to be moving people around. The way we’ve been doing things obviously doesn’t work. We’re trying something new. And in the meantime, I don’t want to be pitting any wards against each other, but I have a concern.

If CIR is present in the old East Village area, where do people go? If CIR were to come in and remove individuals from a municipal parking lot or anywhere in the old East Village, my concern is, is we’re not going at the heart of the problem. We’re not trying to solve the issue. We’re moving people around.

And I feel like there’s pretty good consensus on council that that’s not what we want to do. So my question is, is what happens when someone calls CIR to the old East Village area? What happens after that? Mr.

Cooper, or Mr. Dickens? So our CIR MLEO team is not enforcement first. So we definitely take a care and compassionate approach as we work with individuals who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness.

Our first point of contact is actually, in many cases, our lending cares, or our other outreach programs in our community, to try and refer individuals to existing services that they may be aware of, that the individual may not be aware of. The real challenge in supporting individuals who are experiencing unsheltered homelessness is their concept of time, right? It’s very challenging to know what day of the week it is, what time of the day it is. And so our teams with regular engagement are able to assist people to get into shelters if they’re able to, if they want to access other types of programs, meal programs, if they’re able to, if they want to, and really work towards that.

The enforcement piece is generally the last option that our teams do take, but we recognize that some of the more frequented areas and our constant engagement with certain individuals may necessitate a requirement to have those individuals vacate that area for a variety of reasons. So our teams work quite closely with community, businesses, and private residents through our Trespass Authorization Program. It’s very clear that what that program does for our teams is allow them to have access to private property. So not only do we access public property, our programs can then access private property to assist homeowners and businesses with individuals that may be presenting on their sites.

The challenge we have is that our teams cannot actually enforce any of the Trespass to Property Act that has through London Police Services. So as we work to improve our responses to those issues, I would say that is the options available to individuals today. Councillor Ferra. Thank you, thank you for that.

I would really like to see in the language for me to be able to support this, which I kind of don’t like the CIR part, just because I don’t feel like that is the approach we need to take. However, if we were to add the CIR part when we get to the enforcement level of referring individuals to the appropriate areas of services that they can utilize that are available to them, I think that would be a way to go. I understand that CIR does that already, but I would like to see that in the language. Just because, like I said before, I don’t want to be shuffling people around.

I would like to get people into housing. I would like to get people into supportive housing. I would like to get people into the type of wraparound supports that we clearly need and which we’re working on right now with our whole of community response. So I would like to put that as an amendment on to the CIR piece, just to make me feel a little bit better.

So I would need specific wording, and we had mentioned that this is already kind of like a staff report that we’re also digging into and re-wording. So looking to staff to see how, having heard the councilors’ views, how that could be addressed, looking for some guidance as it’s a staff report. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I might just offer some clarification. So we use the Coordinated Informed Response, or CIR, almost to generalize some of the services, but the Coordinated Informed Response is enforcement.

It is outreach, it is roads, and it is parks cleanup. So it encompasses a number of corporate service areas, as well as community organizations. So when we say expanding the CIR presence, or expanding the CIR team, it does include outreach supports and transition to other spaces, but it also includes roads, support, and garbage pickup, as well as parks cleanup. So to say, try to wordsmith, that we want to see more transition and helpful and support.

That does, that is provided now, and it is one part of what the CIR team does. It does many things, including those roads and garbage, and to work in a bit of an ecosystem, it does have an enforcement arm when it’s required, and we’ve had a number of occasions recently today, this morning, where there are human lives that are at risk, or vulnerable individuals that are in very precarious and unsafe situations, where the enforcement arm is to we need people to relocate immediately. So we still need that function as part of CIR to keep all the people that we encounter safe in different ways. Councilor Ferra, having heard the staff’s feedback, looking to you?

Thank you, thank you for that. My question, I guess, goes back to where do people get relocated in that situation. I understand that that’s a hard question to answer, but it’s because we don’t necessarily have the capacity or the space at the moment to relocate anyone. So those are my concerns.

I would also say additional with me in the meeting with the Councillor, we should include Councillor McAllister of Ward 1, because the ward is very close to that part of, there’s a border close to all these village right there as well. And yeah, my question is, again, it’s where. So that’s the concern, that’s my main concern. Okay, so three Councillors’ invitation to go out and the Councillor’s question, please.

Thank you and through you, Chair. We appreciate the opportunity to be popular and invite as many of our friends as possible to these meetings. It’s great to have Council in these working group meetings. The question but where is a question, I feel like we have answered many different ways, through many different community and protective services committee meetings and our SPPC meetings.

In terms of, we don’t have enough places for where and when individuals are necessarily displaced or asked to leave or it’s part of morning wakeups, people go to a number of different places. When the entire CIR team is on site in Richmond Row and Dundas Flex Street and all these village each morning, waking individuals up, a lot of that work is to ensure they’re safe, check on their safety, assist them to find a place to go, connect them, again, sometimes that’s a daily connection with an individual to ensure they’re still with us, they’re okay, how can we help them build that relationship? But the answer to where do people go is the inevitable, there’s not enough places for them to go. It’s why we’re trying to open up hubs as fast as we can this year, it’s why we’re trying to bring on highly supportive housing units this year.

It’s why our colleagues in planning and economic development have a robust roadmap to 3,000 affordable units and it’s why we’re trying to sustain the current existing shelter system as well. So when people are displaced, sometimes it’s to the next service door, sometimes it’s further and more remote in Camden locations. And that also comes at a risk and we wear that risk and we wear that burden and it’s not easy decisions for our staff teams to make, but we understand it’s sometimes necessary. So where they go is many places, to the next door, to get service, further remote and distant from services to be left alone or to appropriate care and service locations.

Councillor Ferri, I don’t have a brief comment, I still have Deputy Mayor Lewis on my speakers list and we still have one more larger item before us this evening just for all, we’re at the time. Thank you, I’ll be brief. So because we don’t know where I wouldn’t be willing to support that part of the motion. So I would like to pull out, break down the motion ‘cause I like the other parts.

Specifically, when do you wanna pull out through? I believe that would be A through D. I believe that would be B, I think, hold on. That would be C.

Okay, C will be call separate. And so yeah, I just pulled that out. I just feel like that is not the way to go if we don’t have where to go. Especially with respect to the Ontario Superior Court ruling that we saw a few months back and again, ‘cause we don’t have a place to place individuals.

So that’s why I would be that. And I would look forward to the meeting at EV now after saying that. I do support Old East Village. I just feel like this is not the way to go.

So I would like to pull that. Thank you, C would pull separate as stated, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I wanna offer some comments as well as some support for this motion.

And I won’t discuss the specific location because there are vulnerable individuals at potentially at risk. But one of the situations that Mr. Dickens referred to was in my ward this morning. And it was a life-threatening situation.

Sometimes people who are encamped must be moved. There’s a reason why our encampment policy limits the number of tents and inhabitants to a site too, because critical mass causes an issue. I empathize with the Council’s desire to not shuffle people around any more than necessary, but it is an inevitable situation in some cases to protect other lives, to protect personal property, whether that’s a business or a homeowner or whatnot. I will specifically reference fire issues, sometimes put lives at risk, and not just the lives of those encamped, but the lives of those around it.

Yes, there are not enough spaces. And sometimes, and we’ve heard this in prior reports too, sometimes when individuals who are encamped are required to move, they actually connect with alternate services of their own, be those family supports, be that a couch surfing situation with a friend, and while not ideal, those are the realities that we’re facing right now. Enforcement has to continue to be a part of our response to these encampments, because some of them are creating dangerous situations. And it’s just that cold, hard, and simple.

It is not just the well-being of those encamped that we have to think about, but the well-being of all Londoners. And when other lives are at risk, then we have no choice but to move these along. I would also caution colleagues to be cautious about referencing legal precedents on other decisions. The case that was referenced was actually with regard to an area that immunocipality sanctioned as an encampment site.

We do not have sanctioned locations in our city, and we have an encampment policy that we have been following for several months that has been respected and followed through by our CIR response, and all those components of the response. So the Superior Court decision in another municipality, quite honestly, it’s speculative to suggest that it is enforced here, because we have not sanctioned encampment sites specifically and told people this is where you are allowed to camp. The other municipality did that. That is a very different situation.

So very supportive of this. I think security continues to be a requirement, not just for those in the surrounding area, but also for the staff providing the services to those who are experiencing homelessness. And we did see that with a situation last month with regard to staff being assaulted. So there is a necessary security component of this.

I appreciate the work staff has put into this. I will say, although that’s not the item directly on the floor tonight, I appreciate the quick response staff provided to a situation in my ward this morning to protect people’s lives, and it’s not easy work. I know that, and I know that sometimes it feels like we are just in a revolving door trying to get into building and it’s just going around and around and around and around. And it will be that way for a while until we get the hub stood up, until we hopefully are able to work with province to get a rehabilitation treatment center location identified and opened in the city until we get more of those first 100 and the remaining 600 supportive housing available.

But I think we can’t close our eyes to the fact that there are really some serious community safety issues involved as well. So we do have to balance those competing interests and needs when we’re thinking about this response program. Okay, the motions on the floor, we will pull C separate. Councillor Ferra, I will also note that I am timing tonight for our five minutes per person topic overall.

So Councillor Ferra, you have 30 seconds left. Thank you. I just want each to comment to the deputy mayor with all due respect. If we’re speaking about high security needs and individuals who may reduce the safety component of communities in the area, relocating individuals as CIR may do in certain situations, that is a zero sum game.

Individuals no longer will be in unsafe situation in the OED area, but wherever the individuals move to because there’s no location for them to go to, then all of a sudden the people in those new locations may be at risk with individuals who may reduce the security needs when we specifically talk with them. So it’s a zero sum game here. So this is back to the hurting and back to the, it’s not working. Okay, thank you.

I will also caution about cross debate. The question is ready to be called. We still have a ways to go tonight. Is that just you waving at me by chance?

Could it just be waving? Okay, we’re gonna call Part C first. So this is Councillor Ferra. Part C is being called first, which you wanted separate.

If you can vote no, everyone else, you vote as you will. Part C, the rest would be called next. Opposing the vote, the motion carries four to one. Now, parts A through D, A-B-A-B-D-E is now on the floor.

This is also, as Councillor Roman pointed out, called the rest of it. Councillor Ferra, we are voting. So is it just a technical question on the vote? It is a question on the vote.

Part E, I did see that party was added, but I don’t have the language in front of me for a party, I’d like to read that. I can’t necessarily remember what it was about. You should be able to refresh E-Scribe, it should be in there. If not, oh, it’s during the vote.

Councillor Roman will read it. E, detailed services and cost breakdown for the one-time funding of 174,210 be provided prior to the Municipal Council meeting of September 26th, 2023. Mr. Dickens confirmed that will come and be part of the public record as questioned by committee.

Seeing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that concludes our items for direction. This evening, we do have a deferred matters additional business item. This is a request for funding for soil remediation for the vision, Soho West Block.

This was an added, I will note that it was sent, went to the wrong committee clerk person, and that’s why it showed up here now versus on our regular agenda. So apologies for that. I will go to Mr. Felberg who’s joined us this evening for an overview of how we got here and what’s happening, and then we’ll proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair and to you. So I thought it might be important to give a little bit of a background on how we got here. So back in December, 2021, we— Can you move your microphone closer the hours grows late and— Certainly, how’s this better? Thank you.

No problem. So back in December of 2021, we approved, our council approved the initial grant of $11.2 million for the— Sorry, I’ve had, it needs to be louder. So either IT or just really— Like right here, does this work? Yeah, that’s good.

Okay, sure. Just have a soothing voice and the hour grows late and you know. No worries. Okay, so December 2021, council approved the initial grant of $11.2 million, and then vision Soho came back in August of 2022, and we approved an additional about $2.6 million to the project.

You’ll recall in July of this year, we brought a report forward and we had the contribution agreement that we table to you folks, and we approved the template for that. In that contribution agreement, what we had a commitment from vision Soho was 381 affordable units and 80% MMR. 182 of those units would come from the city’s wait lists and at the date of occupancy of each of the different buildings. And then the group also committed to adding more units over time if they had a positive experience working with the city on the wait list.

The ask today is to increase that original grant to offset the cost from an unsuitable soils found on the site from approximately $36,000 a unit to just over $46,000 a unit. I will note that civic administration have not had an opportunity yet to review any of the engineering or any of the components of the soil and any of the technical analysis. But we have met with the boards, the four affected boards, we met with them last Friday to discuss the ask, I will note that indwell and residents that were not directly impacted by this unsuitable soils and were not represented directly at that meeting. What Soho has indicated was that the operating capital perform, I do not have a lot of what I guess I would call wiggle room to add any significant costs.

So things like defaults and arrears and damaged units, they would have to be well managed. And that’s what Mr. Cooper and Mr. Dickens teams will help with.

They would also like to ensure that the community and the buildings is maintained through our matching protocols. Again, that’s something that we’ve committed to doing and working with them through our tenant placement agreements. The Zaren Board did offer 10 additional units from the city’s wait list at that meeting. And with the three remaining groups, so that be Chelsea, laugh and homes committing to discuss tenant selection criteria with the city and not any specific numbers.

So at this point, it’s our perspective that the number of folks off the wait list should be higher based on the request in front of you for $3.9 million. But given the potential impact of the reform, we’re not suggesting any more affordable units, just units off the wait list at occupancy. So at this point, our proposed number is 50 additional units, which would be spread out as the Vision SoHo group would like to administer amongst themselves. And the same would go for the funding on who receives the funding and when they would receive the funding.

I’ve had the chance to review the circulated motion and generally support the direction that’s in there. I’d note in that civic administration— Sir, I’m gonna call a time out there for anyone who, ‘cause it’s not lower than the system yet. Okay, it’s just been lower than the system and it’s the same motion that was sent by Ms. Korman earlier this afternoon.

Just so you know that you can refresh and it’s there and it’s up on the screen too. Sorry, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. So had a chance to review it.

From the civic administration perspective, we are very interested in getting the SoHo group started getting them working. So the component of the motion that is looking to lock in their funding and execute the existing contribution agreement is actually a key part of it. And then what we can do is over time as we get into the review and we actually understand the full scope of what the unsuitable soils are, we can then come back and amend the agreement to suit whatever the actual cost is. With that, Madam Chair, that’s a general summary at this point and look forward to any questions.

Councilor Rama. Thank you and through you, Chair. Thank you for providing that summary. I appreciate the difficulty that this can, this type of request and the findings that were made can put the city into and the project itself.

And I appreciate the willingness to find a solution and to look at a way to move forward. So are you moving the motion? Okay, so Councillor Ramen’s moving. Thank you.

David, is that, sorry, Councillor Ferrer? Is that you seconding? Okay, so I’m moving or seconding and I’ll start, I have a speaker’s listen to go. Sorry, it’s on the floor, you’re good to go.

Sorry, I just needed a motion on the floor. Councillor Ramen, please proceed as it’s officially on the floor. Thank you, that’s all I had to say. Sorry, but okay, so the motion’s on the floor.

I’m just going to note that it’s gone through all the city departments and it notes that we’re saying up to 3.9 million as staff, as stated, has not had an opportunity to get direct access to all those reports and they will come back with their findings and update us and they know that that number is, you’ll do as you will, but if there’s any irregularities in these numbers, we’re going to hear about it and they know they have up to 3.9 if approved tonight. Deputy Mayor Lewis, normally I go to committee first, but Deputy Mayor Lewis was in on these conversations with them, I was not, but we talked about that. So Deputy Mayor Lewis, your insights, as you’ve also seen this motion before, we sat down this evening. Thank you, Madam Chair and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this upfront.

I think I’m going to first start by through you asking Mr. Felberg, if he can indicate what in our city built affordable housing units, the per unit cost roughly is working out too. So we’ve heard this one is going up to about 46,000 a unit in somebody else’s build. What is our builds, for example, on Baseline or Sylvan Street or some of the other locations working out too roughly?

Mr. Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair, I believe the number would be, let me just do some quick math. One thing I did want to point out about the motion is in A3, we are suggesting that the number of units should say 50 there.

So to filling 50 additional, okay, we will insert the movers good between that clarity of 50, that’s what we’re hoping for. Okay, so the clerk is adding that numerical value in. Do you need a moment to do the math or you’re good? Okay, so please proceed.

And through you, Madam Chair, so it’s around $300,000 a unit when it works out all in, that includes the grants from other levels of government as well as what we’ve put in, just looking at about $14 million and about 40 units or so. That’s roughly where we’re at. Deputy Marlous. Okay, thank you for that.

So I just thought that was really important to ask. And I want to recognize as well, with ongoing discussions around tenant placement agreements, obviously Council’s aware that a tenant placement agreement review is underway by our staff. So that’s going to be addressing some of the concerns that our providers have around matching appropriate tenants to appropriate locations. And I think that’ll be a really important piece of being able to move this forward.

We’ve had some discussions before about a single wait list because we recognize that some of these service providers have their own wait lists who are not on our wait lists, some of whom might be on our wait list. There’s a little bit of redundancy perhaps, but we’re not entirely sure. I wonder if Mr. Falberg can indicate to us as this has been rolling out how the discussions have gone.

I know from my discussions with the providers, they seem to have indicated a willingness to share, merge, whatever term you want to use wait lists with us. But I’m wondering if you can indicate how that’s going as part of these discussions. I will go to Mr. Cooper for that.

And I’ll just let Councilor for another, he is next on the speaker’s list. Thank you. And through the chair, I’m just making sure I’m like it’s really close to a, I appreciate the hour goes late. I appreciate the question from the deputy mayor.

And through you, Madam Chair, the conversations I think are at a preliminary stage, right? We want to ensure that the projects are viable, but the one item I will highlight is our conversations with Indwell. And so from a portfolio approach, ‘cause Indwell has a number of developments in our city, they are moving to a single list to work through with the city. They’re no longer, as we roll through their existing list in the future, there will be no, there will be one list.

There won’t be an Indwell wait list and a city wait list. It’ll be worked through the city solely. And so we’re really, I would say cutting our teeth on some of the pitfalls and some of the opportunities in negotiations with Indwell that will be applying some of those lessons learned with the folks at Soho, as well as any other affordable housing project that we provide funding to. Deputy Mayor Loose.

Thank you, so that’s a great update to have, knowing that some progress is being made there. The next question, because the 50 wasn’t something that I saw in advance, I did have communication from Zaren, independent of what staff had indicated as well, that they were prepared to commit to 10 additional units. And I believe, and I can’t find the email at the moment from Mr. Playford, but I believe it’s in their seniors’ building, and I see Mr.

Felberg nodding his head yes to that, so that’s great that we can fill a need there. But with reference to the pro formas and the reviews and acceptances, I do wonder if this should say up to 50, rather than 50 as a hard number, because if the pro formas don’t work out, and then we end up back here in a situation where a provider is potentially pulling out, because they can’t provide those. So I’m just wondering if— The mover and seconder are already fine with up to 50. They clearly will know what we ideally want, and like you said, some wait list may or may not be quite the same, so it leaves some wiggle room to get the done, because in the other day, we want people in the housing.

Okay, and through you, Chair, my question to staff was, if they could provide a little bit more detail on where the 50 number was arrived at, and if it ends up being 39 or 42 or whatever, if that’s going to be a game breaker for us. Staff, I don’t want to tip our hand too much that we’re willing to, so like, you know, you’re a hockey player, we know about negotiating staff. So just to staff feel that there’s the wiggle, so without giving too much away, your best means to answer the deputy mayor’s question. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, what we would do is take that full value, the 3.9, and we were portioned based on the 50, and then based on the actual cost of the soil remediation, we then balance it out based on those number of units, and that would be the number of units that we’d be looking to fill.

I will also know what we’re talking about is waitlist, so we’re not actually talking about any, there shouldn’t be any impact to the performance and cells, because they’re already operating the units, and it’s just taking folks from our waitlist. So it’s not like we’re asking for additional affordable units, we’re not going from 381 to 481 or 423 or whatever it is. Okay, I do have Councillor Farron next, and then, so a brief question, if not, I’ll have to circle back. Just a final comment on this, and I think it’s important for colleagues to be aware that a significant portion of this cleanup costs actually is relevant to the city’s own municipal tipping fees at our landfill, because some of this waste has to go to the landfill, it’s mixed, it can’t be sorted out, and so while we are putting money up front for remediation, some of this is actually gonna flow back into the city coffers through the tipping fees that are going to result in this product, sadly ending up in landfill, but that’s where it’s gonna have to land, so we will be recouping some of that on the other end.

I’m sure Mr. Stanford will be happy to have some additional revenue on his side of the ledger. I will also note the W12A landfill expansion isn’t concluded and it’s a cost to itself, and comes back to my residence in ward 12, respectfully. Councillor Farron.

Thank you, do you? The deputy mayor actually asks most of the questions I wanted to— - Sorry, David, sorry, Councillor for a little bit louder. Oh, sorry, the deputy mayor asked, literally he’s zoned in right where I was gonna go, so I would go, I wanted to go a little bit further on just the upper limit of the 50 units, I see that’s already been discussed, 78,000 per unit, is that what the number is around there? Mr.

Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair, essentially what we did was we took the 13.876, we divided by the 182 units off the wait list now, came up with an approximate number, about 76,000, then divided the 3.9 by that number to come up with that number, so using the project to establish a benchmark. Councillor Farron. Thank you.

So I guess I’ll go to my next question, and that would be what I saw in the letter from Mr. Playford, about, I was wondering if we could maybe look into the statement of how the demolition contractor did not, there was negligence in the demolition of the old grounds. Is there any way we could refer back to staff to maybe get more information on that, to see the validity of that? I will go to staff for that, realizing sometimes that we wait into legal matters, which we shouldn’t be in, and if more so, that’s one of the reports that we come forward, that staff will have access to review.

So through the chair, I am available to provide legal advice if there’s a motion passed to go in camera. Could you answer anything in public session as per the Councillor’s question? None of my view. Councillor Farron.

I would motion to go into camera really quick. One, there’s no such thing as really quick. That’s probably gonna be 20 minutes minimum, and secondly, we would need very specific wording, and then I would even want to know if staff have the information available that you’d want versus getting in camera to say I don’t have the information. Thank you, that’s a good idea.

Let’s see if staff has that information and then go from there. Staff is also welcome to ask a staff, I normally don’t allow it, but if staff have a question that would help frame the conversation, as we would also need legal wording specific to go in about this topic. So in my view, a motion can be made for the provision of legal advice with respect to this property. Okay, Councillor Farron, is that a motion you’re interested in making?

Yes, it is. And that information affects how you would vote on this item tonight. It will. Hey, looking to see if there would be a seconder for the motion to go in camera for legal advice for this property.

Councillor Stevenson, there’s, Councillor Farron’s made a motion to go in camera to get information that he wants. There’s no seconder, so just didn’t want you to miss the opportunity to second if you were interested in seconding. Okay, it looks like you have no seconder this evening. To legal, is this something that if the Councillor wanted, he could follow up one-on-one offline with you knowing that you have the information?

In my view, this is legal advice that needs to be provided. It’s not information, and that is something that should be given to committee in closed session or council in closed session. Councillor Stevenson, a question or comment? Well, just wondering, could we just ask for an update in the confidential envelope between now and council?

I guess it depends. Like legal advice on this property is pretty broad, like really broad. So it would have to be very specific to come in written format as a related to this item on the CAHPS agenda. We just don’t have anything.

The clerk, Mr. Schultz, as a west paid with powers have not weighed in on what we’re doing right now. Is it fair to say that if there was a way to recoup any of this money that the city would do it, we could just confirm that they’ll take whatever action is possible if there was any? I think that’s the point.

I think our public direction to Mr. Felberg and the team is already to review these reports, look at the accurate costing, and he’s only going up to 3.9 or whatever number is actually the fair market value of the work that needs to be done. Just a verbal, yay or nay, or whatever you wanna say, Mr. Felberg.

That’s correct, Madam Chair. Thank you. Mr. Stevenson, we’re okay.

So we really don’t have a seconder to go in close session. And I haven’t heard from anyone just for, you know, outside of committee of other Councillors who are okay, Councillor Perbal. So calling the question then to go in close session for the legal advice. Excuse me, it’s Sarah here.

Just confirming that you’re going into close session for advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose. I just wanted to confirm that on the, that it be noted in the minutes. Okay, yes, it wasn’t the wording in eScry, but we will adjust it as per that class client solicitor privilege as what you said. Thank you.

Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three. Okay, so we’re still not going into close session. So that was Councillor Ferri, anything else on this question that could be dealt with in public session? No, further speakers, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I did have the same question as Councillor Ferri or in terms of that, but I’m going to leave it for now. And my question is when you say that the 50 will be off of the wait list, but they won’t be affordable. Where’s the money coming from? Because I’m assuming people can’t pay market rent.

So where’s that money coming from? Okay, you’re welcome to take, team this one, gentlemen. Hug paper scissors and Mr. Felberg, I hear it.

Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So it’s not that they’re not affordable, it’s just that we’re not asking for additional affordable units. The units provided are still 80% MMR. It’s just that the tenants are being filled off the city’s wait lists.

So just to confirm there’s no extra financial cost, it’s not going to be RGI or anything else like that. Okay, thank you. Just a verbal no? That’s correct, through you, Madam Chair, that’s correct.

Thank you, just realizing people YouTube this later because it’s good stuff. Any other further questions or comments from committee? Councillor Pribble. Through you, Chair, to the staff.

So they’re incredibly, they have to all together with 119 units and affordable 60. So I would imagine the 60 is going to go to 70 and the 119 is going to become 109, correct? So Mr. Felberg, or if you knew those numbers repeated, I think Councillor Pribble is just adding the original allotment to our new allotment.

Through you, Madam Chair. So the commitment to the wait list in the July report and then what we’re working with the Vision Soho Group is 182 units off the city’s wait list. So we would be adding 50 to that. So that’d be 232 units off the city’s wait list and a total number of affordable units of 381 which would not change.

Thank you, but I think that when you, excuse me, when he started with the presentation, you said Zarin offered 10 additional affordable units. So there was out of the 119, there was 60. So if I’m assuming correctly, it’s going to be 70 now. Is that correct?

Mr. Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair. No, so the 60 affordable units would remain, but they would have, instead of having 20 units off the wait list, it would then go to 30 units off the wait list.

Based on their commitment, however, we’re looking for 50 to be proportioned how the Vision Soho works so that number could change again. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so I don’t understand. There are 10 of those from the waiting list, not the additional.

Ocadi, thank you. Okay, looking for further questions or comments as I have none at the moment. Okay, calling the question. Supposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you. That moves us to adjournment, just one second. So the clerks can clerk that for you and we can put that into the next video cycle. Thank you.

Looking for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Hand vote of all in favor of adjournment. Carries, thank you everyone and to staff and for those in the gallery still.

Have a wonderful evening.