October 5, 2023, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:04 PM; it being noted that Councillors A. Hopkins and P. Van Meerbergen were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

At 1:06 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

Motion made by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1  Solicitor Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, related to a legislative interpretation and for advice about legal liability related to criteria for outcomes of an RFP.

4.2 (Added) Solicitor Client Privilege

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including advice from officers of the Corporation, related to a communication on the added Council meeting agenda.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Council convenes, in closed session, at 1:10 PM and reconvenes, in public session, at 1:37 PM.

At 1:38 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

None.

6.   Communications and Petitions

6.1   Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response RFP 2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan Results

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Communications BE RECEIVED and BE REFERRED as noted on the Council Added Agenda.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

None.

8.   Reports

8.1   23rd Special Report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

2023-09-25 SPPC Report 23-Complete

Motion made by S. Lewis

That items 1 and 2 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by S. Lewis

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (4.1) September Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the September Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a verbal delegation from R. O’Hagan with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

8.1.3   (4.2) Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response RFP 2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan Results (Relates to Bill No. 367)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of the contracts for Request for Proposal (RFP) RFP-2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan: Lead Agencies London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response as an irregular result, as per City of London Procurement Policy Section 12.2 (c) “Committee and City Council must approve an RFP award with an irregular result greater than $15,000”:

a)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc. to provide a Hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $2,118,146 per year and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $1,303,750; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability:

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $4,236,292 for operating for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc hub in the total estimated amount of up to $1,303,750 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

b)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Youth Opportunities Unlimited to provide a Hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $1,317,500 for year 1 and $1,983,800 for year 2 and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $3,123,550; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability:

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $3,301,300 for operating for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Youth Opportunities Unlimited hub in the total estimated amount of up to $3,123,550 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

c)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services to provide a hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $4,056,416 per year and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $538,300; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability;

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $2,851,124 for operating of the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services respite beds for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the estimated operating costs of the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services transitional beds for the provision of the initial two (2) year contract term for hubs implementation at an approximate cost of $5,261,708 pending necessary development and Planning Act approvals;

iii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services hub in the total estimated amount of up to $538,300 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

it being noted that the proposals, outlined in parts a), b) and c) above,  submitted by all proponents above, meet the City’s requirements and are in compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto: for a total operating and capital investment of up to $20,616,024;

d)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $1,500,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund BE APPROVED, if required, should ineligible costs under existing provincial funding sources be identified while finalizing the agency purchase of service contracts and budgets;

e)    that Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts, including review of sites and support for Planning Act applications to align current or future hub sites with criteria, and any activities associated with additionally requested funding necessary in relation to this project;

f)    that the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Purchase of Service Agreement with Youth Opportunities Unlimited, Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services and Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc;

g)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to work with the community on the hubs implementation to establish additional opportunities for future procurement of additional spaces;

h)    that the annual funding approval noted in a), b) and c) above is SUBJECT TO the availability of funding through the City of London, and/or other funding sources;

i)    the attached proposed bylaw (Schedule 2) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2023 to:

i.    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, to approve the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and each hub provider for the purchase of services to provide and operate three hubs; and,

ii.    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, to execute the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreements with each hub provider.

it being further noted that the communications, included on the Added Council Agenda, were received.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That pursuant to section 9.7 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Members of Council BE PERMITTED to speak twice with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

At 2:49 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 2:54 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the matter of the Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response RFP 2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan Results BE REFERRED back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting to be held on November 21, 2023, in order to consider additional supporting information (including projection data).

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

At 3:22 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan places Councillor S. Lehman in the Chair.

At 3:27 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Council recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 3:34 PM and reconvenes at 3:49 PM.

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part a) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of the contracts for Request for Proposal (RFP) RFP-2023-199 Hubs Implementation Plan: Lead Agencies London’s Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response as an irregular result, as per City of London Procurement Policy Section 12.2 (c) “Committee and City Council must approve an RFP award with an irregular result greater than $15,000”:

a)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc. to provide a Hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $2,118,146 per year and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $1,303,750; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability:

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $4,236,292 for operating for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc hub in the total estimated amount of up to $1,303,750 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part b) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

b)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Youth Opportunities Unlimited to provide a Hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $1,317,500 for year 1 and $1,983,800 for year 2 and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $3,123,550; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability:

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $3,301,300 for operating for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Youth Opportunities Unlimited hub in the total estimated amount of up to $3,123,550 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part c) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

c)    a portion of the Request for Proposal 2023-199 BE AWARDED to Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services to provide a hub for an initial two-year commitment at a total estimated operating cost of $4,056,416 per year and a one-time capital commitment at a total estimated cost of $538,300; with an option to renew operating contracts for up to four (4) additional one-year terms at the City’s sole discretion, based on satisfactory services, performance, and funding/budget availability;

i.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $2,851,124 for operating of the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services respite beds for 2024 and 2025 from the Provincial Homeless Prevention Program;

ii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the estimated operating costs of the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services transitional beds for the provision of the initial two (2) year contract term for hubs implementation at an approximate cost of $5,261,708 pending necessary development and Planning Act approvals;

iii.    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to seek funding from the Fund for Change to fund the capital request received to support the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services hub in the total estimated amount of up to $538,300 for the provision of the initial hubs implementation;

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part d) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

d)    a one-time funding allocation of up to $1,500,000 from the Social Services Reserve Fund BE APPROVED, if required, should ineligible costs under existing provincial funding sources be identified while finalizing the agency purchase of service contracts and budgets;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part e) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

e)    that Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts, including review of sites and support for Planning Act applications to align current or future hub sites with criteria, and any activities associated with additionally requested funding necessary in relation to this project;

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part f) i) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

f)    that the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a Purchase of Service Agreement with

i.    Youth Opportunities Unlimited;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part f) ii) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

ii.    Atlohsa Family Healing Services Inc; and

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part f) iii) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

iii.    Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services

Motion Passed (12 to 2)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part g) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

g)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to continue to work with the community on the hubs implementation to establish additional opportunities for future procurement of additional spaces;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part h) of the recommendation BE APPROVED:

h)    that the annual funding approval, noted in a), b) and c) above, is SUBJECT TO the availability of funding through the City of London, and/or other funding sources;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That part i) and the “it being noted” portions of the recommendation, BE APPROVED:

i)    the attached proposed bylaw (Schedule 2) BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on October 5, 2023 to:

i.    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, to approve the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and each hub provider for the purchase of services to provide and operate three hubs; and,

ii.    authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or written designate, to execute the Municipal Purchase of Service Agreements with each hub provider;

it being noted that the proposals, outlined in parts a), b) and c) above,  submitted by all proponents above, meet the City’s requirements and are in compliance with the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, in accordance with Schedule 1 attached hereto: for a total operating and capital investment of up to $20,616,024; and,

it being further noted that the communications, included on the Added Council Agenda, were received.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

9.   Added Reports

None.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

None.

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   (ADDED) Councillors S. Stevenson and J. Pribil

2023-10-05 Submission - Homelessness Hubs - Councillors Stevenson and Pribil

That it BE NOTED that pursuant to section 20.2 of the Council Procedure By-law, there was no motion for leave introduced with respect to this matter.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 366, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Motion made by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That Second Reading of Bill No. 366, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 366, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 367, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 367, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 367, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (10 to 4)

The following are enacted as By-laws of The Corporation of the City of London:

Bill No. 366

By-law No. A.-8418-281 — A by-law to confirm the proceedings of the Council Meeting held on the 5th day of October, 2023. (City Clerk)

Bill No. 367

By-law No. A.-8419-282 — A by-law to authorize the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve a Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with each hub provider for the operation of three hubs. (4.2j/23/SPPC)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:30 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, 40 minutes)

Okay, please be seated. I’d like to call the 16th special meeting of city council to order. I’m gonna start off by reading a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adewandran peoples.

We honor respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two Row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, the Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Nanfan Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron Track Treaty of 1827 with the Anishinaabek, and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee. Three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. I’ll also add that 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 council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. With that, I will look for disclosures of pecuniary interest from colleagues. I’ll just indicate for colleagues, Councillor Hopkins is participating digitally online today. Everybody else who is present is in the chambers.

Thanks, Councillor Hopkins. There are no recognitions for a special council meeting. There’s no review of confidential matters to be considered in public council enclosed session. I’m actually gonna add a reason, so I’m gonna turn it over to the Deputy Mayor to chair.

The piece for council enclosed session. I’ll have myself and the speakers left. Thank you, Mayor Worship. I will take the chair with regard to council enclosed session.

We do have one item on the agenda, solicitor client privilege device, a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to the solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose related to legislative interpretation and for advice about legal liability related to the criteria for outcomes of an RFP. I have no one else on the speakers list, so I will go to you next to your worship. Yes, the clerk is just gonna prepare the language, but essentially I’m gonna add a reason related to communication added to the council meeting agenda related to both solicitor client privilege, as well as instructions to officers of the corporation may be required based on that legal advice. So I’d be happy to move the addition of that as an additional reason to go into camera.

Okay, so you are moving both the original reason and the added reason looking for a seconder. Councilor Trussau, thank you. Any further discussion before we call the vote to move in camera? Clerk Westlake Power, do you have the language for that?

From colleagues, I will note that Councilor Van Mirberg and has just joined us online as well via Zoom. Welcome, Councilor, we are just dealing with section four, the council enclosed session, and Mayor Morgan has added a second reason for our moving into camera. We’re just waiting for the clerk to get that language ready for us. Colleagues, you will see that now up on the screen and the vote is open.

Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Van Mirberg. Councilor Hopkins votes. Say again, please. Thank you, closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you, colleagues. Then we will move into meeting room five for our confidential session. Some members of the public, members of the media, you can wait for us here. We will return from confidential session and resume public session once those items are dealt with.

Okay, please be seated. I’ll just note, it may have been a strategy of his, but the deputy mayor never actually seated the chair back to me, so you’re actually still chairing the meeting. I was about to say your worship. I might do a little role reversal in terms of how we normally do things and ask you to report out from confidential session at the end of the council meeting, but until then, I will return the chair to you.

Thank you. So we will, yes, as you indicated, it is not the time to report out on the confidential session now during council. That happens later, so we’ll move to item five, which is confirmation and signing of the minutes from previous meetings. We have none for this meeting ‘cause it’s a special meeting.

Communications and petitions, there are a good number of them there. So I would look for a motion to refer them to item 8.1, which is the relevant item on the agenda that the communication items are related to. Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Councillor Cudi. Any discussion on that?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Wilkins votes yes. Your worship, I’d like to keep my video off. I’m having internet problems, so just to save some energy, I will be here though.

Yes, no problem with that, Councillor. There’s no end to— Motion to vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, I know seven is, motions of which notice is given. There are none, item eight is reports.

We have the 23rd report, the special report of the SPPC meeting. I’ll go to the deputy mayor to present that report. And I’ll just note to the deputy mayor at the request of some members of council, there is a version of the motion that passed that has the ability to divide out the different components of the different hubs so that they can be voted on separately. I have that, and the courts have that for us, and so there’s a number of ways to do that, so I just want to let you know that that’s been, I believe, circulated to colleagues, but also can be put up at any time, but I’ll let you present the report.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, for the 23rd special report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, I’m gonna put items one and two on the floor first, so we can dispense with those, that is the disclosures of pecuniary interest, and the September progress report, Health and Homelessness Hall of Community Response, and then we will deal with item three, the Health and Homelessness Hall of Community System response, RFP process, separate. So I’ll put one and two on the floor now. Okay, so one and two are on the floor, moved by the deputy mayor.

Any discussion on items one and two from the VC community report? Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Councillor Ramen.

Sorry, this is not the point where I would split the motion to vote separately. No, what’s before us is, so there’s three items in the report, disclosures of interest, the regular Health and Homelessness update, and then the RFP process. So the RFP process is not being dealt with now, we’re just dealing with items one and two. Wasn’t the vote, motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you, Your Worship. Now with regard to item three, the RFP process, as the clerk indicated, a number of Councillors had indicated, even during the committee itself, that they wanted items separated to be voted on separately. The clerk did circulate alternate structured language, everything that is in the alternate language that was circulated to council about an hour ago. It’s all the same as the recommendations from the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, but it is broken up into different clauses so that individuals can call for separate votes on those.

So I’m prepared to put the reformatted recommendation from the committee on the floor at this point. Okay, so I’m gonna ask the clerk to actually put that on the screen so colleagues can see the different components of it, and then I might just explain briefly how it’s structured so that it’s very clear to everyone. So I think if you refresh your screen to current item, be able to see if you scroll down item two, which is the one that the deputy mayor’s putting on the floor, it’s now divided into essentially an A, B, and C components within it being noted, and then a number of other items that were related to the agenda, so the A, B, and C related to, are related to specific RFP proponent proposals. Depending on which ones pass, the numbers that would be identified later in the it being noted clause would change, if not all of them passed, and then a component F would change to not reference all of the organizations, if not all of them passed, and then I would change to say, instead of operate three hubs, the number of hubs that passed, and so the item is structured that we can have a debate on the whole thing, but at the time of voting, any member of council can say that they’d like A, B, and C dealt with separately, or A and B and C dealt with separately, we’re happy to divide it in whatever way you want, but if you want to just, as the debate occurs, take a look at that motion and how it’s structured and think about how you’d like it divided, but essentially it would be an A, B, and a C can be dealt with separately, depending on the results of that A, B, and C, the it being noted and the directions that stem from them would be slightly modified, depending on what passed and what didn’t.

Yes, so just one further point of clarification, ‘cause you were referencing A, B, and Cs, but if colleagues wish to vote separately on the individual location components, it is actually A1, A2, and A3, rather than A, B, and C, so it’s A, I, A, I, I, and A, I, I, I, in your agendas, and in the vote that is listed for us in E-Scribe, so I just wanted to make sure that colleagues were very clear, Clause A is the separate locations, B and C move into directing civic administration, and as you have indicated, your worship staff do have alternate numbers if not all three clauses in Section A are approved. I hate to correct you, Deputy Mayor, but I’ll just go to the treasurer to identify, although you said they are separated, well, there is a piece of the procurement process that we have to retain, and that is full proposals, full RFP proposals from different providers have to be voted on in full, like they can’t be taken apart or modified if the treasurer could just comment on that because I understand what you’ve said, but I just wanna make sure that’s not counter to the way that the RFP process has to be executed. So I just, and perhaps I have the wrong vote open in E-Scribe, but what is on the screen is not what is in E-Scribe at the moment, and this is what happens when you’re standing and presenting is that you don’t see the refreshed, so now it’s refreshed. So just for me to reiterate, when you vote for A, it won’t be A, I, and then A, I, like the way that the house proposals came in will be fully contained, they’re not pulled apart, but you could certainly vote for all of the one proposal, all of the other proposal, all of the third proposal.

You just can’t start modifying those proposals, those are the bids, you either accept them or reject them in their entirety. Yeah, all right, okay, so with that, the deputy mayor has put the committee’s recommendations on the floor with the new formatting. We’ll get my timer out for colleagues ‘cause the last time I forgot to do that at the start, so for fairness, and I’ll start a speaker’s list on this item, and this is council, so just so colleagues know you can speak once, so Councillor Palosa. Sorry, just for clarification, is it A on the floor?

All of it. All of it. We’re gonna debate all of it. At once.

Yes, and then we can vote on it separately. Okay. But we’re not gonna redubate when we vote on it separately. People can make their comments on any piece they want, well the entire piece is on the floor.

If there’s an amendment to any component, then we can start to deal with the amendments separately, that would be a new motion, and that’s— Yeah, I just felt it would be easier to deal with each site specific to keep the conversation tighter, but I’ll save my comments at the end, thank you for clarifying the process, that everything’s on the floor. So to clarify, the whole thing is on the floor. The only thing that may be at this point divided out is just the voting increments. It’s one item, everybody will debate that one item.

If there’s amendment, then there would be a new as amended motion, but which could still be broken up and voted on separately, but just to keep this very clean, people may be wanting to talk about the whole proposal. They may be wanting to talk about one piece of it. They’re welcome to do that through the course of the debate without issue. It’ll be voted on separately at the end.

We’re not gonna have debate on each of the components as we vote on them, we’re gonna have a full debate now. Colleagues would like to do that a different way. I’m open to hearing your suggestions on that, but for now that’s the way I’m gonna proceed unless anybody asks for an alternative. Yes?

I’m asking for an alternative. What alternative are you asking? I would prefer if we discussed A first, and then B, and then C, realizing it’s council and we could only speak once, up to five minutes. It’s a lot to cover in five minutes if we’re trying to cover A, B, and C, and they’re very different proposals serving, very different areas of our straw plan and communities.

If procedurally it’s not possible, I’ll accept that. Councilor, I’m just conferring with the clerks. Here’s the challenge that I have. If someone wants to comment on the whole system and then we divide these into each separate motion, yes, there would be separate motions and separate debates, but they would be very contained.

I don’t know what point I would be able to allow someone to comment broadly on the entire process. So it’s possible to consider doing it that way. It’s just have to figure out how to do that to allow for the maximum discussion, ‘cause what you’re essentially asking for is, let’s ask the presenting officer of the committee to put just one part of it on the floor. Just put A on the floor now.

Just put B on the floor now. All separate motions, all brought forward. Yes, that’s possible, but I’m just trying to find a way for if at the end we can leave and it being noted for people want to make general comments on the system as a whole. And the chair, and you’re the beginning of the one who has to divide it up.

I’m going to suggest another option for colleagues consideration. I’m happy to do it in an A, B, C process if that’s what colleagues wish. The other option is that we could suspend our rules and procedures to allow all colleagues to speak twice, and that would give everybody two times to speak rather than once if that’s an acceptable process for folks to follow. I’m in council’s hands on that.

Whatever colleagues wish, we can do A, B, and C separately. I’m happy to present it that way. If that satisfies folks, I’m happy to also support a suspension of the rules to allow two speaking slots instead of one if colleagues wish to go that way. But it’s the will of council, not my decision.

I saw a lot of nods when you said let’s let people speak twice, but keep it all together. I’m just going to say, does anybody object to us kind of going that direction? That way there’ll be more time to speak, but we’ll deal with the whole thing altogether. The only thing we’ll be doing is having the vote separately at the end.

But we’re not going to read debate when we have those separate votes. Those are just for the decision-making portion. All the debate will happen all at once. And I would look to, maybe, Councillor Ploza, if you’re supportive of that, just make a motion to allow people to speak twice.

And then I can, we’ll vote on that because we’re actually saying not withstanding the procedure by-law. So I actually do want a motion on that, Councillor Ploza. I’m happy to make a motion to allow colleagues to speak twice as it’s such an important thing, recognizing we still need to stick to our five minutes for timing. Okay, is there a seconder for that?

Will we get the language up? Councillor Stevenson’s willing to second. Give me one second. Yeah, so I’ll just clarify.

It’s not actually a suspension of the rules under section 9.7. We can pass a motion to allow us to do this. So you’re basically being permissive, not breaking the rules. So that’s moved and seconded.

It’s just not up on the screen yet. Is there any discussion on this? Okay, as soon as it’s ready, I’ll let you know and then we’ll open it for voting. Okay, we’ll open that for voting.

Councillor Hawkins? No, it’s yes. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

So everybody’s allowed to speak twice down this matter. And now I will start a speaker’s list. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the mayor.

I’d like to start off by once again thanking everyone involved in the development of the hubs plan. It was inspiring to see so many lenders working together towards a common goal of helping our most vulnerable. I now want to lay out some of my reasons for supporting the hubs. This is a plan which from the beginning has been developed by experts, frontline workers, those with lived experience and continuous community input.

It is an informed plan designed to help people experiencing homelessness throughout our city and not limited to one geographical area. I want everyone to remember that these are people that we are talking about. I’ve had calls and emails from lenders using terminology which dehumanizes and criminalizes not only the homeless population, but other parts of the city. I would ask that the public keep their comments civil and respectful.

Furthermore, we need to stop portraying this as a downtown or east end problem. We are all lenders and when times are tough, we need to pull together and support one another. I don’t care which direction. Sorry, I don’t care what hurt of the city you call home, north, south, east, west.

Stop the division and stop using us versus them rhetoric. We all have a responsibility and a role to play in finding solutions to homelessness. That is why I’m confident in the hubs approach. It was designed for people by people.

It is a collaborative and takes holistic approach in providing a suite of desperately needed and highly specialized supportive services that will have a long-term and meaningful impact on people’s lives. Hubs do not exist in a bubble. They are part of the health, excuse me to screw up now, they are part of the health and housing continuum that the mayor has mentioned time and time again. They are a much needed entry into a supportive environment.

In conjunction with the hub’s plan, we need to continue to invest in social housing models such as those run by Inval and advocate to the province for greater mental health and rehabilitation resources. Those efforts will take time and quite frankly, we can’t afford to delay our response. Delays will be measured not in days, but in lives lost on our streets. We have the opportunity here and now to approve a plan which will save lives.

We have also repeatedly heard that our emergency services are overloaded and need relief. These hubs will play a key role in freeing up emergency services, a service resources. I want to truly thank the three social agencies that have put forward the first proposals. They have the necessary experience and expertise to ensure that these hubs are successful and that people get the help that they require.

I’m asking my council colleagues to vote in favor of the hubs and to offer hope to the homeless. Let’s show the province and the country that Londoners have heart and can be leaders in finding solutions to the most challenging social issue of our time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister, the speakers.

Councilor Trossal, go ahead. Thank you very much and I really do appreciate you allowing us to speak twice. But some of the things I want to say in this first go are a little bit more technical and procedural. And then I think maybe later I’ll speak from the heart a little bit.

But I want to start by saying that it’s really important for the community to understand the difference between an RFP process under our procurement rules and how that differs from what we usually see in this chamber. And that is the city acting under its by law authority, general by law authority, which is very broad or more particularly under our planning act deliberations, which are subject to the same rules. And I think one of the problems that we’ve seen here is that these have been conflated. And I think it’s the responsibility of Steph and the Councillors and the media to try to sort that out.

So there are a number of constraints here being that this was an RFP process. So for example, we can’t say, well, you know what? It would make sense to move, to move one of the facilities. We received the RFP that we received.

We can’t do that. We can’t amend the technical text of the RFP ‘cause we put this out as a tender. And we received seal bids and we opened the seal bids. And then we, the very technical staff that deals with open bids made a determination.

So we don’t have the same ability to issue conditions here that we would have, say, for example, in a land use. So we’re bound by this. We can’t go outside of the terms of the RFP. And furthermore, there are certain matters that have come up continuously in some of the submissions that are absolutely beyond the scope, extrinsic, outside of the scope of the RFP process.

For example, the status of a lease. Commercial tenants have certain rights under a lease. And when the lease expires, they don’t have the same level of protection that residential tenants have. And so that can’t become an issue in our deliberation of an RFP.

Now, so I just wanna try to keep us within. For purposes of today’s discussion, I want to stay within the four squares of the RFP provision. So I think right now, I’m just going to yield and I will exercise my privilege to speak a second time in terms of some of the equity considerations and some of the things that I saw and some of the submissions that deeply, deeply disturbed me. But for now, let’s understand we’re dealing with a very specific RFP provision and we are under exceptional legal constraints to stick to that.

And I intend to do that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor, other speakers. Go ahead, Councilor Plaza.

Thank you, Your Worship. And having not spoken to this at committee, I’ve been spending my time listening to colleagues and residents inside and outside of my ward. I wanna start and being chosen by Councilor Serv on the accountability table. For this being phase one, I wanna thank all four applicants who applied in the three that came to us today as recommended service providers.

And thank you to the 200 individuals and 70 organizations who helped believe in this plan and a better London. I’ll leave it to colleagues’ decisions later if they wanna separate these into the three different hubs for voting purposes. Should it make a difference in your individual choices and selections? But speaking to each hub individually for at LOSA Family Healing Services, they’re already at this facility.

It neighbors my ward. It’s in Councilor Hillier’s ward, but we share Wellington Road. I’ve had the opportunity to tour the site and I have full support in what they’re doing and how they’re delivering services. We have an indigenous led response within our report on page eight that we need to recognize the impacts of colonialism and the generational impacts and how they do their work.

Also realizing with members of our community, not everyone had the opportunity to grow up in a home where someone taught you the basic things you needed to do to survive of how to properly cook meals, nutrition, cleaning, self-care. And that is a lot of the wraparound services that I’ve seen on site and empowering each other in these facilities to have those skills. So I’m asking, as we’ve just had National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, to consider at LOSA’s proposal what they’re doing, if you would also recognize that they have alternative funding for purchasing the 10 pallet shelters already secured and they’re waiting to go. In regards to the youth opportunities limited, had an opportunity to speak with their board member, realizing their proposal outlines 15 beds, but realizing they already have their own transitional housing and they’re hoping to rotate these beds, all things considered upon individuals’ needs who come through, but once per quarter.

So that would actually give them capacity of using those beds to service 60 individuals per year. As for the location on Fanshawe Park Road, which I realize many are with us this afternoon to hear about, I hear that there’s concerns. I have three children too and I do not live too far from one of the already service providers that are in my area. I’ve also experienced homelessness as a child, so I come with a different lens to this conversation.

You probably have been afraid of me back in the day, living without a home on the back of a pickup truck and a camper. I would also say that as we make these decisions today for the residents that are here, but so many years from now, our homes aren’t gonna be occupied by us. We would have sold, moved on, moved out of our neighborhoods. Life takes us many places.

Our possessions that we treasure now, we won’t treasure later. Our valuables, our vehicles, they’re gonna be in a scrap yard later. It’s the question of what communities we wanna form, realizing that we might not be using these shelters ourselves. I hope that none of us ever have to.

Could be a loved one. We raise our kids the best we can and hope we give them the tools to make the best decisions, but we don’t know what their future holds. It’s their future. And everyone’s capable of making a decision or having something happen in their lives that make them in a very bad situation.

So that’s the compassion that I lead with and the leadership I show in my lived experience. So I’m asking for support of these hubs. I know that you’re worried. I will say it’s a two year contract with opportunities for renewal.

Doesn’t mean we’re gonna renew, but I’m willing to see what we can do to make a difference and realizing the shelter that’s posed near you is women and potentially women with children. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. Other speakers, to give everybody a chance to speak to us and no one wants to get on the list now, Deputy Mayor.

Thank you, Your Worship, all available myself of the first opportunity. I wanna say thank you for two Councilor Trussow for using part of your time to outline how an RFP process is different from some of the regular processes here and that you’re absolutely right. We can’t just move a location. These are the criteria.

This is the bid that’s come in. I’ve heard a number of people say use vacant buildings elsewhere in the city. Those vacant buildings have other owners. They’re not ours, they’re not the cities.

They belong to somebody, whether they’re in use or not. So if that person is willing to allow them to be used for something, they participate in an RFP process, just like the locations that have been identified have in this process. But I wanna speak to the locations and to the service providers in particular. And I wanna start by saying, this is not the only thing we are doing around health and homelessness.

And I recognize Ms. Lazembe’s in the gallery this afternoon and the work that she does at the Unity Project is exemplary. And we heard Councilor Palosa reference the Palette Homes. There are Palette Homes at the Unity Project right now that are providing a transitional space for people too.

So this is not the only thing we are doing. There’s the roadmap to 3000. And we are approving units every week it seems at planning committee in different sites to build the housing inventory. We have other service providers out there.

I will start with that Losa because Councilor Palosa opened that door. And Councilor Lehman and I actually had the opportunity to visit them as they were the leaders in a winter response at the site that they’re at now. And this is almost a standing up of the winter response efforts that they made to become year round supports. And they did a wonderful job there with the 30 participants that they helped through that winter response.

Quite a number of whom were able to reconnect to family communities. Some of whom returned to the communities in which they grew up. But they’d been in London for a while and they returned to those First Nations communities. Others have been able to secure housing and secure employment as a result of that.

So I have zero concerns about the Atlosa location. I know that they will continue to do the amazing job that they’ve already done. I’m gonna speak to the YOU component just briefly. And it’s gonna lead into my comments on the CMHA piece.

One of the other hats I wear in life is I’m a foster parent with Children’s Aid. I have seen the difference that YOU makes in the lives of young people at risk in this community for years and they do an exemplary job. So I’ve seen that difference. But as a foster parent, and this is where we get into this CMHA piece.

When we talk about women who might be at the Fanshawe Park location with their children, when a child comes into foster care, there is a concerted effort made to maintain contact with the biological family. That may mean that once mom is in transitional housing, she may be able to have her children visit at that site instead of in the lobby of a McDonald’s for an hour. She may even be able to convince the CAS worker that it’s now in a position and in a location where the child will be safe if they stay for an overnight visit. This is how we reconnect children to their biological parents.

And this CMHA location will provide an opportunity to do that. There are not 10-year-olds sleeping on the street. When that situation happens, CAS gets involved and those children are taken into foster care. And those children will not be moved immediately into the hub system.

There is a whole different component of social work that goes into how we support youth at risk when they cannot be with their biological families. But we do have to find an opportunity to reconnect those youth with their biological parents. And this CMHA location is offering an opportunity to do just that. So I wanted to address those things because there’s some misinformation that I’ve seen come through communications about children’s involvement at this site.

So I wanted to share from my own personal lived experience as a foster parent what that may actually look like when this is stood up and running if it’s approved today. So I’m gonna end my comments there for now your worship. I may have some other comments to add later on. Mr.

Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I’m gonna pick up where the deputy mayor left off there. A couple of questions to staff.

For the CMHA women’s shelter, is there a large enough population of high acuity out of that group of 600 of women with children that were directing that center to? Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, your worship, the hubs implementation table that designed the hubs plan also identified the key priority populations that we should be focusing on in the first three to five hubs.

Females and female identifying individuals who are identified as one of the key priority populations. The CMHA proposal is not strictly for women with children. It is for females and female identifying individuals. As the deputy mayor had already spoken to, there may be instances or scenarios where children may be in connection with their mother in this scenario.

Thank you, follow up to that. I do agree with all of that. But when these hubs are being sold really in the sense that it’s going to reduce emergency services and we’re dealing with the highest acuity people who are currently being turned away from our current shelter system. I’m just wondering how we address the safety concerns of bringing children into a space like that if we are looking to address the needs of those who are such so involved with our police emergency and hospitals.

Go ahead. Your worship, the hub for CMHA women and female identifying is essentially across two sites. The first site is the respite site. This is where people are coming in, basic needs are met and beginning to participate in stabilization.

We are not anticipating seeing women who may have their children with them at that place. What we’re referring to is the second site which are where the transitional beds are. This is for women who have achieved a greater level of stabilization are continuing to do work and proceed to be able to be housed. What was identified is that there is space at that site should some of these women be connected with their children.

There’s an ability to accommodate it. Thank you and not to belabor this point but it really is an important one. If we are addressing the 600 most highly acute complex needs that are currently banned or prevented from entering our shelter system, what is the path that’s gonna get them into those transitional beds? Your worship, this is what’s different about the whole of community system response and that is by providing through the hubs the opportunity to come inside, engage with any number of different types of services and supports to begin to be able to stabilize.

Once that happens and the level of acuity can drop for people and then they can move to kind of the next step if you will, which is having that transition or longer stay to be able to move to housing. The whole purpose of the hubs is to bring people in from outside so that they are engaged and that people can begin to work with them in whatever kinds of supports and services they need so that we can ultimately have people move to housing. That is the goal, that is the sole goal of the hubs. So the process from a respite perspective that can take a bit.

It may mean that people are coming in, going back out, coming back in. It’s establishing the relationship, being able to engage and providing the best combination of services and supports, whether that is income supports, basic needs, mental health, physical health supports, all of those to help people to stabilize and move to a conversation and pathway to stable housing. Thank you, and so just to be clear then, so the pathway of stabilization are the respite beds? Go ahead, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, your worship. In many cases, yes. And in some cases, as the lead organizations identify individuals that they’ll be supporting in the transitional rooms in those transitional housing units, essentially, they may be taking folks of high acuity right into those spaces.

I think it’s in this type of work, be it through mental health, addictions, some of the outreach work, not everything is linear. And so to say that individuals that are barely surviving on the streets today, which may pose a risk to our businesses, to the public, to themselves, to say that when they’re provided the opportunity to have a space, a space of their own, a space where there’s 24/7 care, that they would still be a risk or that there would be some safety concern to the general public is not necessarily a connection that’s easy or fair to make. While they’re living desperately now, bringing folks indoors, be it through the respite beds or be it directly into transitional spaces, allows people to receive wraparound care that they’re currently not receiving. So the impact of that care, it would see a decrease in that vulnerability, in that precarious living, and give people the opportunity to stabilize.

Okay, thank you. The other question is about the YOU, which I’ve never heard anyone say a bad thing about that organization and what they do. We are blessed to have them in the city. There was talk that the 15 beds, they were gonna be able to flow 60 through each year.

And again, if we’re talking about addressing the 600, the highest acuity, the ones that are gonna save us all this money and emergency services, do we, what percentage of our highest acuity are youth? ‘Cause that’s 10% in one year. I’m just wondering how many of those are youth. Go ahead, Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship. And my apologies for not having that specific stat handy today, but it would far outpace 60 individuals, 60 youth. It’s probably closer to 10% of our homeless identified individuals.

Okay, thank you for that. I wanted to address some of the things that I hear. So there’s a notion that it’s misinformation to have safety concerns. And I think that I have to disagree with that.

We’ve got hub locations where we’ve been asked to fund close to $800,000 a year just for security outside those locations, not to help anybody, not to provide services or housing, but to basically shoe people off the lawn to avoid the problems with the violence and the issues that are being had there. So I think to have those kind of things really happening such that we’ve got security being a really high expense for a lot of our core area of businesses or developers or apartment buildings and the social service agencies, you know, to discount people’s safety concerns, I think is a disservice to the people. And I think that they need to be told why this is gonna be different than around our current social service agencies, why if there’s a way to make it safe around the neighborhoods around where our social service agencies are, why that isn’t being addressed in Old East Village. You know, one of the things I learned about fentanyl is that people need to inject several times an hour instead of the old drugs which were several times a day, which may be why we’re seeing more open drug use, more needles.

One of the things too is the language in this plan. So we talk about harm reduction, which is, you know, mitigating potential harm and the structures which create harm for people who use drugs, accepting where they are at, avoiding judgment and working to challenge existing systems and policies that create more harm like the criminalization of drug use. It talks about low barrier, which is meeting people where they are at. And that if challenges arise, the conversation begins with how the agency, the space and the staff will adjust.

It’s about promoting agency for those who have the most high and complex needs and are currently being turned away from our shelters. I don’t think we can afford to be wrong with this investment of $21 million. And I believe that a good deal today is a good deal tomorrow. You’ve got about 30 seconds left in your first five minutes.

But this pressure to close the deal, that we have to do something. There’s nobody arguing that the status quo is good. But to say that we have to do this because there’s no other path is to just limit possibility and what is possible when people come together with ideas. With all due respect to the mayor, he was budget chair for six years and two years as deputy mayor.

And to say that now we have to act so urgently that there’s no time to talk with the public to get the sales pitch, to understand who’s coming through these centers, what is the path to stabilization? Where are the housing for them to go to? With no forecast or business plan, nothing to say we have 2,000 now. This is what we predict in one years, two years, five years.

Your first five minutes is up, Councillor? So I will take my other five. You wanna go down? Okay, all right, go ahead.

Yeah. When I look at the wording here for the hubs, it says here our vision for the hubs is not just about providing shelter. It’s about creating a welcoming environment that nurtures hope and empowers individuals as leaders on their path to stability and housing. It offers not only essentials like food, clothing and healthcare, but also opportunities for personal autonomy, growth and community connections.

Through this transformative plan, we are redefining the way we approach homelessness and together we can build a more compassionate and inclusive London. So this is the path for the hub versus something like what is happening in California with the way out in Salvation Army where it’s a recovery-focused homeless initiative designed to restore lives and inspire change through a recovery system of care. Services include treatment on demand, residential treatment, therapeutic communities, recovery-focused transitional housing, life skills, career development, independent living and aftercare for life, principles of recovery, accountability and service, adaptive coping strategies. In this hub plan, there’s talk about a willingness to adapt, change, pause and course correct.

That has not been our experience with the current social service agencies. We’re having a lot of problems around 602 Queen, such that we’re being asked to fund 800,000, almost that insecurity. We’ve got businesses downtown barely surviving, people not wanting to come downtown for safety reasons. And so I’m asking or putting forward that why don’t we demonstrate that willingness to pause and course correct right now?

So much has been accomplished through this whole community to this point, but what has worked? There’s a lot that’s worked. There’s a lot that hasn’t worked and we can see it in the public reaction and their concern and what could we do next? This is a big next step for Londoners and I think that we deserve to have like a presentation like we had on BRT that tells us what to expect, what’s London gonna look like in one, two, five years?

Why is it worth spending this $21 million? And what we got right now is a goal of fewer deaths, fewer encampments and more people housed. If I have a leaky roof and somebody comes to me with a sales pitch to have me invest in whatever their product is and they say you’re gonna have fewer leaks, smaller leaks and they’ll be less often. Well, like is that enough?

Like we’re talking about lives here. We’re talking about neighborhoods. We have a commitment to women, the safety of women and girls. We have a commitment to public safety.

We’re in a crisis here and we will be held accountable, not just at the next election, but next year and the year after for the state of our downtown, our parks and for the number of unhoused. We’re being asked to spend this $21 million and will it make a difference? Is this the best use of funds? How can we in good conscience vote yes on $21 million without that sales pitch, without the business plan, without the projections and for the investment, where this investment will take us?

We can say, I can say no right now or I could agree to a referral back just for another month to look at what has worked in this whole of community, what hasn’t and what is the next best step, not the only step, but the best step for London and for Londoners. And I just feel that 73 beds, 44 before the end of the year, is not enough of a pressure sale to say we will not notice the difference. I’d like to see all- Got a minute left. Thank you.

I would like to see all efforts focused on the winter response that we are in desperate need of. We have 2,000 people on our streets right now. It’s a crisis situation. I think that we can pause this and we celebrate all the work that’s been done so far, all of the wins, all of the learnings, but take a breath.

Deal with the winter response and come back with something truly amazing. The very best next step for all Londoners in 2024. Okay, I’m gonna have you pause, Councillor. So for those who are here in the gallery, as our normal course of businesses is we don’t clap, we don’t cheer, we don’t say other things.

There are many people with diverse opinions. You’ll hear things you like. You’ll hear things you don’t like to make sure that people feel comfortable both in the audience, no matter what your points are. We usually just watch the council meeting.

People have signs that’s fine. People can nod their heads, but we don’t do outbursts of either appreciation or otherwise so that everybody here can watch and enjoy without feeling any sort of pressure one way or the other. Councillor, you have about 22 seconds left. I appreciate you letting me pause there.

Is it too late to put forward a referral motion? Yeah, you can do that now. I’d like to do that. Okay.

If I have a seconder. Motion to, so you wanna refer the whole thing? Do you wanna give some detail as to when or where? I’m open to that, but I think that it would be good to have a projection.

We talk about the bridge, building the bridges, we walk across it. I wanna see that bridge plan. I wanna see where it goes. Where does London look like next summer and the summer after?

How many people are gonna remain unhoused? I understand what you’re saying, but you wanna make a referral, I’m just getting some specific details about the referral. So to SPPC, to a future council, a general timeframe, like we can tell you when the dates are, but it’s always good to tie a referral. So in this particular case, how much time do we have with the RFP to keep these open if it was a matter of getting the sales pitch?

So I need to go to Ms. Marbonne. Is there any restriction on a delay, given any sort of commitments related to the RFP process? Thank you through the chairs.

So as per the RFP, there was 120 day acceptance period. So that would be from the submission of the bids. So I’d have to do the math to confirm exactly what that date is, but you’d have up to 120 days. Okay, it sounds to me like we need to do that math because it sounds to me like the intent of the councilors and to defer past the end of the RFP process and invalidate the RFP.

Go ahead, sorry. Thank you. So that would be 120 days through your worship from the date of the close, which is September 5th. So that would put you approximately the first week in January.

However, the close also refers to the contract award and the actual contracts being executed. So you need to back up enough time to allow for the contracts and the work subsequent to council’s approval for purchasing and the city clerk and to procurement to finalize the contracts. So I would say you’d want to make sure you did that before the beginning of December to allow the time to complete the contract completion. So before the beginning of December is kind of the back end on the timeframe.

Sounds good. Okay, and you want to refer to SPPC? Remember that last, sorry, rocks. Yes, please.

So I don’t know who has their microphone on, but they need to turn it off. So sorry to SPPC and we’ll find the clerk will get the appropriate SPPC meeting around that timeframe. So I’ll look for a seconder for the referral motion. Please, Councillor Cady, you’re first.

Give me one sec till we get it up. So SPPC on Tuesday the 21st would report into council the following week, which meets the timeframe that the deputy city manager mentioned. Okay, so that’ll be what we put up in a second. It’s moved in second and I’ll wait until it’s up and then I’ll start a speakers and send the referral and you’d like to speak to the referral because yes, it’s still council, so new motion, so.

Yeah, and I’m not gonna go through repeat what I’ve said, but I do want to explain why and the value that I see in referring and taking another month on something that I know is highly anticipated and a lot of people have a lot of interest in moving forward. And it really is about due diligence in this place of leadership and corporate governance that we have, we have a duty to not emotionally say yes to $21 million because there’s such a great need out there and because we need to do something and because we all desperately care so much. We have a corporate governance role to play here where we need to just see why this versus something else. What is, you know, we should just be able to be explained.

This is better than that and why. These are the costs, we could have done this, but this is why this was brought forward to us. What are the outcomes going to be? Give us some projections that we can measure it against.

Share with us what the accountability is gonna be. Share with us the forecasts of what are you predicting and tell us what we can expect and what Londoners can expect in one, two, and five years. I’d also really love to see a narrative, a video done, that can walk us through these hubs and what kind of people tell us about Mary and who is she and what are her needs and what is she gonna experience at the respite bed and then when is she gonna transition to, you know, obviously no one’s gonna hold you to it, but walk us through it. What does it look like and where does she go at the end?

Same with YOU so that we can really get behind it so that we can understand why there doesn’t need to be safety concerns around the hubs compared to some of our other areas. And so that at the end of the day, we can say we did our due diligence, we asked the questions, we saw the numbers and we made an educated choice on behalf of Londoners and then we can celebrate the fact that we’ve tried something new based on an informed decision and we will all do everything that we can to ensure the success of this over the next few years because so much is counting on it, so much, so many people. It’s not just our unhoused, it’s our housed, it’s everyone. Everyone is feeling this and right now everybody is losing and so I too want consensus going forward, right?

Like let’s move forward, let’s not rush it, let’s not minimize people’s concerns, the truth can withhold scrutiny, let’s look at it, let’s talk about it and then let’s all agree to move forward in 2024 and that’s my reason for requesting a referral of a short period of time to just get what is needed to make that informed choice. Okay, we’re on the referral, so I’ll start a new speaker, so let’s go on the referral, Councilor Trossa, I’ll go ahead and I’ll just let everybody know, I’m not applying the speak twice, rules of the referral, like everybody gets one on the referral, the speak, I took the motion of Council to speak twice on the item that was before us, which I still had the list for on the referral, it’s a one time shot. Go ahead, Councilor Trossa. Starting with the statistic that since the beginning of 2020, more than 200 unhoused Londoners have died, frames the exigency to move forward with this, nothing’s gonna change and I think to suggest that we have not done due diligence, that all the people in the community who have come together on these tables have not been diligent and that the staff has not put together a very, very detailed hubs implementation program, which by the way, I should say, is a decided matter of Council that we adopted that.

I think it’s really a slap in the face and quite frankly, nothing’s gonna change from what I can see, we’re not gonna reach a consensus on this and I just think to say, if we just delay this, our problems are gonna go away, what’s gonna happen in the next month that we haven’t been working on over the entire last year in terms of the various different tables? So let’s please not do this. I think that if we delay this, it shows the sign up, well, maybe we really didn’t do a good job developing the standard of care in the hubs, which was very well defined in which this Council, by the way, approved. So I think we would be sending out, I think we would be sending out a very bad signal and I said this at the SPPC, I think we would be sending out a very bad signal to our potential partners here, particularly those who might wanna come in and join us in the next round of our IPs.

This isn’t gonna change anything and I just think delay for the purpose of delay is cool. So please let’s vote down this referral. Thank you. The speakers to the referral, go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. Unsurprisingly, I’ll not be supporting this referral. I don’t need more time to deliberate this as I think we have been deliberating on it for months already. Hubs are a new concept and so we can’t continue to compare it to existing services.

If we do want to try to compare it and I wouldn’t, we could compare it closer to hospital beds than shelter beds, which are much more expensive. Asking for a delay to debate more options, which haven’t been brought forward, which haven’t been discussed in the, what, six to nine months that we’ve been debating this topic. To Councillor Chau’s point, I think that we are not gonna come up with anything new in a month. Also to compare this crisis to gravel roads or leaky roofs is completely unfair to the complexity of the issue.

It’s also deflating to the people I think who’ve been working on an innovative strategy to present to us. Roads and roofs are very easy to fix. Homelessness is not. The Hubs plan clearly aligns a commitment to the community engagement in neighborhoods that are gonna be impacted.

And also purpose-built design spaces to try and mitigate any of the worst impacts. As we know, if we move forward with this, the area on financial will be rezoned and then therefore we’ll have a public participation meeting, which is where people can come and talk about how we can mitigate any of the worst impacts through design. And we do this all the time at planning. And the perpetual stigmatization of the population that is being served at these various hubs, I think has been incredibly disgusting.

And I encourage people to stop in that, some of the language that they’re using. I’d also like to highlight this is an evidence-based approach. Harm reduction and low berry access is based in science. Research has been done.

It is a recommendation for how to move forward in a humanitarian way. And most people respond well to it. I think again, waiting another month is delaying. So the cost of doing nothing essentially in the next month and then potentially we’ll see what happens after that would be catastrophic.

If we think things are bad now, imagine the cost as it increases, as experts say, our homelessness crisis could quickly double or triple. So I think as we see more pressure on emergency services, the police have come in asking for more budget in the past year. Ambulance services have come in asking for more money. We know the cost of emergency services increases.

And the pressure on health care continues to be enormous. So I truly wonder, why are people afraid of moving forward? Let’s try something new. We’ve already talked many times about how this is a two-year process.

We can tweak it. If it’s not working, we can improve it. We can decide what to do next. None of the hubs preclude us from increasing funding to shelter beds.

I think shelter beds are another tool in our toolbox. But as we know, it does not address high acuity folks. Most folks who have high acuity are barred from going to shelters. So this plan is dealing with a specific population that is not being dealt with and not having services met in all the other tools that we have in our toolbox.

And as the deputy mayor said earlier, we also are building housing. We have shelter beds. This is just one tool. It’s not the silver bullet.

It’s not going to be perfection. But it is trying to deal with a population that does not have the services it needs to succeed. So for that fact, I’m not going to be supporting the deferral. I think we have the information.

We have been debating it. We’ve been hearing from people. We’ve had at least 10 town halls, which is more than any town hall I’ve had on any of the other topics that have come to council. We’ve received hundreds, if not thousands, of emails and phone calls about this.

I feel very well informed by what the community is saying and what they are interested in. So I think that this is a good sound expert-informed plan. And to keep asking, is there a better plan out there? I think flies in the face of all the individuals who have helped develop this work.

So like I said, nothing will be perfect, but is incredibly comprehensive and well thought out. And I think that we need to move forward with it. I’m not trying to move forward with it for some false sense of urgency. I think this is the right plan.

I don’t need more time to think this is the right plan. So happy to support it. And again, if anything, we can always tweak it year to year and improve it. Thanks.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Your Worship. So obviously, I will not be supporting the referral as well. I do see what the two colleagues before me just said, and I appreciate that, because that’s pretty much how I feel as well.

I can tell the stress in this room is quite high. When you don’t feel how cold it is. And this is because we’re at such a pivotal moment. We have been climbing this hill for the last 10 months.

We’ve been climbing this hill with 200 individuals, more than 200 individuals, 70 organizations helping us along. Council’s been there, staff has been there. And we’re almost there. We are literally almost at the peak of this hill.

And throughout the entire time, we’ve been providing hope, not just hope for people who were looking to serve, who have been historically unserved, but hope for everybody in the city. When we were campaigning, we all heard our biggest issues at the door. And we had meetings with staff speaking to those issues. And it was across the board, we all agreed that we had to do something about it.

And I just would like to urge you to realize that if we delay this, how many more people will die? Will Mary make it to this referral? Will Mary make it to when we get to the next level? I think pushing this back is not the way to go.

This is a pivotal moment for our councils. It’s a pivotal moment for London. Everyone’s watching. And we need to continue on with the lead that we’ve been bringing here.

Because we’re almost there. And I think it would be an absolute shame if we stop now. We’re at the bottom of the hour here. We’ve had a long time where the community was able to engage.

We’ve had multiple, multiple, many points of contact for individuals to give their feedback. And we find ourselves here today with almost everything ready to go. And we should support this plan. We need to support this plan.

Everyone’s asking for it. The longer we delay, the worse it’s going to get. So we need to realize that this moment is going to define us. Are we going to take that moment?

Or are we just going to let it pass us by? Clearly not going to be supporting the referral. I hope that we all vote this plan today. So that’s where I’ll keep it for now.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I too will not be supporting the referral. And I’m going to take just a brief moment to explain why.

I’ve heard some comments about— in today, I’ve heard some comments about what somebody’s doing in California. I’ve heard comments throughout this process, though, through communications about what other jurisdictions are doing in other countries in the world, we have to act within the Canadian reality. First of all, we’re a municipality whose powers flow from the provincial government in the nation of Canada under our Constitution. We don’t get to change drug laws in this country.

That’s the federal government’s job. We don’t get to decide on quite a number of things at the municipality. And in fact, we even, in terms of this plan, are relying on funding from the provincial government and the federal government in some aspects with regard to capital housing needs. We’re not funding this through property taxes, because it’s not something that we can sustain through property taxes.

So when we talk about making an informed decision, we’ve had more than 200 participants from more than 70 organizations who deliver these services, who have far more information and experience than I have as Councillor who have brought this plan forward. And I’m trusting them in terms of being ready to make a decision today to deliver on that. And if they don’t, then I will be looking for other options to do, but this is the best option we have before us. Yes, I would love to see a rehabilitation addiction treatment hospital in this city, but that is the provincial government’s job through health care.

And I will say that when Minister Dubolo was here for AMO in August, a very productive preliminary discussions were had about the province, establishing a site in London for rehabilitation and addiction treatment. And I know the mayor is continuing that advocacy. And in fact, I think we’re expecting Minister Dubolo to return to our community this fall at some point to continue those discussions and look at some options that are available to us. I also— well, I’m not going to repeat everything that Councillor Frank said.

I do want to agree with her on one thing when she talks about repairing a leaky roof versus addressing homelessness. And I heard BRT mentioned. And so I want to compare it to BRT for a moment. With the bus rapid transit plan, do nothing was absolutely a viable option.

Do nothing on homelessness is not a viable option. So I cannot equate the two as being analogs where we can just— and the BRT debate only got more divisive as things went on. Healthy debate is fine. But divisiveness and deliberate maligning of people is not.

And so for me, I can’t compare this to BRT. It’s not the same. It’s not an infrastructure project in the same regard because it’s people and people’s lives that we’re talking about in terms of how we are trying to address their needs. But it’s also about do nothing.

Also means that those businesses that are struggling are going to continue to struggle. And I think we also owe it to them on that side. And we’ve had this discussion at the Argyle BIA table, which I’m a member of. We owe it to them to start moving forward and trying something different too.

As I said, I’m trusting the informed opinion of the experts who have helped shape this plan. And I’m trusting their opinion that they’ve given me the best information that we have in front of us today to make a decision. If it does not work, then there will have to be changes. There will have to be something else.

But in the absence of something else right now, I’m not going to support a referral on this to go back to the drawing board. I have the information I need from the experts in the field to make a decision today and to see, based on the outcomes of this plan over the next year, whether or not it’s worth pursuing further, or whether it’s perhaps even something that needs to be ended and something new come up with. But we’ll do that when we get from the outcomes. Right now, there is no other system like this.

So you’ve already spoke to the referral. So now it’s been misrepresented, my referral. OK, so there’s two options to that. At the end of a motion, you can reply to clarify any sort of misrepresented statement that happens through the debate.

It has to be kind of restricted to that and not new debate. So if you feel that’s happened, I can come to you at the end and you can clarify any comments that you’d like to make. You were— you were— OK, good. OK, I have myself next on the speakers list.

So I’m going to turn the chair over to Councillor Lehman. I’ll go with the mayor. So I’m not going to support the referral. And I’m going to align why by just recapping how we got here and why I think delay isn’t the right decision.

So about this time, last year, the first of the summits was forming. First time that members of this community who have been serving vulnerable populations said, we may not agree on everything. We may have been doing things in our own way. But there’s a crisis here and we need to find a way to come together and design a different system.

And so they came together. And there was a lot of people who had to be really humble through that process. I know the city manager talked about the role that the city had played. We’d had a hunger strike, we’d had a lot of pressure on us.

Everybody came together in a way that put their differences aside and said, let’s try to figure something out here. And then that process proceeds through a series of summits. And then a wealthy benefactor comes along and says, I think we need to shake this up and do something so transformative that I’m willing to put $30 million, $25 plus $5 matching into this process to help be a catalyst. And so that happens.

And I get to announce that at the state of the city. The process continues, council gets a framework for health and homelessness from that group to endorse and they endorse it. We proceed along, implementation tables are formed. Work is done, months and months of work.

We endorse a health implementation plan. We proceed with public dialogue. We establish frameworks and parameters. We lead ourselves into an RFP process.

We let that RFP process. And then we have organizations in the city who say, I’ve seen all the work that’s been done. And I’m going to put my organization in the game. And there’s four who bid and three who are being recommended.

There’s others I know are interested, but maybe didn’t meet the first set of RFP timelines. And I’ll just pick one, you know, at LOSA, for example. Bitter in the RFP process. Organization that says they can open a hub, full hub, under budget this year.

And so, you know, we can wait until November 28th for council to make a decision on this. Or on December 1st, we can have at LOSA bringing people from outdoors, indoors. Serving a population that is 30% of our homeless population and a significant portion of the high QD individuals in the city. And if you want stories or testimonials, I can tell you after those people come indoors and you give them some time to work through the system, they can come here and tell us how it’s transformed their lives.

That can be your testimonial. That can be the sales pitch to move forward with multiple iterations of the plan. But we help the most vulnerable in our community. We are changing their lives.

And I know numbers have been given about the number of people who’ve died on our street. And I’m not going to go into that piece. What I want to say is there has been so much coming together in our community that has been done through this process. There are organizations who are going to commit not just their assets in the hub, but bringing the full force of their organization, like YOU, saying we’re going to leverage our whole system to support this endeavor.

And we can start that process today. And like Councillor Frank said, we can make adjustments as we move forward. Integrated into the Hub’s plan is the leads responsibility for that public engagement, for that dialogue, for the monitoring that the hospitals and the university systems can do for us so that we can adjust, we can change, we can improve, the things that are working can be enhanced, the things that aren’t can be adjusted. But none of that happens till we start.

And so the decision today is about do we open spaces this year or not? That’s what the referrals about. Lots of the things that we can do to adjust and support other agencies, we still have those options on our table. We can still change things if we need to.

But today, the motion before us, if we don’t defer it, allows us to actually move this into implementation, to shift from all of the work and all of the theory and all of the dialogue and all of the research into implementation, into actual action. Governments are really, really good about talking about things for a really long time. Flipping things into action, that’s kind of the point where you really test whether you’re going to move forward or not. So I will not support the referral today.

I think that there are many discussions that we can continue to have about this. But I’d like to see people coming indoors, as many as we possibly can, through the proposals that we have on the table before the end of this year, and then more in the spring with what we have before us. So I won’t be supporting the referral, and I’ll look forward to the continued debate if it’s defeated on the main motion. Thank you, and I’ll return the chair to the mayor with Councilor Pribble on the speakers list.

Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you, and I’m just going to make my comments to referral, and if the referral is defeated, then I have other comments to the main motion. The reason why I would support the referral is because on July 24th, we were introduced to certain guidelines in terms of number of beds per hub, in terms of the capital expenditure, in terms of the operating, in terms of the zoning, et cetera, et cetera. So that was introduced to us in July.

And now, not even two weeks ago, we were given details that are actually some of them more closer, some of them actually quite further away what we were introduced to. And my concern is this, that I think that all the comments in terms of supporting the hubs that I cannot disagree with any one of you, that it would help certain number of population, certain specific population. My issue is this, currently, if you go to the encampments or talk to people on the street, what’s happening there? We have the mental health, and we have the addiction that’s climbing up at this pace.

Right now, we have homelessness population that’s there, and I’m frequently at the encampments and on the street talking to the homeless. They can’t afford it anymore. The problem is that this one is going much faster up, and guess what? They are starting to move to this area.

And that’s my issue that I heard here, that we have the best option in front of us. I’m sorry, I see the only option. And that’s my disappointment in terms of this. I do think the approach and our staff did a great job bringing people together.

I think that was a great progress done. I think we have a great plan. Unfortunately, we don’t have the real estate to support it. The four organizations that came forward, or certainly the three ahead of us, are amazing, great.

But the problem is, for me, in terms of this investment, I’m looking on return on investment, and I’m not looking for money. I’m looking at saving people lives, people’s lives. And this is an issue. We have people currently homeless that are there recently, and it’s much easier, much faster, much cheaper to save them.

And we are not. Our priority is right now, very marginal population. And I’m not saying I’m going to talk to the main motion as well if this is defeated. But just to the referral, why would support it is?

Because it’s not, according to the guidelines, what we’re introduced. And I would love to look for other options that are direct, and for our community, it doesn’t matter if it’s any part of London, better for us. But that’s the only reason why I would support the referral. And if the referral is defeated, I will talk to the main motion.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Ramen next. Thank you, and through you.

I have some questions related to the referral. The first question I have is our staff confident that they can meet our staff confident that they might be able to answer this question, I guess. Around the Atlosa and the YOU proposal, the beds associated for December, 2023, that those can be accomplished with the referral to the state. So can the beds for 2023?

I think you hear the question. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. No, we would not be confident that we could do that, given what was mentioned earlier by Ms.

Barbone, in terms of the time it would take to make sure we negotiate and settle on all applicable contracts. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you. So I have a lot of comments and was reserving my speaking time more to the main motion.

On the referral, I’m wondering if the Councillor that made the motion would consider a shorter timeline in order so that we could meet the requirements if needed for the December 2023 beds. So now that the referral is on the floor, it’s owned by Council, but you can amend the date yourself. If you wanted to, like you don’t have to agree with every component of the referral, it is well within the procedure by a lot for you to make an amendment to a different date as part of the referral. So I would say that would be the course of action, given it’s already a motion that is on the floor and being debated.

Thank you, and through you. So just to follow up with that, is there a date that staff would feel confident that if we referred to, we’d still be able to meet our commitments? I’ll go to Mr. Dickens, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. And outside of today, being the date, no. So when we look at referring this a month, referring it six weeks, whatever that might be, that’s a delay in these organizations getting a signal from Council that they can proceed with starting their construction, starting their hiring, starting their training, making sure they have all of their community engagement started, the proponents have identified a community engagement schedule, which allows them to do that work with the neighborhood as well. So any delay will be a delay in all of those items.

Go ahead. Thank you. A procedural question, can I split a referral? Let’s start to calculate how you wanna split it so I can— - Thank you.

I’d be looking to split out C in the referral to refer C, but not refer the rest, and I can explain my reasons. So Councilor, given the Councilor’s intent is to refer the whole thing. You wouldn’t be able to refer that piece, but what you could do is if the referral’s defeated, and you only wanted to refer one part, I would see that as still in order because it wouldn’t be, it would be fundamentally different to referring the whole thing. So I’m telling you now, I would reserve your right, if a referral was defeated to refer a portion of the original on the floor motion, as long as you’re not gonna try to refer all of it again, which would be the exact same as we just debated, you would have the ability to do that, but the pathway to that would be defeating this referral, and then putting your own on it the appropriate time.

Thank you, I appreciate the ability to ask questions and to have those questions answered. I do have additional questions, but I would say they’re probably outside of the referral, so I will wait to ask those questions in my one of two rounds of speaking. At this time, I’m prepared to support some of the RFPs, and therefore will not be supporting this referral, as it will close the option of all the referrals, or of all the proposal story that are in front of us, and so I appreciate the opportunity to hear more from the community on this matter. I appreciate the opportunity to address some additional questions.

However, I do have to weigh how much that would delay the other possible, or delay the RFPs, and whether or not any of the organizations will be able to meet their commitments in that timeline. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor. Other speakers, I know you can come back in and do the reply at the end, but I’ll just make sure there’s no other speakers, ‘cause that really should be the last item.

Just make sure no one’s online. Anybody else to speak to the referral? Okay, Councilor, you can reply, given you passed the motion, but it really should be about clarifying any sort of misstatements or misunderstandings about the referral which you indicated there was, so I’ll let you speak to that. It’s not an opportunity to bring in new information or a read-a-bait, but you can clarify any sort of miscommunication.

Clarification is, I’ve heard a couple of times it mentioned that this referral was to reinforce the status quo or bring forward new motions, and it’s not, it’s to bring forward a business case with quantifiable goals and a sales pitch such that a billion dollar a year corporation would say yes to a $21 million investment. It’s not about the status quo or about new options. Thank you for that clarification with that. That’s the Councilor’s reply to some comments you heard through the debate.

There’s no other speakers, so we’re voting on just the referral. It’s moved and seconded, and I’ll open the referral for voting. Councilor Hawkins votes to know. Those in the vote, motion fails four to 10.

Okay, so the referral is defeated. We’re back to the main speakers list for the motion, which is at this time unchanged. I have the list of colleagues who’ve already spoken, and I’m looking for the next person on the speakers list for the main item now. Councillor ramen, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. I’m looking for an opportunity to ask some follow-up questions to questions that I posted as PPC. The first of which deals with the 705 Fanshawe Park Road West location. Specifically whether or not we heard from CMHA as to whether or not they did an evaluation of those that were living at the location.

Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Through you, Your Worship. Yes, we did receive some correspondence from CMHA regarding the property and question from the owner of the property.

It is indicated to us that there are currently six people in a long-term stay in the Lighthouse Inn. One of those individuals is affiliated with the property owner. Some sort of longstanding relationship, very familiar with each other. Four people are in short-term stays, two to three months.

The property owner was withholding any formal notice until the Hubs Plan discussion was before council and if there was approval in place. But the property owner is indicated they’ll be offering those in those spaces. So those combine 10 individuals. The property owner will be offering them a room at his other hotel.

And if those occupants decline that offer, they would still be going to assist those individuals to find alternative accommodations. So one of those other properties are in the possession of the property owner. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you, thank you, I appreciate that.

And I’m learning that as new information from staff today, thank you for that. I’d like to just follow up and do you have any information of how long you said that there were 10 individuals that were living there? Do you have any information as to how long in length of stay in terms of how long people are staying there? Mr.

Dickens. Through you, you worshiped, no, we did not investigate how long each tenant of this space was in that location. Typically though, those that are occupying that lighthouse and tend to be folks that have closed on the sale of their home and they’re staying there temporarily before they move into other locations. So the property owner is indicated that they have alternative locations for all those that would be displaced.

Go ahead. Thank you and through you. So all the information that is being presented is from the property owner, not from CMHA. And it’s from the property owner’s account of who stayed at their location and their rationale behind.

And the reason is that they’ve been told by those individuals as to why they were there. Through you, you worshiped. The information has been provided through CMHA as they were the lead applicant on this proposal. Thank you and just to clarify and follow up.

So CMHA interviewed those individuals or was the information from the property owner directly? Mr. Dickens. Through you, worship, I don’t know the answer to that.

We were asked, we asked CMHA for the information that was provided by CMHA with the information, how they obtained it from the property owner. I’m not sure if it was through dialogue or surveys or interviews. Thank you, I appreciate that. Just to go back for this location at Fanshawe Park Road.

And I’m really focusing my conversation just in terms of limiting my time around this location. I plan to support the two additional RFPs at the other locations and want to see their success. Speaking to the 705 Fanshawe Park Road location, I just wanted to find out what kind of consultation was done with the businesses around and then what notice was provided to the community. Go ahead, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, you worship the neighborhood and community engagement as part of the onboarding of the hubs, and so that work would happen by the lead agencies in their respective areas of where the hubs will be located. Thank you, and through you, just to help the public to understand more about how the businesses in the area were engaged in this process, can we speak anymore about that part of the discussion that took place with the business communities? I know that there was engagement sessions as we were doing the implementation work with BIA’s, for instance.

And I know that the old East Village BIA and the downtown BIA both had separate engagement sessions and which their membership were invited out. Just wondering for businesses in this area, what kind of engagement was undertaken? Go ahead. Through you, you worship.

We’ve held two consultation sessions, engagement sessions, one in June and one in late August and September. Five were general community sessions held throughout the city, including in the Northwest. I attended and was part of those. I spoke to many businesses.

In addition to those, we have also, as you noted, held specific drop-in sessions with downtown BIA and old East. In September, the Chamber of Commerce also hosted, and they represent a number of small businesses. Specific to your question about, was there a specific engagement session for businesses in the Northwest? No.

Through the Chamber, they would have been invited to the other ones, but not specifically. And of course, the general public could attend any and all of the engagement sessions that were held. Go ahead, Councillor. Thank you.

Just going back to the individuals that were living at the Lighthouse Inn. So by your figures, you have about 10 people living there by what’s been provided by CMHA. And we don’t know the length of time they’ve lived there. Do we know if it includes families and children?

Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, we knew there was six individuals that were longer-term stay. I don’t have a definition of what longer-term stay is.

And four people that were in a short-term stay, which was roughly two to three months. The property owner is indicated that he has space at an alternative hotel for those individuals. And if they decline that offer of a new space and one of their other properties, they would still be assistive in helping them find new accommodations. Go ahead.

Thank you. So would other supports other than moving to them to another hotel, which I believe is somewhere not in the northwest part of the city? Is there any other supports that will be provided to them? Three-year worship.

I can’t answer that question. That’s a question for the property owner who’s facilitating that move. We did not ask CMHA to provide supports to those being displaced. It was not a requirement of this proposal and this RFP, but that would be a question for the property owner.

Right, Councillor. Thank you. I appreciate answering those questions and hearing those responses today. I will have further comment to this.

I’ll yield and allow others to ask their questions and come back to my comments. Thank you. Councillor Trostau, you asked a question. I just heard you, I just, you asked when we break.

I typically have broken at about the two and a half hour mark into the meeting. So we’re not quite there yet. So I think I’m going to proceed with speakers. That’ll just be like a short break though.

So okay, I’m looking for others who want to be added to the speakers list. Councillor Layman, go ahead. Thank you, worship. I’ve listened very closely to debate and conversation that we’ve had over not just today, but as PPC and prior council meetings leading up to this point.

I’ve also had many conversations with constituents and Londoners in general regarding the hub plan and specifically these proposals that have responded to RFP that are being recommended by staff. For me, there are two concerns that have been raised and you can see the folks up there that are expressing those and those that I’ve heard through those conversations and communications. One is cost and effect of this and two is safety. And this particular conversation that we’re having right now, the safety is primarily concerned around the Fanshawe location.

So I’ll address the safety concern first. I truly believe that there should be an opportunity for the public to express their concerns on specific locations now that we’re getting down to identifying those locations. But I believe that Fanshawe will have that opportunity as it requires rezoning. So in a rezoning process, that comes to our standing committee planning environment.

At that time, the public will have an opportunity to voice their concerns directly to council and have those concerns addressed by staff and then fully debated by all of us. I also believe that future locations, as they come before council, should also have this opportunity, whether they have needs for rezoning or not. The second comment will regard to cost. Well, response to the RFPs have come in within our cost parameters.

I have to admit, I was disappointed in the number of beds in the proposals. But this is a reason for this process. As we now have the opportunity to go from whiteboard ideas and concepts down to actual implementation, that will show us the true cost and true effectiveness of what has been discussed and planned. So I wanna put this in perspective, the cost thing.

We’re hearing millions and millions of dollars. And then that’s true. Generally, the beds, the cost per bed in the locations before us today are coming in north of 100,000 per bed. It’s a large cost.

But let’s look at the other costs, as mentioned in the SPPC committee meeting by Mr. Dickens. Shelter cost is 40,000 per bed. That’s just a roof over the head.

Long-term care is 131,000 per bed. LHSC, the 100 or so beds there, are coming in a cost of half million dollars each, a bed. I’ve had this verified in my tour of that facility in recent weeks. Now, I believe the best solution for what is in front of us right now and has been addressed by many people I spoke to, both in the campaign and leading up to this, is a full mental health addiction hospital to replace the London and St.

Thomas psychiatric hospitals that were closed down 20 years ago. I believe the deputy mayor referred to this. Essentially what I see what we’re having to come up with today is a virtual hospital, made up of 15 locations that are being proposed. I want to be clear, London taxpayers are not being asked to fund this solution, and these hubs today, as we do not have the ability to fund a hospital within the parameters of what property tax can be, as we do not currently fund University Hospital or Victoria Hospital, or the other hospitals in our area.

30 seconds on your first five minutes. I’ll ask that I get to add my five onto this. Yeah, you can do it all the way. Thank you.

This solution will require funding from higher levels of government. What Londoners are doing today is not accepting the status quo, but I believe we are leading and providing a possible solution to the provincial and federal governments with true cost and measurable results. They’re going to have to decide, is there a better cost-effective solution in perhaps a centralized facility, and perhaps adding more mental health beds at currently at LHC, or they might see that the London Hub solution is a model to be used in other cities within our province and perhaps across Canada, as we are not alone in facing this situation that we see here. As far as cost-effectiveness and results, I’ve mentioned today, that this has been studied for a year.

I think that for me personally, I look at who’s providing 25 million the one individual whose generosity is beyond what I’ve seen in my lifetime here. Would that individual be willing to invest that amount of money if the individual did not believe there is a great chance for success in this plan? I also look at the corporate citizens of London. They’re leading the charge in fundraising to add additional funds to this solution.

Would they be doing this if they, using business acumen, not see the potential here for success? Finally, I look at who are the applicants that are involved here. I believe we have very strong organizations that are looking to lead in the first four hubs that we’re discussing. We have out LOSA, Y-O-U and the Canadian Mental Health Association.

Organizations have had a strong record of success, a strong record in leading or complex organizations that this is going to require, both of supportive care and healthcare in the hub solution. So I will be supporting going ahead with these locations. I look forward to PAC to have a full some discussion and the concerns with that one particular patient on Fanshawe. And then we will, and I look forward going down this path, knowing full well that we are open to adjustments.

We’re needed to ensure the success as we address the most vulnerable in our city. Thank you, Councillor Layman, writing this down. Okay, I’ll put myself on the speaker’s list next, so I’m going to turn the chair over to you. Okay, I’ll go to the next.

Thank you, colleagues. I really appreciate the debate and discussion. I’m not going to touch on some of the points that others have made because I think they’ve articulated some of the concerns really clearly. So let me just speak from a different perspective, because as mayor, I get to see all of the activity in the city, but also what happens outside the city.

I want to say simply put, when it comes to improving the lives of marginalized Londoners, the community at large and area businesses, I don’t think we’ll ever have the chance that we have right now. Did you just that? We’ll never again have a system designed by all those who designed what we have before us today. The city of London plays an important role, but let’s remember this design and this system doesn’t belong to us.

Belongs to the community was designed by our hospitals, public health, frontline workers, people with lived experience, social service agencies, emergency services, outreach workers, developers in the private sector. They’re watching what we’re doing here today. There are some of them are in the audience. They’re not the only ones who are watching.

As mayor, I can tell you cities across Ontario and throughout the country are also watching exactly what we’re doing here in this chamber. I’ve heard it firsthand, I’ve seen it. I’m asked about this time and time again when I meet with other mayors or community leaders in other cities. They’re watching, they’re studying what we’re doing, they believe in the work we’re doing, and they want to see it work just as much as we do.

And let me tell you why, because this crisis is experienced by literally every community big and small across North America. When it comes to our challenges, London is not different and we’re not remarkable. However, we must be remarkable, we must be different in terms of our approach and our outcomes. And I believe that’s exactly what’s happening right now.

That’s the opportunity I think we have before us today. There’s a reason why we’re not implementing the plans that have been tried elsewhere. And that’s because no one has come up with a perfect truly viable solution. And at the same time, no other community has come together in the way that ours has.

And I described it in my earlier comments. No one has come together with that group of people to try something different. And in the coming months or years, other communities may very well say, let’s do what London did. This system is not only an investment in helping marginalized Londoners experiencing homelessness.

It’s an investment in public safety, economic development, hospitals, land ambulance, downtown revitalization, neighborhoods throughout London. That’s what the whole of community response contemplates us getting to. And today is just the first step in a series of actions that we can take on that response. I think we’re at a unique and unprecedented moment in our city’s history.

We have the opportunity to save lives and change lives. We have the opportunity here to lead. As a council, we have to prioritize long-term homeless responses over short-term, small goals. We can lead through action.

We don’t have to delay forever. We can learn by doing. We can change. We can correct.

As I said earlier, the community’s watching. Cities and communities throughout Canada. But most importantly, you know who else is watching? Marginalized Londoners.

They’re watching this as well. They’re sons, daughters, moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandparents. They’re human beings, and they’re suffering on our streets. And that suffering’s gonna continue if we carry on doing things as we’ve always done.

We have a chance to start to change that. We have a chance to be compassionate. We have a chance to be effective here in actually turning the corner for some of these lives. When it comes to our most marginalized, that’s really what the system intends to deliver.

We’re trying to take people who are outdoors and suffering, bring them indoors, through a variety of processes, ultimately into housing. And I look at the proposals and I see partnerships that I’ve never seen before. Look at the way that our hospital system, recognizing that this is a healthcare problem, has partnered with Hub’s proponents on land. The way that people have come together, I don’t think I’ve ever seen in this community before.

And yes, there are many things that we can go through and say, we could do this different. Maybe we could try this. Maybe we could think about this more. But ultimately what we have before us today is a chance to open spaces this year and more in the spring.

And then move to the next step and the next step. And none of that is at the expense of all of the other initiatives that I’ve talked about many times that we have to do with homelessness, housing and affordability in general. But this is about helping the most marginalized in our community. And I think we can take that action today.

And that’s five minutes. So I don’t know if you were timing me, but I was. I was, there you go. I’ll return the chair to the mayor and Councilor Pribble is on the speaker’s list.

All right, Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you. I do love our concept of the hubs. I do and I did receive lots of feedback from local community, even internationally from other experts dealing with mental health and homelessness.

And I do like this concept. Going back to it, which I briefly already repeated when we received the guidelines, what we were hoping for. I wish besides the great agencies that offered to come forward and submitted their submissions, which I’m grateful for. I hope the other ones would be within the guidelines as well in terms of the number of beds and in terms of the expenditure.

I am and I would like to certainly support at least one today, no doubt. And use it as an example. And the reason why I’m saying use it as an example, I think that it is a good concept. I do believe that we need to, and I hope we’ll make it work as the best possible, but for us to sell this concept to the upper levels of governments.

I don’t believe, and actually, Councilor Leman said this, which was exactly what I want to say, and they have with 15 hospitals. I don’t think if you look at any part, doesn’t matter if it’s medical, if it’s business. If you look at this, it’s in terms of the costs, it would be much cheaper to have these services on the one roof, no doubt. And I think our goal should be not to actually finance 15 hospitals, but to sell this, and to do truly cost-benefit analysis of this one.

Perfect example, and sell it to the province and to the federal government, and say it works, and this is the cost-benefit analysis, it makes sense, and it’s feasible more and cost-effective than any of these multiple hospitals, or multiple hubs. I do believe, as I said, it’s not, and I think we all agree, we want to help the homelessness, we want to help the situation. The thing is, again, where is the dollar going to get us further and faster? And I’m looking at these, the numbers, and as we’ve been saying, we have over 2,000 homeless people in London, 5,600 high-accuity.

And I really think that we need to take really fast, fast actions with the example I said before, and it is really, truly happening, that we have the growing homeless population that cannot afford the everyday living, they cannot afford it anymore. And they are starting to interact more and more, people with addiction, the high-accuity people, and it’s only a matter of time which we are already seeing. So my thing is, looking at the numbers, looking at the investment, that’s what I’m looking at, and return on it. One of them came very close, or really close to our guidelines, what we were presented in July, and I will support that one.

The other ones, in terms of the organizations, if they come back with a real estate, and with the numbers that we were hoping for, we can make that decision immediately. It’s not that this time was the hubs, and our community made the plan that it’s wasted. It hasn’t been wasted, we have a great plan. Yes, I do think strategically, I wish after during these summit sessions, we had other plans, because guess what, what would have happened now if none of them came forward?

So where’s the plan B, where’s the plan C, we will be sitting here, and we will be looking that last six months was completely wasted. So I’m grateful that something actually came forward. But I do believe that we have a strategically, we missed an opportunity to come up with a plan B, CD, so we could analyze $1 million, we’ll buy us this, $2 million this, $3 million this, and then for us to make that decision. What we feel is truly the urgent matter for London, because with these numbers, and even, you know, high acuity, whichever expert we are gonna talk to, even though we say it’s for 20 people, and they will be moved out, moved out, moved out, to just other types of housing.

First of all, not all housing, we are ready for point one, and point two, it does take time. But some of the areas of London, some of the businesses of London, they don’t have this time. And that’s the thing, that is the part of, it’s not that I don’t agree with the hubs and the concept, I think it’s a great concept. But the thing is, are we really dealing with the more urgent issues?

Or is this, are we gonna be dealing here, sitting here in 12 months, said we helped 43 people, it cost us, in one year, it cost us 12 and a half million dollars. And on the streets, in the encampments, there’ll be no difference. It actually potentially be higher. So that is my point.

It’s not that I’m disagreeing with any one of you, all of you have the right point, we all wanna help it. The question is, where is it gonna get us the best result, the fastest result, because we need it. Our citizens need it, all Londoners need it, and it’s also just Londoners, it’s also the Londoners living in these encampments, because they are actually the ones that are struggling the most. And the question is, how many of them will be among us after the winter?

And we are addressing 43 people, this 12 and a half million dollars, going into the 73. So that was my point with that. But thank you, and I certainly do wanna certainly support at least one. And I really think that our goal should be, let’s make it as perfect as it could be, support it as much as we can, and sell it to the higher levels of government, because we can’t afford 15.

Again, we’re gonna have, how many, I’m grateful to the family, with the donation of 25 million dollars. Council, you’re approaching your time. Unfortunately, you don’t have 20 families. I’m gonna finish now, because just in case I don’t wanna have my last five minutes, thank you.

Yes, you certainly do. Councilor Palosa, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship. Recognizing this is an intricate conversation that’s important to stay focused on.

I would like to move a 10 minute break, just so we can do a bio break and come back. 10 minute break, moved by Councilor. Palosa, seconded by Councilor Trossa. We’ll just do this one by hand.

All those in favor, any opposed? Motion carries. Okay, 10 minutes. Okay, thank you, please be seated.

Just one thing I wanna add for colleagues, I wanted to ensure that I had permission to share this from Councilor Hillier, which he’s now confirmed. He’s not in attendance at the meeting. He wanted me to let colleagues know that there was a passing of his mother-in-law, and so he’s participating in arrangements related to that today. So that’s why Councilor Hillier is not here.

So I know we all are thoughts are all with Councilor Hillier and his family, and feel free to reach out to him when you have a moment. With that, we’re gonna return to the debate, and I’m adding to my speaker’s list. So I’m looking for the next speaker at Councilor Hopkins. I see your hand up.

I don’t know if you wanna speak now, but you could go ahead, or if you have a question, happy to address it. Can you hear me? I’m having problems with my internet, and I thought I better speak now and make my comments. Can you hear me?

If you can hear you, Councilor, I will say it’s a little bit choppy, but how about you proceed, and I’ll stop you if we’re starting to lose you. Okay, thank you for that. I will be brief. I do wanna say, yeah.

I know if your internet’s not good, if you want to speak with me. Well, I take my video off. Yeah, if you wanna do that, I think that might give you more stability. We’re happy to accommodate that for you.

What’s that? Can you hear me now, better? Yes, we can hear you perfectly. All right, I’ll just proceed.

Thank you very much, and I am very supportive here. I am very honored and privileged to be part of this discussion that is going on this evening. I am very supportive of going forward and trying the hubs out, hopefully getting people into supportive housing eventually. For me, it’s something that I’ve really learned a lot about.

I’ve heard a lot of comments from my colleagues and really appreciate even the comments that I didn’t agree with. I think we’re all very invested and want to make a difference. We heard loud and clear when we were campaigning that homelessness is top of mind of most Londoners. And I think this plan may not be perfect, but we have to do something.

It will be a risk to our city if we don’t do anything to take care of our homeless. It’s been mentioned, the numbers I’ve also learned through this process that the costs of healthcare are expensive and it’s important that we also protect people’s lives as well. It’s something that I know we can all come together. It’s been disappointing to see and hear the divisiveness in our city, but I do think as Londoners, we will come to want to give my thanks to not only city staff, but the 200 stakeholders that came together with this plan, the collaboration, it is a change.

I think change will be difficult. It’s not easy. It’s almost an unknown process that we’re going to venture into, but the risk is great not to do anything. And I really want to be supportive and we’ll just want to thank everyone.

I think that’s all I want to say for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I look for other speakers.

Go ahead, Councillor ramen. Thank you. I’ve already asked for the RFPs to be split and I want to share why I will not be supporting the CMA proposal today. I believe we don’t have all the information in order to assess the unintended consequences associated with this location.

So I want to start by reading a letter to whom it will, to whom we’ll listen. I am writing to you because I came to Canada and have been living at 705 Fanshawe at the lighthouse for one year. I share the room with three other friends because I don’t have money to have my own home and financial work is minimal. I move to this area because of my family and friends are in the area and being close to them allows me to live my life as normal as possible.

While I’m getting good in this wonderful place, I’ve met so many other good friends that live at the lighthouse and sent some that have been here longer. I hear we get kicked out of the lighthouse so for others to live here. Please listen here is already home and helping other families that live here. There are many people here.

Please come here. If I have to go from this area, it would destroy me, my family and friends who need our family and friends close to live. I beg to God and whoever will listen, don’t destroy my family. I’m asking for you today to listen to the voices from my ward.

As a Councillor for Ward 7, I’m going to attempt to bring the voices to the table and I know you’ve received and I’ve received thousands of letters and I know you’ve probably seen the petition with a thousand, close to a thousand signatures. That was a letter from a resident of mine. That is a resident that lives at the hotel whose life will be an upheaval if we vote yes on this proposal. From my understanding and my conversations, there are 14 or so people residing at the hotel right now.

Have we thought through the impact to them? Have we thought through the impact to their kids that attend area schools? Have we thought about where they’ll sleep in shelter? Are we really only willing to listen to these voices during a rezoning?

A rezoning discussion is not focused on where people go or the closure of a business. Quote, if this goes through this business closes, I don’t know how I’ll provide for my kids. That’s a quote from a staff member at the Black Pearl Pub. There’s no ambiguity here.

If we vote in support of this proposal, the Black Pearl Pub will close. Small businesses are still recovering from the pandemic. Many business owners here around this horseshoe, their counselors, I don’t need to tell you about that. The savings have been depleted.

The cost to borrow is high and a relocation doesn’t seem possible with all these barriers. Relocation’s not possible. It will force a closure. That’s 12 employees, 12 people unemployed.

We must ask ourselves if this is what we intended. Is this what we expected as a result of this RFP? Is this what we said we were going to do? I’ve heard repeatedly that London is poised to be a leader with this approach and this plan.

How will it look to put people out on the streets to close a business so that we can say that we enacted our plan? I’m asking you today to vote no on the RFP from CMHA at this time. I personally do not believe we’ve addressed these unintended consequences of this decision. The need for conversation with the community and the issues around the criteria, I know that those haven’t been fully fleshed out.

I know that this RFP is associated with 10 beds for December 2023. And I also know that if we task our very capable staff to find a way to bring those respite beds through our cold weather response for vulnerable women or to find ways through future RFPs, we can work together to address that. We said that the work we are doing is like building a bridge while you’re walking across it. We said we were going to make mistakes along the way and when we do, we will course correct, let us course correct, let’s find a way forward, a way that brings the whole of community alongside, a way that hears the voices from my ward, a way that doesn’t force people out.

These impacts are tremendous and I’ve taken the time to listen to people’s stories as much as possible. People living and working at this location, people living and working in the community, business owners in my ward. I do believe we can find a way to do all of these things, find a way to support vulnerable women and find a way to be able to support those that are living and working at this location. I’m asking you today, colleagues, to not support the RFP for CMHA.

Thank you. Okay, I’ll look for other speakers. I’m gonna say I don’t see any, no? Okay, so it’s been asked to divide these separately.

I think it’s probably easiest to do each of them, individually the ABC portions. And then depending on what happens with those portions, we may need some time to adjust numbers in the others or may not, depending on the results of the vote. But I’ll ask the deputy mayor, if you can see the screen, just you’ll put these on the floor individually and just identify which proposal is on the floor. So colleagues clearly know which one they’re voting for.

So I’ll go over to you. Thank you, Your Worship. I will start by putting clause A on the floor. This is with regard to Alosa Family Healing Services.

I need a seconder ‘cause you’re presenting the committee’s report. So that’s fine, we’re just dividing the vote. Okay, we’ll just gonna get that up on the screen. Is it ready?

Okay, with no further speakers on this, we’re gonna just open all of these for voting. So this will just be A right now. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Councillor Van Nierbergen.

I can call Councillor Van Nierbergen. Closing the vote, motion carries, 11 to three. Deputy Mayor. On Your Worship, I will now put clause B on the floor.

This is the request for proposal to be awarded to youth opportunities unlimited. We’ll get B up in just a moment. Okay, that’s ready. We’re gonna open B for voting.

Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Closing the vote, motion carries, 10 to four. Thank you, Your Worship. I will now put clause three on the floor.

This is the request for proposal for the Canadian Mental Health Association, Thames Valley Addiction and Mental Health Services. Okay, that’s ready for voting. So we’ll open that one for voting. It’s votes yes.

Closing the vote, motion carries, nine, five. So, Deputy Mayor, that doesn’t change any of the numbers. So you’re able to think put all the rest of it on the floor, all the other related clauses at this time. Yes, so I will now move clauses D through I, inclusive.

Make sure everybody is okay with that. I’d Councillor Raman. Could we separate those out please? Can you tell me which one you want separated out so I don’t have to separate all of them out?

Thank you, my, well, I have concerns with the F, the way that it’s all together. Sure, I want you to put everything but F on, which is F is essentially the, everything we’ve done is conditional upon entering a purchase of service agreement with the partners. Councillor Raman. Sorry, thank you.

I’d like to also deal with the E separately. Yes. Deputy Mayor, can you just do D? We’re just gonna let the clerk have a little bit of time on the other ones.

All right, let’s put D on the floor then. Okay, D is on the floor. I’ll let you know when that’s, we’re gonna open D for voting. Councillor Hopkins.

I vote yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to three. Okay, let’s do E next. We’re able to do E and F together.

No, because there’s a request to divide F further than it’s currently contemplated and I’m just working on that, but we could do E while we wait. Well, then I’ll put E on the floor. Thank you. Yes, Councillor Raman.

Thank you. I just had some questions pertaining to E. Councillor, we’ve done the debate. And so we’re now onto the voting on the pieces.

So is it a technical question about E that you need to understand? Go ahead. Thank you and through you. It’s to clarify what we mean by saying the city’s role in the planning act applications.

My question pertains to will the city be the one acting on behalf of the agencies to rezone? I’m going to take that as technical question that assists you in the voting. I’m going to try to keep this tight though since we had the debate. So if I could have a member of our planning staff answer the Councillor’s question so that that’s clear.

Sorry, through you, your worship or to you, your worship. So we’d be looking for a CMHA to bring forward the application and then the city would go through the normal process through planning and environment committee. So CMHA would bring forward the application and it would be obviously a process like other applications. Thank you and through you further technical question where it says to align current or future hub sites with criteria, is there still an opportunity within the way this reads?

Does this, because we’re authorizing administration, does this preclude us from adding or tightening up criteria? Should we go to our staff for that? Sorry, Mr. Dickens, go ahead.

That’s okay, your worship and through you. So what is intended in that clause is that ensuring that we are aligning future locations with the hubs planned criteria. So ensuring that if anyone’s seeking funding through the Fund for Change or through our HPP funding as it relates to hubs that it aligns with the criteria set out in the hubs implementation. Okay, thank you, Councillor.

Okay, so that’s E, E is moved and we’re going to open E for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Councillor Van Neerbergen, closing the vote. Motion carries nine to five.

Deputy Mayor, I’m just going to let you know that when you put F forward, F is the piece that says, given the approvals above that that be conditional upon the corporation entering to a purchase of service agreement with the three separate agencies, I’ve been asked to divide that out. So the way that we’re just going to reformat that is basically with that approval to be given, the approval given already be conditional upon the corporation entering to a purchase of a service agreement with F, I, F, I, and F, I, I. So F, I will be for youth opportunities unlimited. So that is the purchase of service agreement with youth opportunities unlimited.

So that’s the first one we’ll vote on. So if you could put F, I on the floor, that would be great. All right, let’s put F, I on the floor. So everybody’s clear, F, I is basically F, but only with respect to youth opportunities unlimited.

We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. I, I will be at Losa.

F, I, I will now be put on the floor. Just for clarity for everybody, this is at Losa Family Healing Services. We’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready. Councillor Hopkins votes yes.

To be open now for colleagues. Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. And finally on F, I will put F, I, I, I on the floor. This is the Canadian Mental Health Association Thames Valley.

We’ll let you know when that’s ready and open. Okay, we’re opening that now. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Close in the vote, motion carries 12 to two.

Yes, we’ll do H separate so G first, deputy mayor. That is correct, I will now put G on the floor. Okay, we’ll open that now. Councillor Hopkins votes yes.

Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to three. I will now put H on the floor. Okay, I’m gonna open this one for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes.

Close in the vote, motion carries 13 to one. And finally, Your Worship, I pause I and the Ip being noted that the communications included on the added agenda were received on the floor. Okay, we’ll open I for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes.

Close in the vote, motion carries 11 to three. And that Your Worship concludes the 23rd special report of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. And I will take my seat. Yes, thank you for standing through all that.

So that completes the report section. There’s no added reports, there’s no deferred matters. There’s not generally inquiries at a special meeting. There’s the emergent motion item correspondence from Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Per beau.

This would require you to seek leave at this time. Councillor Per beau. I would just let you know that we would like to move this to next week to the strategic planning SPPC meeting. So we don’t want to deal with it this evening.

Okay, so if you’re not asking for leave, then there’d be no matter before us to deal with it. You can bring it back for whatever standing committee you want. That is correct. Yeah, just be off the jets, okay.

So the Councillors are not asking for leave anymore. So there is no more emergent motion. That brings us to move on to bylaws. We have two, I’m guessing we should deal with those separately.

So the first bylaw is the general confirming bylaw that we do for every meeting of council that we have. That’s bylaw 366. Okay, I look for a move and a seconder for that. Councillor Ploza, Councillor Ferreira, no discussion on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting.

Mr. Hopkins votes yes. Councillor Cuddy. Yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 13 to one. Okay, we’ll move on to seconder for second reading. Councillor Layman, seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Yes. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 14 to zero. Third reading. Moved by Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. No debate on third reading, so we’ll open third reading for voting as soon as it’s ready.

Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Next is bill 367.

I’ll look for a move and a seconder for a first reading of that bill. Moved by Councillor Ploza, seconded by Councillor Trozau. There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Councillor, yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 11 to three. Okay, look for a move and a second for second reading. Moved by Councillor Trozau, seconded by Deputy Mary Lewis.

Any discussion? Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes. Opposed in the vote.

Motion carries 11 to three. A reading of this by-law look for a move and a seconder moved by Councillor Ferreira, seconded by Councillor McAllister. No discussion on third reading, so we’ll open this for voting. Councillor Hopkins votes yes.

Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 10 to four. Colleagues, that brings us to the end of the by-laws now. With your indulgence, I’m gonna say a few words, even though she won’t want me to.

For those who don’t know, this is Barb Westlake Power, Deputy Clerk’s final council meeting after many years of service to the corporation of the city of London. And I know you really, really, really, really don’t want me to say any words, but I’m gonna do it anyways. I wanna say, you know, Barb personally, we’ve had the ability to sit beside each other for many years in the seat just over there. And in this seat, I believe there have been, you know, some difficult moments for those years.

There’s been challenging procedural calls where you’ve given just phenomenal advice. There was a few moments where someone said something funny and you and I got giggling and we both couldn’t stop and I had to duck my head down below the screen so people couldn’t see. But I wanna say, you know, you have made many friends, many positive memories and more importantly, significant contributions on behalf of the people of the city of London in your role here as Deputy Clerk and the other roles that you’ve had at the city. We thank you incredibly for your service.

We wish you all the best in what comes next. I’m sure it’s lots of Red Wing games perhaps and fun things like that. But on behalf of all Londoners and on behalf of city council, I’d like to invite my colleagues in joining me in thanking Barb Westlake Power for her service. Clerk says that was procedurally not in order.

With that, I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ferreira. All those in favor of adjournment by hand. No motion carries.

We’re adjourned. Thank you.