October 24, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That Items 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 to 2.7 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   6th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2023-09-28 ACAC 6th Report

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the 6th Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on September 28, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   10th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-05 AWCAC REPORT

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 10th Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from its meeting held on October 5, 2023:

a)    a representative from Parks and Recreation BE INVITED to the next Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee meeting to provide an update on co-existence strategies with Canadian Geese; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.3 to 5.5 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.4   2022 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.4) - 2022 OW Participant Service Delivery Profile - Full

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the staff report dated October 24, 2023, related to the 2022 Ontario Works Participant and Service Delivery Profile, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.5   Towing and Vehicle Storage – Transition to Provincial Oversight (MTO) and Associated By-Law Amendments

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.5) - Towing and Vehicle Storage Transition to Provincial Oversight (MTO)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated October 24, 2023, related to Towing and Vehicle Storage and the Transition to Provincial Oversight (MTO) and Associated By-law Amendments:

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Schedules by deleting ’19’, ‘19A’, ‘19B’ and ‘20’ in By-law No. L.-131-16, being the Business Licensing By-law; and,

b)     the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 to amend Schedule “A-5” by deleting items “134” through to “154” in By-law No. A-54, being the Administrative Monetary Penalty System (AMPs) By-law.

Motion Passed

2.6   East Lions Community Centre Repairs

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.6) - ELCC Soffit Repair Update

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, with the concurrence of the City Manager, the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, with respect to the East Lions Community Centre Repairs, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.7   SS-2023-239 London Fire Department Single Source Communications Equipment for Next Generation 9-1-1

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.7) - London Fire Department Single Source Communications Equipment with Appendix A

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Communications Equipment for Next Generation 9-1-1 (SS-2023-239):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd, 1175 Squires Beach Rd, Pickering, ON, L1W 3V3, for a one (1) year contract with one (1) option year for the procurement of Bramic U83 communications workstations for the London Fire Department at a cost of $195,000 CAD (excluding HST);

b)    in accordance with Section 14.4(d) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with L3Harris Technologies Inc., 1025 W. NASA Boulevard, Melbourne, FL 32919, USA, for a one-time procurement of Symphony radio consoles for the London Fire Department at a cost of $320,000 CAD (excluding HST);

c)    the approval of a) and b) above BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a written contract with Bramic Creative Business Products Ltd and L3Harris Technologies Inc. to provide communications equipment to the London Fire Department; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with the authorization set out in parts a), b), and c) above.

Motion Passed

2.3   Housing Stability Services – Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Waitlist Placement Ratio

2023-10-24 - Staff Report (2.3) - Waitlist Ratio Review - Full

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated October 24, 2023, related to Housing Stability Services and the Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) Waitlist Placement Ratio:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to implement a new temporary housing placement rate of 20% urgent status households, 80% needs and chronological waitlist households;

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to temporarily implement a requirement that households applying for Urgent Status on the waitlist have lived in London-Middlesex for at least 9 months in order to be eligible for Urgent Status, except Urgent Medical Status when relocation for medical treatment is required, and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on findings and recommendations of the RGI Waitlist Review no later than Q2 2024.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by C. Rahman

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor S. Stevenson BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 5 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   CPSC Deferred Matters List

CPSC DEFERRED MATTERS as at October 13 2023

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Community and Protective Services Committee Deferred Matters List, dated October 13, 2023, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) Councillor S. Stevenson - Winter Response

2023-10-24 - (Added) CPSC Submission - London Cares In Camera Motion Final

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC), the full, detailed, financial information related to the winter response contract between the Corporation of the City of London and London Cares;

it being noted that the provision of some or all of the above-noted information may require to be presented to the CPSC, In Closed Session, in accordance with Section 239 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Confidential

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

6.1    Solicitor-Client Privilege/ Litigation/Potential Litigation

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, litigation and potential litigation and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality related to the construction repair of the East Lions Community Centre.

6.2    Personal Matters / Identifiable Individuals

A matter pertaining to identifiable individuals with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List - “Safety and Crime Prevention” Category.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Community and Protective Services Committee convened In Closed Session from 5:23 PM to 5:37 PM.

7.   Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:40 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 42 minutes)

Okay, good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming to the 16th meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee. I’m gonna read the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Adnashnabek, Haudenosaunee, Linna Peiwok, and Adawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the city, as representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city is committed to making every effort to provide alternative formats and communication supports for our meeting, for the meetings upon request.

To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cpsc@london.ca or call 519-661-2489 extension-2425. So I’ll start with looking for any disclosures of community interest. Okay, I have one poll request for the consent items. I have 2.3, so I’m gonna look to committee to pull any other items.

2.3, housing stability services, rent, gear to income, weightless placement ratio. So no other poll requests? Okay, I will pull 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 for one single vote for the consent. And I’m looking for a mover to move that.

I have a mover, anyone second, and a seconder. So Councillor ramen, moving, Councillor Pribble. Seconding, I’m looking for two committee for discussion on those items, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

I was looking, probably not doing this in order, so please forgive me, but I’d like to go to item 2.7. And I was just wondering if there was any commentary on an update on where we are with the communications equipment for next-gen upgrade. I can see that we’re trying to parallel our services and that I just wanted to a bit of an update if that was possible and just how things are going. Thank you, Councillor, that I believe is Ms.

Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, I’ll start. And then I’ll turn it over for some more details to Deputy Chief Hantu is the lead on this project. So we’re on target.

The police are hoping to go live for NG 911 in January, 2024. And then we’re hoping to follow by the end of Q1 in 2024. So things are progressing well. We’re waiting, hopefully we’ll hear by the end of December if we’re successful with the provincial government to get a second one-time grant to help support the final needs for the equipment and the software to set it up.

But we are on track, correct, Deputy Chief? Through the chair to the Councillor, yes, we are on track. Actually, we just received word yesterday that the city has received delivery of our software and our dispatch consoles. So we’re very excited about that.

Everything is on track. And thank you for that, Councillor. And Councillor Preble. Thank you, I sort of checked the staff.

I just want to make sure this, the implementation, is there going to be additional investment beyond the 194 and 320? Are we waiting or purchasing additional equipment for the NG 911 or is this it? Thank you, Councillor, Ms. Smith.

Through the chair, that’s a very good question. And as you know, this is very new. And so we are hoping this is our final request going forward. So all of our software and our hardware and our computer systems are purchased.

All the technology, this is the final, the workstations, the radio consoles. So we hope we will be ready to stand up our 911 center at station one by Q1 2024. Thank you, Ms. Smith, Councillor.

Thank you for the answer, no more. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer and through you to our staff.

I appreciate the update on the actions at East Lions Community Center with regard to the Softit Repairs. I know we are dealing with this at the same time as we’re dealing with some vandalism damage that’s not a part of this report. I’m just wondering if staff can give a verbal update on timelines on the completion of this project. If that information is known and I know that our facilities chief has just wandered in so, or sorry, I shouldn’t say wandered in, but just joined us.

And so I’m just wondering if there’s an opportunity for an update on the Softit Repairs timeline for East London Community Center. I know this is being coordinated with some other repairs related to vandalism and not the particulars of the Softit. So I’m just wondering, especially with the weather, starting to turn to less desirable weather for outdoor construction work if we have a timeline on completion. Thank you to the staff.

Yeah, through the chair and apologies for being a little bit behind. So the, I need to get right to my notes ‘cause there’s several Softits involved here. So the North Softit, the Repairs underway already, as is the South Softit. The aim is to have both, actually the aim is to have all of the Softits completed before winter.

There is a very long lead time on lighting products. So we can expect probably that that will be into the new year that the lighting is finally installed. And then the remaining Softits, we have the design prepared and they’re ready to start once they are authorized to do so. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

And thank you for that update. And I was walking in this meeting was being called order. So you’re not the only one who’s still pulling out their notes for the other items on the agenda. So thank you for that.

I do wonder, and if the chair will indulge a little bit, do we have any additional timelines? I know this is a reference to the vandalism issues as well. Do we have any timelines on when the damaged windows will be replaced? Thank you, back to staff.

Yes, thank you through the chair. That is the other item that we’re seeing excessively long lead times on is glass products. The last time we talked about it, it was in the neighborhood of three months to get, especially a panel of that size. It’s a very large window.

So it was three months minimum. Thank you. Thank you. And just through you, Mr.

Presiding Officer, I just wanna thank our team for the very quick response after the vandalism. The damaged light posts were capped within 24 hours. The graffiti was removed. As frustrating as that situation is, the team responded wonderfully to do the immediate things that they could do as quickly as possible and get that space back to feeling safe and welcoming for everybody.

So while we still have some challenges, I just wanna take the opportunity as well to say thank you for what you were able to do quickly, being done very, very quickly. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I echo those, thanks as well. Looking for anyone else for the speakers list.

Okay, let’s call the question. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. That leaves us with 2.3 on the consent items.

So looking for a speakers list. That’s a ramen. Thank you and through you. So I have a number of questions related to this report.

And I’m wondering if it’s possible. So as I was reading through the comparators in the report for the different regions and different cities, I was having trouble comparing apples to apples in terms of the comparators and trying to understand if what we’re doing is significantly different from other places because it seemed like it was based on the criteria. It listed in the report for urgent status and in our different status categories. So as we’re looking to authorize the recommendation that’s here of a rate of 20% versus 80%, I was having difficulty understanding how we get there.

If our criteria is so different from other comparator cities. So I wanted to start there and see if you could help me to better understand some of that and how we got to that language around what the different status levels were within that rate, that category. Thank you, counselor. I realized that I did want to go to Mr.

Cooper for an overview before anything, but that’s okay. Let’s answer that question. And if Mr. Cooper feels if he wishes he can, he can give us that overview after.

Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. The urgent status opportunity in the housing services act is a local rule. And so with local rule comes variance between community and community.

Our local rule was established quite some time ago. And as a result, I would suggest that there are some differences between each community based on their needs. And so we use the comparator as one aspect of how we landed on that 20%. I would suggest the probably the higher driving factor of why we landed there was through consultations with our community as well as service providers.

They’ve indicated, and I think council and committee have heard some of the challenges that our service providers have been facing over the last number of years. And we felt as a temporary measure, this was a good percentage to land on until we could finalize additional details in Q2 of 2024. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, counselor.

Okay, thank you. So my understanding of what I’m reading and the recommendations that are before us, one of the things I was trying to understand is how did we arrive at six months to be eligible and why would we, for instance, not consider nine months versus six months? Like what do we see in terms of resident component status? Did we use as a marker for that six months versus, let’s say, nine months?

Okay, counselor, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through the chair, that is where we actually looked at other comparators at other communities, and that six-month time frame seemed to be quite consistent. We have a number of providers that do work across multiple service managers, so trying to be consistent there was looking at community comparators.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper, counselor. Thank you, and consistency in that area, even though it’s a local decision, whether or not it’s six months or let’s say nine months, why would that matter at that point? So, thank you, and through the chair, I think we looked to land somewhere on that aspect, and part of the conversations with our community and the providers landed on that six-month piece.

Yeah, that’s where it landed. Thank you, counselor. So there’s no provincial direction, guideline, specification, we didn’t time it to, for instance, things like OHIP criteria or anything. There’s no other criteria other than we can decide locally what that number should be.

Thank you, counselor, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through the chair, yes, that is a local rule that can be established by council, and there is no provincial direction, specifically for urgent statuses on it, or how long somebody has to live in a community. Thank you, counselor.

Thank you, yeah, I think that that was helpful to determine, and so when staff arrived at that recommendation, it was based mostly on what other jurisdictions had done previously, but I’m wondering, considering where we are with our housing waiting list, would there be any downside to moving to a nine-month status? Thank you, counselor, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer, and through you, I’ll start the response with the, just to clarify the six months piece. So the city undertakes a community consultation process where we engage with a number of different organizations and associations related or involved in the community housing world, and the support network that goes into that, including the violence against women’s sector. That community consultation process starts to identify. They go through the process of identifying our local priorities.

So collectively, as a community, they set the priorities, including some of the definitions around the six months. So it’s not strictly just a service manager decision that we decided six months versus nine months. That’s actually something that we’ve undertaken with the community on the consultation, to identify the priority populations, and then identify some of the parameters around supporting them in that housing criteria. Turned to my team if there’s an AMS.

Mr. Cooper. Yep, thank you, and through the chair, there was a question on impact. The reality would be that somebody would have to wait longer, obviously, to get into an urgent status situation or apply for urgent status within our community.

Thank you to the staff. Back to Councilor Raman. Hey, I was wondering if we, on page 34, if we could just turn to that page just to help guide the conversation analysis. RGI buildings no longer have a diversity of households.

I read that as income diversity in terms of the rest of what’s on that page. Thank you, Councilor, Mr. Cooper, or to the staff. Thank you, and through the chair, what we have been seeing is the gradual intensification of certain types of populations in buildings.

So with matching nine urgent status individuals for what could be income, it could be support needs, to those units, we’ve seen that gradual intensification. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, back to Councilor Raman. Thank you.

So with that desire for more diversification, there’s also that feedback loop to the diversification of those that come off the list, versus urgent, or those that are chronologically, or chronological, yeah. So based on that, it might understand that there’s a desire to have less urgent and more chronological. Thank you, Councilor, back to Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair, that is a piece of this work. As we look at how our community has evolved with our coordinated access system and the number of supports through the whole of community response, individuals who have urgent support needs, have some additional avenues beyond social housing. And so what we’re seeing and looking to do here is take this temporary measure to help alleviate the pressures that have been identified by our community in housing individuals without supports who’ve identified as a need for an urgent status to support that work for those communities. And in the next four to six months, we’ll be looking to bring back a more full sum response on how that system integrates more effectively for those individuals that may not be eligible for urgent status in the future.

Thank you, Councilor. My apologies, Mr. Dickens. My apologies, Chair.

Thank you for the opportunity and through you. Just to add to that, we’ve received feedback as civic administration through a number of different avenues. And recently, we heard it through the shareholders meeting from LMCH when the board chair presented the need to really rethink our placement ratio. It was well articulated in that meeting and it was echoed by members of Council that we needed to go back and look at the housing placement ratio so that we were not always skewing or prioritizing as many high needs or urgent status folks into community housing.

When that occurs without the proper supports in place, it leads to a revolving door of short-term placements, evictions, damages to units. And we’ve also heard it through some of our social housing tables that exist in the community, not just through the city’s LMCH organization. So this is an effort to really undertake a continuous improvement process through the housing stability services team to look at are there better ways that we can be using our coordinated access system to get people placed in the community housing? This ratio has never been reviewed since it was implemented in 2005.

We’ve done a number of different initiatives since then that really require us culminating in this review to make changes in the placement ratio. We also know that our community landscape has changed and the housing market has changed significantly since 2005. So what you see before you is absolutely a shift to less urgent status and more chronological. It’s not a one for one that everyone is gonna be lower acuity, lower acuity, many will in that instance, but our coordinated access team is still there to do the appropriate matching to the appropriate units so that we don’t have individuals being overhoused under house and that sort of thing.

But this is our effort to implement something and that we can then measure and track and make full some decisions on in terms of honoring the voice of LMCH and voices of council members that have asked for this shift in the placement ratio. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickens, council.

Thank you, two final questions. My next question is how does the hubs plan feed into or relate to the urgent status list? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you and through you, chair. I mean, there’s some correlation. It’s not exactly tied together. We’ll have some individuals on that urgent status waitlist to our experiencing homelessness and unsheltered, absolutely.

And if they are meeting the demographics of the highest acuity in our community that we’re trying to address through the hubs and the highly supportive housing, then they would be connected through those lead agencies. So there would absolutely be some correlation and connectivity there. Thank you, council. You have 55 seconds.

Wonderful, thank you so much for keeping me on time. My last question is just related to the life stabilization office locations that were listed in the report. I was just wondering how we arrive at those locations and if there is one planned in the Northwest. Thank you, councilor, back to staff.

Then 2.7. I’ll make, is that what it is for me? Come back to that one. Thank you, it’s okay.

I can ask you that question offline. I just noticed in the report. Okay, thank you. Thank you, councilor.

You do have 30 seconds left, so I’ll keep that in mind. I’m gonna go to acting there. Louis, thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. And through you, I want to first of all say to our staff, great work on this. I believe it was February or January when councilor McAllister and I met to raise LMCH his concerns around this with you. I am certainly not going to tell our board chair.

He was described as being very articulate today, although he may have been more articulate than he was on in this chamber at a lower level than what he was when he presented as a board chair. That said, this is very consistent with what I’ve heard. Not only from those listed in the report, but from folks like Holmes Unlimited and Odell Jelna, residents of affordable housing, some of the partners, Zarin, who are building at SOHO. You know, it wasn’t that long ago, we were having a discussion about the number of affordable units that would be allocated at the SOHO site and at other sites.

And the preliminary response that I’ve heard from some of these folks on this report since it became public was, this is great. And this will actually allow us in future opportunities to be more comfortable with negotiating more affordable units for the city to pull off of their housing access wait list. So that is good news all around because it makes it easier for our partners to work with our housing access list and get people moving into more stable housing. I absolutely concur with Mr.

Dickens’ comments about the revolving door at LMCH in particular, although I know it’s not unique to their buildings. This will go a long way to helping create stable housing opportunities for people who’ve been on the chronological list for a long time. And it was referenced that this hasn’t been changed since it was introduced in 2005. But there was mention that other options have arisen in the community since then.

And I just want to reference a couple, for example, for colleagues to think about. In 2005, the ANOVA women’s shelter on Clark Road did not exist. There was no place for women fleeing domestic violence to go and seek a place to live for a period of time from ANOVA. Now that exists.

Why OU did not even have their cornerstone building up and running on Richmond Street yet, let alone their youth shelter on Clark Road and soon Jones Place across the street from the cornerstone building. So a tremendous change in capacity to address at-risk youth needs rather than just through the urgent status list that we maintain with our housing registry. So I also recognize that this is an interim. That’s some fine-tuning will be happening.

And another report will be coming back to us in 2024. I will say to follow up on Councillor ramen’s comments, I personally would be more comfortable with the nine months than six months as well. And I know I’ve heard that from some of our community providers. I know that there was a community conversation.

Stakeholders were engaged. There was a difference of opinion. This is the number that was settled on for now. But I would say I would personally support even if this was amended to nine today, but certainly moving forward that we look at a bit longer period of time there.

Because I’m cognizant of the fact of the number of Londoners who have been residing here for a long time, who have been on the list for a long time. And I do think that there is a need to recognize their need to move up the list and to be able to see the light at the tunnel for the day that they can get off the list and be housed in a safe, secure, sustainable housing environment for them. So I really wanted to take the opportunity to commend staff for the work on this. It’s excellent.

I was able to share this with some LMCH board members last week and over the weekend. They’re very, very pleased with this as are some of our other third party housing providers. I think this is a huge step in the right direction. And I know Mr.

Dickens and Mr. Cooper, I have nagged you incessantly, but when this is coming and I really appreciate you keeping your patience with me in doing so, and happy to see this before us today. Thank you, that was four minutes and 30 seconds. That was very good.

Councillor Stevenson. OK, thanks. I too am very happy to see this. So many concerns and complaints from the social housing units and the lack of safety and the problems that they’re dealing with there.

I do have a lot of questions. The biggest one is on page 26, it talks about the requirement to be able to live independently or have supports in place and that the ability to live independently is identified in provincial regulations as an eligibility requirement for RGI housing. So I might understand that this is and has been a provincial regulation or is this something that is a recommendation? Thank you, Councillor, to the staff.

Thank you and through the chair. So it is and has been a regulation. There are a number of questions on the application that an individual would self-identify. And it is really to determine living independently, whether or not somebody needs support to live independently.

So it’s a very fine line at this point. And we are looking at utilizing the application to help us identify that when somebody, an individual, applies for social housing. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you and through the chair. Can you give me an example of what we do right now to ensure that people meet that provincial regulation? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you and through the chair, there’s a, we utilize an independent living form currently that assists our teams to work with an individual should concerns be raised by a provider that somebody may not be able to live independently. And we recognize too as people’s living situation and as folks age and sometimes their situation might change. So it does allow our community, our team here and to work with community on identifying individuals who may need some additional support. Thank you, Mr.

Cooper, Councillor. Thank you, so is that form used prior to housing somebody to ensure that they meet that provincial regulation? Because in the line below it on page 26, it says for one service manager in another city. The individuals are not placed in community housing if they are not able to live independently.

Another service manager requires an agency to confirm that the applicant can live independently. So I just wondered, are we utilizing any of those? Or were we using this form to ensure that people were able to live independently? Thank you, Councillor, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, I have Jesse Ford who’s our manager of rent supplement tenant placement to help assist the answer in those details. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, Chair and through you, we have the application form that all applicants complete has a section on it that asks about support needs, accessibility needs, what types of supports a person might have in place, what types of supports they think they need. And from there, we review the application form. We also check some of our other databases to see have there been issues that have arisen, is there a history of not paying rent, different things that might indicate that someone needs some additional support. If we are able to, if we identify that they do need additional support, we have a follow-up form that we send and it gets completed by the applicant with the assistance of their, usually their family doctor.

Thank you, Ms. Ford, Councillor. Thanks. So to me, this seems like the key piece around it is that we’ve been housing people who are unable to live independently in a way that, you know, that works.

So I’m just curious, would you agree that that’s the problem? Like when I read the report, that’s what I hear is that we’re housing people who don’t have basic living skills, don’t know how to take care of an apartment, pay rent. So to me, that means they can’t live independently. So I just feel like this is the big piece, is that to ensure that the people that qualify for RGI can live independently.

So I’m wondering, like, what is it about the piece that we’ve been doing that hasn’t been working? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Dickinson. Thank you, Chair, through you all.

I’ll start this response to all, maybe pass it over to my team. So I don’t think there’s one singular issue that we’ve been doing wrong, that there’s one thing we’re doing wrong that’s led to this problem. This is an emerging issue, for sure, across our community and across the province. As service managers grapple with the fact that there’s not enough ranked-ear-to-income housing stock in communities, but there’s also a significant rise in the acuity of individuals that we’re trying to house.

There’s not one singular issue that impacts this work. When you look at the cost of living, even in ranked-ear-to-income, it can be a real challenge for folks. And then they have to start making decisions about how they’re able to maintain a roof over their head. And sometimes those decisions put you between two bad decisions.

Guest management can become a real problem in community housing as people look at social connection, deprivation and vulnerability. So to say that there’s one singular issue, there’s people who have been housed that require support as the one ingredient that has caused this problem. No, I think it’s a cocktail of issues that have occurred over time, including the lack of investments that other orders of government around ranked-ear-to-income. The lack of investments for proper supports for individuals and the change in the landscape and demographic profile of those who now access ranked-ear-to-income.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens, Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. So definitely support the minimizing the issues that were expressed by LMCH and by many people who live in our social housing, for sure.

I mean, here it talks about the preliminary findings talked about tenants within a building or complex characterized by pronounced support requirements, but for whom there’s a shortage of support. Adversary percussions for the tenant, RGI property surrounding community support staff and other documents, damage to buildings, unit cleanliness, hoarding tendencies, violence, fires, floods, criminal behavior, unit takeovers, pest infestations. So my concern is that if we just switch the ratio and we do less urgent, when I look at the urgent list, it’s people with a terminal illness, physically disabled, people who must relocate to London for medical treatment, people who’ve been in abused relationship and their personal safety is at risk. Somebody who’s housing has been condemned or recently destroyed by a fire or just discharged from hospital and unable to return to their former place.

Children, households whose children would be returned to custody if they had housing. I don’t really want to reduce the number of people that were helping in that area. And so the other two are people who are living on the street or in a motel or using the emergency shelter. So if we were classifying them as urgent, all those who are living on the street in a motel or an emergency shelter, it seems like that is the piece, presumably that is causing all of these damage and other issues, am I correct in that assumption?

Thank you, counselor. Mr. back to the staff. Thank you, and through you, Mr.

Chair, I’ll start this answer and then turn it over to Ms. Ford for any additional comment. There’s some four-point clarity. So our special party policy population, they legislatively do get priority to housing.

So they would not be impacted by this change. Also, we are looking to maintain a focus on the folks who are medically compromised or moving to the community for medical needs. They make a very small portion of our urgent status wait list. So we do see an increase as we have in our homeless population and increase in our applications for our urgent homeless status.

So Ms. Ford can speak to any of the other specific details, but that’s a start of the question. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, Ms.

Ford. Thank you, Chair, and through you, approximately 69% of the people on the RGI wait list are chronological applicants, 19%. So the largest proportion of urgent applicants, 19% are urgent homeless, 4% medical, and 2% urgent social. So when we are looking at those numbers, I just wanted to share that to give you some context.

Part of the review that we’re working on is to identify how to better assess, not just our urgent applicants, but everyone who is coming through because the housing providers aren’t reporting that it’s just the urgent applicants, but we do know that some of those folks do need additional support. And sometimes it’s medical support, sometimes it’s housing stability support, different kinds of supports are needed. So that’s what this review and when it’s complete will help us address. Thank you, Ms.

Ford. I’ll go back to Councilor Stevenson noting you have 55 seconds left. Thank you, I might ask for more time ‘cause I have more questions, but are we using anything that measures acuity when it comes to determining whether people can live independently? Thank you, Councilor, back to Ms.

Ford. Thank you, Chair, through you. We are working closely, the Housing Access Center team is beginning to work more closely with the Coordinated Access team to identify what the best tools to use would be in this situation. Often we do have an acuity score for people if we have them within the homeless serving sector.

It’s not something we have the SPADAT, which we currently use, it’s not something that we’re currently using as a practice in the Housing Access Center. However, we measure acuity in a number of different ways. So we can look at a person’s history of housing. We can look at history of arrears and different things like that to help us make a determination.

But we’re working now to establish through this review what the best practices are and how to best utilize it because it’s also quite time consuming. We want to make sure that people are going to the right place. So if someone needs supportive housing, we wanna help to direct them. So that’s why a lot of this work will be in conjunction with the Coordinated Access team.

Thank you, Ms. Smith, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So if we’re moving to 80% will be chronological, are we still looking at priority populations in there in terms of veterans, women, women with children, that type of thing?

Thank you, Councillor, back to staff. Thank you, Chair, through you. Those are currently the Coordinated Access priority populations. Those aren’t populations that are prioritized through the Housing Access Center.

Under the Provincial Housing Services Act legislation, we’re required to prioritize the special priority individuals in our community. So those are people fleeing violence and people who have experienced human trafficking. Beyond that, it’s up to us to make local rules. So part of this review will be to see how we align with our counterparts in Coordinated Access to try and create a more consistent system that reflects what the needs of the community are.

Thank you, Ms. Ford. Back to Councillor Stevenson, noting you have 25 seconds left. Is this the time I ask for more time then, or do I wait till my time runs out?

It’s up to you, Councillor. I will ask now if I can have another five minutes. Looking for a motion for an extra five minutes for Councillor Stevenson. Moved by Councillor Per beau, looking for a seconder.

And we have a second with Councillor Raman. Do I explain why? Okay, no discussion. We will call the question.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you, Councillor. You have five minutes. Thank you.

I appreciate that colleagues. The other part was about the out of town applicants. And I saw the percentage that are on the list that reside out of town. But do you know how many, I think it’s gonna be a surprise to people that we weren’t prioritizing those who live in our area.

And I wondered how much that actually has happened. Do we track that at all? Back to staff. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

If I understood the question, it is asking how many people on the wait list with urgent status are from outside of London Middlesex. And the number is, as of just before this meeting, 356 households. Thank you, Ms. Ford, Councillor Stevenson.

Yeah, thank you. I’ll ask it a little more clear, was, I know there’s a percentage on our list that are from out of town, but have we actually been housing people from out of town? Or is this proactively saying we’re gonna, now that we’re moving to chronological, we’re gonna focus on people who have lived here for X amount of months. Thank you, Councillor, back to Ms.

Ford. Thank you, Chair, and through you, the current urgent populations that the community established some time ago did not specify that applicants should not be from outside of London Middlesex. So currently, we do allow applicants with urgent status to achieve urgent status within our service manager region. So the ask is that we would stop doing that to help address the urgent needs of people within our community.

Thank you, Ms. Ford, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I’ll switch to page nine. And at the bottom, it talks about the household income limits.

When I do a little math on it, it looks like this switch in focus is going to, I’m wondering what the financial impacts will be. Thank you, Councillor, back to staff. I may be asked more clearly. So where it talks about the household income limits, as we switch from one limit to another, I’m assuming the RGI amount that is paid out is going to be less for this 80% than it was for the 20%.

And that we’ll be able to help more houses or more households, the money will go further. Is that a correct assumption? Thank you, Councillor, Ms. Ford.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, currently one of the requirements of urgent status is that you be within the high needs household income limits. So although that is C on the list, the urgent status households are currently also high needs income limits. So under the Housing Services Act, there are two levels of income limit. One is just called household income limits, and then there’s the high needs household income limits.

And we have a service level standard for housing a certain number of high needs households. So I don’t anticipate that this would end up costing less as a system because, yeah, because the urgent status households are all high needs income households anyway. Thank you, Ms. Ford, Councillor Stevenson.

So would many of the chronological be in that same high need household income limit? Dr. Staff. Thank you, and through the chair, the chronological is a mix of individuals who are part of the HSA established high needs income limit but also our regular household income limit.

So whereas the urgent status is all high needs income limits, the chronological is a mix. I don’t have a breakdown or ratio of what that mix would be though at this time. Thank you, Ms. Cooper, back to Councillor Stevenson.

Yeah, no, that’s okay, it helps. It just, so another question I had is, now I’m on page 19 of the Appendix B. And it says that there’s difficulties in tracking applicants in difficulty tracking outcomes. And I was just curious if what we’re doing with that or if we’re gonna be tracking this to see that we get the results that we’re looking for?

Thank you, Councillor, to the staff. Thank you, and through the chair, sorry. I’m not clear on what exactly we’re in the report, the Councillors referencing, my apologies. No, it’s okay, the pages are different.

This is page 19 in Appendix B. So it’s the third page of Appendix B. Councillor, just to confirm. So would that be page 19 of the report?

Yes, I’ve seen that now, page 19 of the report. Okay, so page 19 of the report, page four of the Appendix. And it’s really just, there was to talk about measuring tracking, and I’m just curious as to what that’s gonna look like. Through you, your chair, I might start this answer while the team compiles their response.

So acknowledging that what you see in Appendix B is what was heard through the consultation process with the number of service managers. So again, not inconsistent with our experience in London, but not solely informed by the experience of London Middlesex. Where references other difficulties and tracking applicants on the waitlist due to the number of people in the different urgent groups, part of this review is to try and simplify that process. Really, we started some of this review process in 2022 where we tried to streamline some of this work, tried to eliminate some of those side door entries into the housing waitlist.

It is acknowledged though that that is difficult when you have so many people coming from so many different referral sources on different urgent status, different lists. You end up running multiple lists within your waiting list that you’re trying to manage. So this review will help identify where we can still find continuous improvement and streamlining that to better consolidate who’s on the list, narrow down those different categories and be very purposeful about who’s on the list when. There’s also a lot of movement.

So as people are on a waitlist here in London and they’re unsuccessful in getting housing for a period of time, they may drop off our radar, they may move out of community. And so the team that reports to Mr. Cooper, they’ve been doing a lot of work to start to clean up that application process, start to better manage that waitlist so we can actually get some more real time point and time data, including doing a bit of a deep dive into some of the income levels of those that are on that waitlist. So we can better understand what the real gap is in terms of the folks that are on the waitlist looking for housing and what some of those discrepancies might be around the market rent and affordable housing rent.

So hopefully that brought my team enough time to add to that answer. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. I believe the team in the back has anything to expand on that, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, I think just to add to Mr. Dickens’ comments, it is really that understanding and tracking individuals after they’ve been housed as well, right, and their need as they move into housing and then to utilize the additional tools available to service providers to determine somebody’s ability to live independently, maybe they have different support needs. It’s really being doing a better job, honestly, as a system to track that.

And so that’s part of why there’s an interim response here, looking to understand how this change might impact that and then bringing forward a more longer term change in Q2 of 2024. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, Councillor. Thank you.

And I do appreciate that this is just the interim step and I’m looking forward to what’s coming in Q2 of 2024. It mentions in here, you know, how do we make sure that we’re getting to the people that are most in need without the consequences and the negative consequences that we’ve been experiencing? So I just, my concern a little bit is by taking, by removing, lowering the percentage so much on the urgent quadrant, are we gonna miss the people who are homeless who wouldn’t create those problems? Is there a way to identify those and make sure that we’re taking care of them?

‘Cause we’ve got the high acuity stuff coming with whole of community. But I’m concerned about the people who’ve ended up homeless who maybe have the skills to live independently and it’s really just is a house. Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair, I think it really highlights the work that Ms. Ford’s team is doing with our coordinated access system. Those individuals who are identified as experiencing homelessness should and do connect into our coordinated access system where they have additional tools to assist those individuals to live independently. And social housing could be an option for those individuals, potentially some of the two out of the 10 as we look to match individuals.

Our teams are working as many other communities are on aligning what a coordinated access system really means and the historical weightless process that is bound in legislation. Our coordinated access is not bound in legislation, it is best practices utilizing some direction from our federal funders. So our commitment and has been for our team is to look at improving those experiences for individuals who are in need, whether they’re applying for social housing or looking to maintain their existing housing or look to move into a different type of unit that meets their support or social needs. Thank you, Mr.

Cooper, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I noticed under when they did service manager interviews with some of the other cities, one prioritized graduates of supportive housing. And I imagine this is gonna be something we’re gonna be talking about more as people come out of our highly supportive housing with the whole of community.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, Mr. Dickens. Through you, Mr. Chair, certainly would be an option as we look at all housing types.

So looking at rank your income for those that it would apply to, recognizing again, though that that’s a stock that is not nearly large enough, but we would also look at all housing types. So working in individual graduate from highly supportive housing into housing with fewer supports and ultimately graduate to housing with little to no supports. That might be in some affordable housing spaces. It might be in market rent with rent subsidies and housing allowances.

It might be affiliated with housing support programs. So I don’t think it’s a direct correlation, but it would be one of the housing types we’d look at. When we talk about the whole of community system response, we look at a continuum of housing. Certainly not in a place where we can exclude any housing types.

So I wouldn’t say it’s a sole landing spot, but it would be one of many. Thank you, Mr. Dickens, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you.

I only have a couple of questions left. One of them is, I realize it was back in 2005, but when I look at the other urgent to chronological wait list ratios, we were like the complete opposite of everyone else, it seems. Do you know what the reasoning was back then? I’m just curious if there was some.

Thank you, Councillor, back to staff. Thank you, and through the chair, I don’t really have a lot more information on the rationale back in 2005, sorry. Thank you, Mr. Cooper, Councillor Stevenson.

No, that’s fair enough. The last question is, it talks about, you know, the problems that we’ve had, and now we currently have with problem tenants in our social housing units. Do we know sort of how many we have that are in tribunal situations or are we quantifying where we’re at so that we can know where we’re at in a few years and know that those situations have gone down? Thank you, Councillor.

I will look back to staff, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Some of that work would actually fall under our municipal housing development team, and I don’t think Mr.

May, there’s would have that at his fingertips. So if it’s a question, I’d like us to get back to you and we’re happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Dickens, I go back to Councillor Stevenson noting you have 30 seconds left.

All right, thank you. I have a few other little questions and I’ll send those via email. So thank you all for answering my questions. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Perbault.

Mr. Chair, to the staff, thank you very much for this report and, you know, with my limited, I would say experience with such population, I would say that the points are really accurate and I’d love to see the challenges, risks and opportunities that are listed, they are really meaningful and I really think that they are very, very accurate. I think, and I heard it from the staff during the last 10 or 15 minutes, the two keywords reviewed and evaluated. And I really think, I know you all, or some of you mentioned it, and I really think this is gonna be the secret of the success that we are on this path.

We made the decision. Last time it was 2005, you came with this proposal. I’m really happy with it. But the thing is, again, the time will tell and I just wanna, even though you did already mention it, I just wanna reiterate it that you really have to review it and evaluate it and see if there are certain things that are not working to adjust it and not to wait for a very long time.

So thank you very much for that. In terms of what was already stated by two of my colleagues, I really would like to recommend from six months to nine months as well. And I know if we need to make a motion or if I can make a motion to, I think it was on the beat. Sorry, I don’t have it, I’m sorry.

Thank you, Councillor. We haven’t actually moved the staff recommendation yet. So if you were to move the staff recommendation and change the six months to nine months, then if you get a seconder, we should be able to do that. So I would like to move that with the change from six months to nine months.

And I have a seconder with Councillor Stevenson. Okay, we’re just waiting for the language so you can see that up in front of you. Councillor Stevenson. Thanks, I know I had 30 seconds left.

So I will just say thank you for this because there are so many people in the social housing that email and call and I know you guys talk to them as well. And for many, it’s a desperate situation. So this is a little beacon of light and hope that we’re changing things that it will get better. And I’m sure they’re all, as I am looking forward to Q2 and the report of how we can really move forward with something great.

Thank you, Councillor. I believe that should be up now in front of your eScribe. So just look at that and it looks like that motion should be in front of you. I have no one else on the speakers list.

So we’ll call the question. Sorry, I don’t have it on my screen. Using the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you, colleagues.

That is it for the consent items. So next it’s scheduled items. I have nothing on the list. And then items for direction.

I also have nothing on the list for that. So we are now on deferred matters in additional business. So I’m looking for speakers for 5.1, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just did have a question about the one that was just added number six on the deferred matters list.

‘Cause it did say that there were gonna be quarterly reports for the update on the HCI as well as this one by Q3. So I’m happy to see it that it’s coming November 14th, but I wondered about the quarterly reports. Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Madis.

Yep, through the chair. So there was just a delay in getting the September version of the report. So Mr. Falberg wasn’t able to make this meeting.

So I had to bump it to the November meeting. So an anticipation is that we will be doing that. We just weren’t able to meet that, the deadline for this period. So, but we will be bringing forward in November.

Thank you, Mr. Madis. Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thanks, great.

So we’ll get both reports then in November. Mr. Madis. Through the chair, I don’t want to reveal completely what the report is gonna be saying.

There will only be one report. Thank you, Mr. Madis. Councillor.

I would just wait and see that. Thank you, Councillor. Pay for other speakers to 5.1. No one, I will be calling the question for item 5.1.

My apologies. I would need a mover and a seconder for the item 5.1. I have a mover and acting Mayor Lewis, seconder and Councillor Perbele. Seconder and Councillor Raman, Mr.

Stevenson. How often is the deferred matters list brought forward to council? Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Go to the clerk for that.

Through the chair, that would be quarterly. Councillor Stevenson, being Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to provide recognizing that colleagues at the committee are new on the deferred matters list.

This used to be a regular feature of agendas monthly. And the reality is that things often sat on change for months. So when the committee chairs, this term met with the clerk six, eight weeks ago, whenever that date was, the request was that, could we please start to see the deferred matters list, but that quarterly would be fine because the changes are just not that frequent. And so that was just administratively.

It’s just always been a practice that they come forward. And then this came up at Civic Works earlier today. There was a verbal update to a change of update from our staff with regard to one of the items on that deferred matters list. It doesn’t require a council or a committee motion to change that date.

When the clerks hear a verbal update from staff, they will update the list accordingly so that the next time it appears before you have the most recent date provided by staff. So I just wanted to help provide a little context to where that has come from. Thank you, Acting Mayor, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you and not to get into the crossing, but I appreciate that information.

And I just wondered, like for me, this one happened out of the May committee meeting. And so it, because it really matters to me, I was thinking about it ‘cause I remembered it was October, but otherwise I might have missed it. And so I’m wondering, does the, so I would almost prefer to have it monthly just so that if there was something that was deferred, I could quickly check to make sure it immediately got added, even if it was something that was committed to for six months or a year away. Otherwise it’s a lot to keep track of.

So I would prefer it monthly again, or is there a, is there an ability to check with the clerk? Do they keep track of it on a monthly basis and only share it with council once a quarter? Thank you, Councillor. Just a second, Ms.

Corner. As we’ve done in the other committees, we can administratively action that to be monthly or every other month or whatever you wish. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, seeing as we’re switching committees, are we better to wait until the next one?

And then it’s something I could bring up at the next one. Okay, let’s leave it for tonight, thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Looking for the speaker’s list for 5.1.

Thank you, we have a mover and a seconder, so I’ll call the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, thank you. Next item is 5.2, added by Councillor Stevenson for the winter response.

So I will open that for discussion. Thank you. This was just, this is just a tidy up issue so that I can see the other part of the portion that I filed them before. I apologize for not clarifying ahead of time, but my recollection was that the information was available at the clerk’s office just waiting for me to do this piece.

So it’s just, like I said, I’m just checking to see because the info that I filed for the contract didn’t, however I filed it, it didn’t pick up the financial component. And so I just want to be able to see it to complete that project, ‘cause I don’t want it left out there that there was a $3 million contract without financial information or that I didn’t check to see it. And my understanding is it’s there. I just need to go through this process.

It was recommended that I do it in close camera rather than file another MFPPA. So I’m just following the instructions that I was given. Thank you, Councillor and Councillor, are you looking to put this motion on the floor? Yes, please.

And I have a mover I’m looking for a seconder. Seconded by Councillor Perbal, looking for discussion. Councillor Perbal. I want to say that I’m seconding because I do want to have the opportunity to see it for us to move in terms of the future.

So when we look and we negotiate similar contracts, I really would like to see and learn from it if there is a room for improvement and for us to be better. If there is, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Perbal. I have Councillor Ramen next.

Back to Councillor Stevenson. Apologies, I forgot. There was an amendment I wanted to make to this. I just sent it to the clerk and it just drops off B and combines A and B together just to simplify it.

So I’d like to move this motion. I don’t know if you want me to read the new one or just let it come up on the screen. Okay, it says that the civic administration be directed to bring forward to a future meeting of the Community and Productive Services Committee, the following information. The full detailed financial information related to the winter response contract between the corporation of the city of London and London Cares, including the supporting financial information and the associated subcontract information as may be applicable.

So I just took off a few things, made it a little bit more simple and left it open to a future meeting rather than the next meeting. Thank you, Councillor. And Councillor Perbal is seconding the amended motion. Next on the list, Councillor Ramen.

Thank you. I guess I’m waiting for this just to come up to see the language change just to be, just to be clear. Just wondering two things. One, are we looking at winter response on the 31st?

Would it be possible to get this in time for the 31st so that we have this before we have that or went the same day that we have that discussion? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, no, we would not be able to turn that around for the October 31st SPPC.

We did, I will acknowledge we did do a year-over-year comparison report for Committee already on the winter response of previous years. Staff would need to go and pull this information to make it available to Committee. Right now, staff are working on standing up the hubs and bringing forward the new contract amendments for sustaining the sector, as well as a number of quarterly reports that have come in from operators on their financial operations. So we would work at our best to hit the next caps, be our earliest.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Councillor Ramen. I believe that that, thank you.

And thank you, and I have myself on the speakers next, and then I’ll go back to Councillor Stevenson. So I just indulged me for a little bit from the chair. I was willing to vote on portions of A, the full detailed financial information related to the winter response contract between the Corporation of the City of London and London Cares. And then I would have loved to see for that information to come in camera and not on the next cycle.

So if that part of the motion was stuck there, I would be supporting that, but I wasn’t willing to support B and C. I will go to Councillor Stevenson. We’ll take another peek at that. But just to be clear, I don’t think it’s relevant to the new cold weather stuff that’s coming.

This is just, I just wanna see the information that was available at the time that the contract was signed. So my understanding is that it’s already with the clerk’s office. I could be incorrect. So I don’t think there’s any extra work from staff.

And I know they’re busy and I’m not in a rush for this. It’s just a matter of completing something that I started. It’s not, for me, there’s no rush on it prior to the cold weather. Thank you, Councillor.

I do see that now. The one portion that I was not willing to vote on was including supporting financial information and the associated subcontract information as may be applicable as from what I read right here. So if you would be willing to remove that part, you would see my vote for that. I just want whatever was attached to the contract or what we did with the contract.

So I don’t know if they’re gonna be able to pull it out if it’s there. So I can maybe not do it specifically that I just want the information, supporting financial information for that contract and leave it at that. I’d be happy with that. Councillor Steve, it’s in, do you mind restating that part for the clerk?

I’m okay with taking out everything after London cares. So there’s a, where it says, including the supporting financial information and the associated subcontract information. And I’m looking to the seconder. Well, seconded, even though one of the purposes that I was supporting this, I did wanna see what was submitted.

And again, to learn from it for the future if the information we received was sufficient or if there is a need to be done and educate the agencies or sorry, educate the agencies and inform the agencies what we are particularly looking for. So I will second it. I’m okay with that, but just so you know, that’s why I was looking for the subcontracts. I was looking, I just wanted to know what was submitted and if I felt it was sufficient, great.

If I felt it wasn’t, I just wanted to inform the agencies what we are looking for. That’s all it was for my end. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble, Councilor Stevenson.

If it’s helpful, the contract is between the city and London Cares and this even taking that portion out, we get the full detailed financial information related to that contract. So we will see what it entails without being specific ‘cause subcontracts obviously would be something different. Thank you, Councilor. And I’m just going to ask a question to staff from the chair and I just would like to know, I’m recognizing that this would be brought into close session.

Any personal information or personal financial information that may be and that would that be redacted by staff before it comes to Council? Yes, Mr. Chair, there are two paths that could go on this. If it’s a public report, then any proprietary information would need to be redacted.

We would work with legal on that. If there’s a desire to see all the detail, then that would be an in-camera report, which I think was noted by the mover. Thank you, Ms. Livingston.

Anybody else on the speakers list? Dang there, Lewis. Thank you, so colleagues, I first of all, Councilor Stevenson, I appreciate you being flexible on removing some components. I was particularly concerned with clause C, creating quite a bit of work for staff to backtrack and produce timelines and come back to us with another full report.

If we just want to see the contracts in detail, certainly any Councilor has the prerogative to ask for those in-camera. And I know it isn’t being noted, but I think that it is clear from the motion that you’re requesting for the full detailed information related to the contract. I think it is important that we remain in-camera piece as I’m being noted because it is ultimately not Council’s decision as to what goes in-camera, but on the advice of the clerk under the guidance of the NISPL Act, what is eligible to go in-camera. So I just think that that’s important that it’s in it being noted.

As much as I think several of us might find it more comfortable if it was an actual clause, we do have to leave that to the discretion of the clerk to deem what has to go in-camera. So I will say I like the short inversion much better than the original and hopefully that now we sort of word smith out something a little shorter. We can dispense with this and I really appreciate the flexibility on not asking staff to bring this back at the next meeting ‘cause you’re absolutely right. They are extremely busy right now and they need to be able to focus on the at-hand issues first.

So I do appreciate your patience in terms of letting them do the high priority things they have to do first. All right, thank you, Acting Mayor. Anybody else? Okay, we’ll call the question.

I’m closing the vote. The motion carries five to zero. Okay, that is it for the deferred matters and additional business. Next, I have confidential items.

Two items on the confidential list, 6.1 and 6.2. So I will look for a mover to go into in-camera. So I have a mover by Councillor Ramen, a seconder by Councillor Stevenson. Right, the vote will come up on your E-Scribe.

Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, let’s just give staff a little bit of time to move out and some in and lock the doors. Big colleagues, we are back in open session. I will be looking to Councillor Ramen to report out on the confidential session.

Thank you, I’m pleased to report that progress was made on item 6.1 and 6.2. Thank you, Councillor. And that leaves us to our last adjournment, moved by Acting Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Ramen. Sorry, Acting Mayor.

Just a comment on our adjournment before we do that. I mentioned this at Civic Works earlier today, but I know not everybody was there. So to colleagues, congratulations today is one year since election day. So you have successfully survived one year as elected officials, congratulations.

And now I’ll move the adjournment. Okay, and all in favor of the adjournment, you’re opposed, carried. And we have sandwiches in the other room. So don’t forget about your sandwiches.

Thank you.