October 31, 2023, at 2:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 2:05 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier, E. Peloza, S. Franke, and P. Van Meerbergen were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor J. Pribil disclosed a pecuniary interest related to item 2.2 regarding the October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report as it relates to funding for Downtown London Business Association as the Councillor indicated they are a member of the Association.

That it BE NOTED that Councillor S. Lehman disclosed a pecuniary interest related to item 2.2 regarding the October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report as it relates to funding for Downtown London Business Association as the Councillor indicated they are a member of the Association.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That consent items 2.4 and 2.5 BE APPROVED, with the exclusion of items 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.4   Updates to Appointment of Members to Committee, Civic Boards and Commissions Process

2023-10-31 Staff Report - Updates to Appointment of Members to Committee

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken:

a)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 31, 2023 Appendix ‘A’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 7, 2023 to amend CPOL.-71-303 being “Appointment of Council Members to Standing Committees of Council and Various Civic Boards and Commissions Policy” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”; and

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated October 31, 2023 as Appendix ‘B’ BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on November 7, 2023 to amend CPOL.-398-43 being “Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards and Commissions” to repeal and replace Schedule “A”.

Motion Passed

2.5   8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-31 Submission - 8th Report of DIACAC

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the 8th and 10th Reports of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meetings held on October 12 and October 25, 2023, respectively, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   London’s Housing Pledge: A Path to 47,000 Units by 2031 Update

2023-10-31 Staff Report - (2

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London Municipal Housing Target:

a)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to give priority to development applications and building permits that serve to accelerate and support an increase to housing supply, including initiatives and projects related to the Housing Accelerator Fund.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation request for M. Wallace, LDI, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.2   October Progress Update - Health and Homelessness Whole of Community System Response

2023-10-31 Staff Report - October Progress Update

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following Actions be taken regarding October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response report;

a)    the October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response Report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    One-time grants of $1,160,000 to Downtown London Business Association and $500,000 to Old East Village Business Improvement Area (OEV BIA) BE APPROVED, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve from funds set aside to offset the financial impacts of COVID-19;

c)    a one-time grant of $250,000 to the Argyle and Hamilton Road Business Improvement Associations be APPROVED, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve funds; and that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reach out to all Business Improvement Associations and invite a representative to participate in Business Reference Table the Strategy and Accountability Table discussions;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with b), and c);

e)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal agreement by by-law relating to b), and c) under s. 22.9 of the Council Procedure by-law;

f)    the Deputy City Manager Social and Health development BE DELEGATED, or written designate, the authority to approve any grant agreements related to b), and c); and

g)    the London Service Depots Summary Report: Results From the First 60 Days of Implementation BE RECEIVED for information as appended to the staff report dated October 31, 2023 as Appendix “A”;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received the following communications with respect to this matter:

  •    a communication dated October 25, 2023 from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and S. A. Collyer, Board Chair, London Downtown Business Association;

  •    a communication dated October 25, 2023 from K. Morrison, General Manager and M. Drangova, Board Chair, Old East Village BIA;

  •    a communication dated October 27, 2023 from S. Courtice, Executive Director, London InterCommunity Health Centre;

  •    a communication dated October 28, 2023 from L. Sallabank, Owner, Salon Entrenous;

  •    a communication dated October 30, 2023 from Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor McAlister; and

  •    a communication dated October 30, 2023 from Councillors Pribil and Cuddy.

it be further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from Peter Gioiosa with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the delegation request for Peter Gioiosa, BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, with respect to the October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response, the following actions be taken:

a) that a new part c) be added to read “that, a one-time grant of $250,000 to the Argyle and Hamilton Road Business Improvement Associations be APPROVED, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve funds and;

Motion Passed (8 to 4)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, the proposed amendment be amended to include:

a) a new part be added to read “that, a one-time grant of $125,000 to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association be APPROVED, with funding to be sourced from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve funds;

b) that the existing parts BE AMENDED to reflect the new part.

Motion Failed (5 to 7)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That with respect to the October Progress Update – Health & Homelessness Whole of Community System Response, the following actions be taken:

Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reach out to all Business Improvement Associations and invite a representative to participate in Business Reference Table the Strategy and Accountability Table discussions; and that the existing parts BE AMENDED to reflect the new part.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor Stevenson BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 2 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed

2.3   Community Cold Weather Response

2023-10-31 Staff Report - Cold Weather Response Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken regarding the Community Cold Weather Response Report;

a)    Community Cold Weather Response Report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    APPROVE a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $236,550 (excluding HST) for the period of December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response drop-in space and outreach supports, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

c)    TO AUTHORIZE and APPROVE a one-time funding allocation of up to $157,224 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue;

d)    TO AUTHORIZE and APPROVE a one-time funding allocation of up to $42,938 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services to support security services for 371 Hamilton Road;

e)    APPROVE a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services at a total estimated increase of up to $350,000 (excluding HST) for the period of December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response drop-in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

f)    APPROVE a funding reallocation of $187,750 (excluding HST) from the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with the Salvation Army Centre of Hope from the 2022-23 winter response to support the extension of shelter bed and shower services for the period of December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

g)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-286) with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $638,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response drop-in space from October 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

h)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-287) with Safe Space London in the amount up to $259,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response drop-in space from December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

i)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-288) with 519 Pursuit in the amount up to $60,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response outreach services from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

j)    APPROVE funding from the existing Housing Stability Services budget for the total allocation amount of up to $100,000 to support costs associated with the cold weather response for those who will remain unsheltered;

k)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in b) through i); and,

l)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in the staff report dated October 31, 2023 as Schedule 1.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken regarding the Community Cold Weather Response Report;

c)    TO AUTHORIZE and APPROVE a one-time funding allocation of up to $157,224 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for London Cares Homeless Response Services to support security services for 602 Queens Avenue;

d)    TO AUTHORIZE and APPROVE a one-time funding allocation of up to $42,938 from the Social Services Reserve Fund for CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services to support security services for 371 Hamilton Road;

e)    APPROVE a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services at a total estimated increase of up to $350,000 (excluding HST) for the period of December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response drop-in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

g)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-286) with The Ark Aid Street Mission in the amount up to $638,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response drop-in space from October 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

h)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-287) with Safe Space London in the amount up to $259,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response drop-in space from December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

j)    APPROVE funding from the existing Housing Stability Services budget for the total allocation amount of up to $100,000 to support costs associated with the cold weather response for those who will remain unsheltered;

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken regarding the Community Cold Weather Response Report;

a)    Community Cold Weather Response Report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    APPROVE a funding increase extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $236,550 (excluding HST) for the period of December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response drop-in space and outreach supports, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

f)    APPROVE a funding reallocation of $187,750 (excluding HST) from the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with the Salvation Army Centre of Hope from the 2022-23 winter response to support the extension of shelter bed and shower services for the period of December 1, 2023, to March 31, 2024, to administer the City of London 2023-24 Cold Weather Response, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e); to the following existing agreements;

i)    the approval BE GIVEN to enter into a Single Source contract (SS2023-288) with 519 Pursuit in the amount up to $60,000 (excluding HST) for the provision of cold weather response outreach services from December 1, 2023, to May 31, 2024, in accordance with the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy section 14.4, clause (e);

k)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in b) through i); and,

l)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in the staff report dated October 31, 2023 as Schedule 1.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Delegation - Bill Rayburn, CAO, Middlesex County and Neal Roberts, Middlesex-London Paramedic Service - Service Overview and Operating Pressures

2023-10-31 Submission - Middlesex-London Paramedic Service

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Lehman

That with respect to the matter with respect to the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service, that the following actions be taken:

a) that the Mayor BE REQUESTED to support the Middlesex County and Middlesex-London Paramedic Service in their advocacy including but not limited to issues of dispatch, off load delays, and funding formula; and

b) that the presentation from N. Roberts, Chief of Middlesex-London Paramedic Service and B. Rayburn, CAO, Middlesex County, with respect to the Middlesex-London Paramedic Service, Service Overview and Operating Pressures, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

3.2   Delegation - London Transit Commission -  2023 to 2027 Work Plan Update

2023-10-31 Submission - LTC

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the presentation from Kelly Paleczny, General Manager and Sheryl Rooth, Commission Chair, London Transit Commission, with respect to the 2023 to 2027 Work Plan Update, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Confirmation of Appointments to RBC Place London

2023-10-31 Submission - RBC Board Appointments

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the appointments to the RBC Place London Board of Directors:

a) Sara De Candido (Health Care Sector), Class 1, BE APPOINTED for the term ending November 14, 2024; and

b) Jennifer Diplock BE APPOINTED for the term ending November 14, 2024.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   9th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2023-10-31 Submission - (4.2) 9th Report of DIACAC

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 9th Report of Diversity, Inclusion and and Anti-Oppressions Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on October 18, 2023:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award (DRRIA):

i) the Oakridge Presbyterian Church Mission and Outreach BE AWARDED the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in

the Small Business/Small Labour (49 or fewer employees/members) category;

ii) the Islamic Relief Canada London Regional Team BE AWARDED the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Large

Business/Large Labour (50+ members) category;

iii) Project SEARCH BE AWARDED the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Social/Community Services (including Not-for- Profits) (49 or fewer employees/members) category;

iv) the London Track 3 Adaptive Snow School BE AWARDED the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Social/Community Services (50+ members) category;

v) Yesalihuni “They Will Teach You” Youth Initiative BE AWARDED the 2023 Diversity, Race Relations and Inclusivity Award, in the Youth/Young Adult Groups or Organizations category; and,

vi) the Awards and Recognition Sub-Committee report with respect to the 2023 DRRIA Recommendations BE RECEIVED;

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 6.1 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   City of London’s Response to Housing and Homelessness - Councillors S. Stevenson and J. Pribil

2023-10-31 Submission - Homelessness-Stevenson and Pribil

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the communication dated October 23, 2023 from Councillors S. Stevenson and J. Pribil, with respect to the City of London’s Response to Housing and Homelessness, BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 29, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London’s response to Housing and Homelessness and report back to the November 21, 2023 Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meeting:

a) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the recovery services currently being offered and explore opportunities to provide/expand recovery focused programs within the existing and/or newly established local emergency shelters and facilities;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on current staffing ratios and explore establishing minimum staffing ratios within existing local emergency shelters; and

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to identify the costs, operational start dates, and potential sources of available funding for the above potential recovery based programs and increased staffing;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated October 23, 2023 from Councillors S. Stevenson and J. Pribil and a communication dated October 29, 2023 from C. Butler with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (4 to 10)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Committee recess for 10 minutes at this time

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 4:33 PM and reconvenes at 4:51 PM

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1   Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.2    Litigation/Potential Litigation

       

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

6.3    Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual  

     

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee convenes In Closed Session from 7:49 PM to 8:39 PM.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following items BE REFERRED to the Council Meeting to be held on November 7, 2023 for consideration;

6.1 Land Acquisition/Disposition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.2 (ADDED) Litigation/Potential Litigation A matter pertaining to litigation or potential litigation and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

6.3 (ADDED) Personal Matter/Identifiable Individual A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, with respect to the 2024 Mayor’s New Year’s Honour List.

Motion Failed (4 to 9)

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:42 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 (6 hours, 4 minutes)

Okay, I’m gonna call the 26th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. I’m gonna start by reading and land acknowledgement. City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. Further, I wanna say that the city of London is committed to making every effort to providing alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon a request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact sppc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

I also wanna recognize that associated with the presentation, but it’s always nice to have her here at the Warden of Middlesex County, Kathy Burkhardt-Gesson is. Join us today, so thank you, Warden, for being present at our meeting. We always enjoy your company and, of course, the partnership that we have with the county on many issues. With that, I will look for disclosures of pecuniary interest from colleagues.

Councillor Layman. I declare a pecuniary interest on 2.2 as I’m a member of the LDBA. Councillor Pribble. 2.2 as well as I’m a member of LDBA as well, and the letter that was sent as an amendment, I would like to pull it out as well due to the pecuniary interest.

Thank you. So colleagues, so when we get to the letter that was drafted, now the Councillor Pribble has declared that we can’t just pull it off the agenda, but we can do it like a note and file in the letter as part of the regular receiving of that piece. So we’ll have that language as appropriate, as appropriate, pulled up at the appropriate time on that item. Any other disclosures of interest?

Okay, colleagues, we have a number of consent items, but I anticipate that item 2.2, given colleagues of, some colleagues have written letters suggesting alternates that colleagues are gonna wanna pull that one out. So we’ll deal with that one at the items for direction stage. Is there any other of the consent items that colleagues would like to help with separately? Councillor Stevenson.

2.3 please. 2.3. We probably have to pull 2.1 if there’s interest from colleagues on receiving the delegation as well, ‘cause that would move beyond just a regular consent item. So I see interest in actually considering a motion for the delegation, so we’ll deal with that separately too, which only leaves us 2.4 and 2.5 left.

Good look for a motion for those two together. I see Deputy Mayor Lewis, Secretary Vice Councillor Cuddy, and given that’s moved and seconded, I’d look for any comments on those items under consent. So 2.4 and 2.5, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.

And I just wanna offer a comment on 2.4 because I’ve been asked by members of the public about this with regard to boards and commissions. This particular item is specific to how Councillors select our appointments to specifically our standing committees in this case. The broader question of appointments to boards and commissions for members of the public is still at governance working group. And at some point there will be a recommendation come forward to SPPC from that working group, but we’re ways away from bringing anything forward on that yet.

Okay, any other comments? Okay, that’s moved and seconded. So we’ll open both of those items for voting. Posing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, that actually brings us to the scheduled items ‘cause the items that we pulled will be dealt with under after items for direction are completed. The first scheduled item is a delegation and there’s no need to vote on this delegation request. The County of Middlesex and Middlesex London Paramedic Services can basically be granted standing before this committee. I have given them 10 minutes ‘cause that was their request for the presentation on this item and then we’ll take questions from colleagues after the presentation is complete.

So with that, I can turn it over to Mr. Rayburn and welcome today and we appreciate you coming today. Yes, thank you for having me, Bill Rayburn. I’m the CAO for the County of Middlesex.

I wear a couple of other hats. I’m the CEO for the MLPS Authority Board and I’m the chair of the authority board as well. And today I wanna have a different type of conversation chair. I don’t want to come here and talk about money at all.

My friend Anna said, is it that time of year again? And I said, yes, but we’re not quite there yet. Instead I wanna talk about everything but money. I wanna talk about the pressures around the service and what’s happening out there.

I’ve been responsible for the land ambulance service in this region for 25 years. I’ve never seen the pressures the way they are now and I’m bringing the alarm bells here and I’m bringing the alarm bells at my county council table as well about the pressures we’re seeing in the system and around the system. So as you may know, we share, the conversation I wanna have is a funding conversation with a funder, we’re partners in this. We share risk, we share service responsibilities and we share funding costs.

We share that with the province. So it’s 50% for the province and 50% for us in terms of cost. But really what the conversation today is how do we improve the patient outcomes, reduce risk and reduce the pressures? And the crazy thing about the risks and pressures that we’re facing is that many of them aren’t in the control of the people in this room.

They’re not in my control. They’re not in county council’s control. They’re external and that’s where the real challenges are. I want you to think about the land ambulance service right from the time you think about calling for an ambulance.

Something’s happened and you start to call an ambulance. I call that pre-service because you’re calling dispatch and you’re waiting for an, hopefully not too long and you’re waiting for an ambulance to come. When that ambulance arrives, that’s what I call the service time. That’s what you pay for.

That’s what you are funding is that service time. You’re not funding for and you’re not responsible for what happens before that ambulance arrives. Then we move to what I call post-service. Whenever we arrive at the hospital and we go to bring that patient to the hospital, I call that post-service, who’s responsible there?

That’s the hospital. And again, that’s not what you’re funding. That’s not what you should be responsible for. Your job really is as a funder of the ambulance service and I think we need to start using these terms.

Pre-service, post-service, but ambulance service that you’re responsible for is from pick up to drop off at the land ambulance or at the hospital. So if we think about things in those terms, as I mentioned, you’re not really responsible for things that happened before the ambulance and we’re not either for what happens before. And that’s a terrible thing. Really because we should be, it’s very much for us, like driving a car around the neighborhood, but you really don’t have any control over where you’re going.

You can’t even touch the steering wheel because dispatch is the responsibility of the province. And that’s something that needs to change. And there’s other things that are affecting pre-service as well. And that’s call volume.

I think there’s a slide up here about call volume and call volume is just growing at a crazy clip. We’ve been talking to you about call volume every time I come. Now why is that happening? And people say, well call volume growth is happening across the province, but you are, if not the top, one of the top fastest growing communities and regions in all of Canada.

So this shouldn’t be a surprise. This doesn’t worry me as much as some of the other things I’m gonna talk about. We can deal with call volume demand. It’s something that we can deal with with more service.

And it is something to be expected and you’re going to get more revenue to help support that call volume demand. But this is unprecedented. I’ve never seen these five years in call volume demand like this in my 25 years. Really unprecedented stuff.

And what’s also concerning is the complexity. And when I talk about complexity, I had a counselor sit right over there at last term and he said to me, well Bill isn’t a call, a call. And isn’t, you know, shouldn’t call costs, rise at the price of the number of calls that are coming in. I said no, because we’re seeing the same things you are with challenges around mental health, drug addiction, all these calls are becoming more and more complex.

So your traditional thing, when I was a kid, somebody broke their arm and called an ambulance to go to the hospital. That’s a very rare event now compared to the complexity and the time it takes to deal with each individual call. So I’ve already talked about dispatching and the impact there. This is something that we appreciate the mayor’s help on and the administration’s here help on.

This is our major ask is that you keep helping us get control over the system so that we can do a better job of implementing the solutions that we’ve come up with to address the challenges that we’ve had. But if we move to the slide about offload delays, this is the one that has really got me scared. And this is one that is not sustainable. I stand before you and say, hey, we can fix any problem.

We have lots of ideas, but if we can’t control the keys and the steering wheel, we really can’t fix things. And this is one that isn’t even something that is in our area where we can even look at and it’s not in your area either. This is really a hospital challenge that’s across the province. And you might say, well, Bill, I read a story about this offload delay challenge in Ottawa.

I read about it in Toronto. But you are a primary care center. And what’s happening here in offload delays is acute. It is much worse than other parts of it.

Look at the stats. I’d encourage you to invite the hospital here and talk about it because what we’re seeing is that we’re either at the bottom or near the bottom in offload delays in the province. This is something that we can’t sustain. It has to be fixed.

We can put a Band-Aid over it. We can maybe pay for it for a year or two and respond to it for a little bit. But this is something, when I come back in and we talk about adding an ambulance or what’s happened to insurance costs or fuel costs, this is peanuts compared to that slide. This is really devastating what’s happening with offload delays.

And I’m not just talking about costs. I’m talking about when a patient thinks about the ambulance service. They think about it from the time they call all the way to the time they discharged from the hospital or accepted by the hospital as an ambulance call. And here we are with massive offload delays that we’re not in control of affecting the service responsibility for the people of this community.

So this has to change. And the number one thing I think I would encourage you to say whenever you’re at a delegation or you’re talking to the Premier or you’re talking to anyone from the province or the hospital is what are you doing about offload delays to at least get back to normal in offload delays. And then what are you doing about providing this community with allowing it to run its own dispatch? Those are my two asks.

And when you think about the pre-pressures that I talked about that are happening to ambulance and the post-pressures and ambulance, they combine to push on the ambulance service and create a whole bunch of internal pressures. You’ll see stories in the paper about what this impact is on our paramedics. And it’s true. This is a real challenge for us internally in that these pressures and the demands on our paramedics are becoming unsustainable as well.

And so I can save everybody a lot of time because I am sure that Jerry and the other media will go to paramedics and say, hey, what do you think? Is this a real issue? It’s a real issue. I’m telling you it’s a real issue and we need to fix it.

We need to invest in fixing it because those pressures are getting more and more acute in this community. So I would say there’s a chart there that on the next one that talks about offload delay and your worship, I’d be glad to answer any questions. But we really do appreciate the work that you’ve done and the support that you provided because without that support, we’re not going to get anywhere in addressing these challenges. And when I come back your worship to talk about budget, I’m gonna recap very briefly these system pressures but I’m gonna spend more time talking about the solutions we have but I can’t implement any of them without the controls that we need on dispatch and reductions we need in offload delays.

Thank you, Your Worship. Thank you for the presentation and I appreciate that you didn’t go through all the slides but I’ll let you know that it has been our, in our council package and councilors have gone through them and so they’ll be certainly willing to ask any clarification questions on anything that you’ve, but before us as well as anything that you’ve said and that’s what we’ll move to at this time. I look for questions from colleagues. Go to Deputy Mayor Lewis first.

Thank you, sir. So first of all, thank you for the presentation. I do have a couple of questions for you. I know we’ve got our chief here as well and maybe he might be able to respond to these.

I don’t know if you can speculate on some of these as well ‘cause they are kind of speculative but first I will say I agree with you on the need to control dispatch and I think that there’s a value added peace to the municipality as well in those controls in terms of the number of times that we see overlapping emergency services not just our land ambulance service but fire and police all responding to one call that may be more efficiently responded to by a single service whichever service is the most appropriate in those cases. But I do wonder if you could comment or if the chief could provide some insight on the offload time challenge and the number of those cases that might be diverted from the hospital offload need as the hub system stand up if there is an opportunity, the value that you see of the province allowing for land ambulance offloads at a site that is not the hospital where perhaps mental health or addiction interventions are more appropriate than an emergency room visit. And do you see the potential for some relief through the standing up of that homelessness response? Welcome chief, go ahead.

Thank you Your Worship to the council. So that’s a great question. And certainly what you’re touching on is what Minister Jones identified as models of care. So treat and release, treat and refer which were currently piloting an alternative destination.

So trying to release the burden on an already over strained merge and hospital system. So certain where we can take patients to an alternative destination. The one that council is probably well aware of is the CMHA diversion which again, Middlesex London was the leader in 2017 out of the gates with the province and we led the way on models of care. And certainly with our current FRU which is the first response unit where we’re taking our stacked calls and we’re actually sending a single medic with the hopes of actually transferring care in real time to community paramedics to keep the patient in the community better cared for versus sitting for five, 10, 20 hours in offload.

So certainly it’s about managing it and certainly all options, especially alternative destinations are certainly worth looking at and leave it support. So I appreciate that answer chief and I know that it could be incredibly speculative and difficult to pin down. But I’m just wondering if you have a sense right now of an overall percentage of your calls that may be more appropriately diverted versus requiring. And I know I’m asking you to be highly speculative but even something that’s in the right ballpark doesn’t have to be right up the first baseline but just in a general sense as to what percentage might be appropriately diverted to other sources of care versus the offload times that we’re experiencing in the ERs right now.

Through your worship to the council. So unfortunately I don’t have a number but I’m happy to get back to you with that. But what I would simply say is that 85% of the time we’re going out lights and sirens, we’re going back on a critical care nature for 4% of the time. So that’s an 81% obviously difference.

Now a lot of those patients still require to go to emerge but there are a lot of patients that require alternative levels of care, alternative areas that we certainly are engaging. The hubs are part of that as well because certainly we are picking up a lot of clients that the hubs are looking at addressing that we take into emerge. And because of the lays, those patients basically leave what we call AMA against medical authority or are they just walk? And certainly then maybe a couple hours later we’re being called back.

So certainly we need to look at better options of addressing these patients’ needs and certainly if there’s an opportunity to take them to an alternative destination such as the Hubsore, CMHA as I mentioned. I think any and all options need to be considered as we look towards the current system stream. That’s a problem. And actually this question is for the chief as well.

I just wanted an update last time you were here we were talking about the holding rooms in the hospital to improve the offload delays. And that’s a practice not just throughout Canada but throughout the world that hospitals they have holding rooms, ambulance crews they don’t have to stay with each patient. They can take care of more patients and I know there were some initiatives in London as well. Do we have any update on those?

Again, through your worship to council approval. So certainly we have what’s called a dedicated offload nurse program that is funded by the province. So that’s where we have a dedicated nurse at the Victoria campus, at the University campus and up to six beds that when paramedics are coming in and that they’re able to take these patients. Originally our program was for 16 hours at each site the province provided middle sex law and paramedic service middle sex county with additional funds to allow us for 24 hours a day at each site.

And certainly that is helpful but we continue obviously to exceed that capacity with the numbers of offloads. Basically 51% of the patients we’re taking into an emergency department is immediately going into offload delay meaning we’re in the back hall. And certainly we need to do more working with our healthcare partners on this as Mr. Rayburn has indicated.

We just need the microphone. Nothing to add. Thank you for the update and thank you for your answer. The questions, Councillor Lehman.

Mr. Rayburn, thank you for coming here today. Four years ago, used to before us and quite frankly it was the same message I heard. Unbelievable number of calls offloading serious concern and resulting from that was a significant request from council that we approved in our budget.

What I wanna know is with those extra funds, are you saying to us that you need those extra funding to meet the anticipated demand on your services that are now being exceeded greatly than anticipated four years ago? Is that the message that you’re giving us today? For sure. If you look at those charts that are there about call volume and about what’s happening with offload delay and the complexity of the calls, I’ve signaled to you that you’re right.

Four years ago, I was nervous. Now this is a really acute problem. The offload delays is an acute problem that’s developed over this year that is so significant. There’s going to be costs for all funders, including the County of Middlesex and the City of London, that are not sustainable.

I’m right with you, this isn’t sustainable. We have to get the offload delay problem solved. And again, we have to get control of dispatch because all the things that we’re asked about in terms of solutions are all contingent upon being able to make sure that we can implement those solutions through the use of dispatch. And if we don’t get those two things, I’m going to be here again next month or whatever you invite me.

And I’m going to tell you, we don’t have control over those external pressures. I have no control over offload delays. I have no control over call volume growth. But I have a legislative responsibility to respond to it.

And so that’s where those numbers are coming from that I talked about four years ago. But they’re significantly growth, they’re significant growth compared to when I was on that before. Oh, yes. There we go.

Thank you. So as the operator of the Middlesex London Paramedic Service, and given what we saw four years ago, you can give us an idea of the conversations you’ve had with the province regarding increasing their funding because this is health care. This is health care delivery service, especially when we’re parked in front of hospitals and becoming the fact that hospital beds outside the building. So I want to know what are the results of those conversations that you’ve had with the province?

Well, that is an excellent question. I really appreciate that question because that’s exactly the message I’m trying to get to you today, is that we need to continue to have these conversations. And the need for the solutions to be implemented by the province and the hospital and everybody in the chain past the service and the post-service is more acute now than ever. And so we’ve talked to the premier.

We’ve had the premier sitting right in our office as we said, we need to get dispatch control. We submitted a proposal for that. Now we need the Ministry of Health to approve that. And I’m here today to say, every time you have a conversation with the province, please ask them for that.

We have a meeting with the hospital, I think it’s next week or the week after, talking to them about the solutions that were mentioned over here and about implementing those properly and what can we do to help lobby so that you get what you need from the province so that these off-load delays stop? Because you’re exactly right. I said I wanted to have a funder conversation. It is incontiable that this municipality and the County of Middlesex become taxpayers that are paying for hospital services.

That’s a provincial responsibility. I couldn’t have said it any better myself. But the way off-load delays are working now, we are becoming part of the hospital system for eight, nine, 10, 11, 12 hours. That’s not what you signed up for as a funder.

It’s not what I signed up for as a funder. And it’s not really what a responsibility should be. So we have to keep having this dialogue. I encourage you, I know you have a lot of priorities at the City of London.

But this is one that has huge dollar signs behind it. And I’m telling you, Councillor, that if we don’t get this solved with the province and the hospital, the numbers are going to get much, much worse going forward. I haven’t even talked about the fact that we’re not in cold and flu season yet. Like we’re not even there.

I have a little tickle today, but we’re getting closer to that season. And then I don’t know what’s going to happen there. So we have to get a handle on this. And through chair to staff, what is our role as a city in our discussions with the province or is this because we’re not the operator?

Do we stay out of those conversations? It’s a challenge when we’re the major funder, but yet we’re maybe not at the table. Or maybe we are, I don’t know. So I just, again, through you, Chair.

Yeah, let me start. And then I can go to staff members. So last term is Deputy Mayor. And with the support of then Mayor Holder, we worked with the county to actually start to do joint delegations with the minister and her team.

And the ward and Mr. Rayburn, many of our staff, the chief, were there. And we’ve given full support to the county on a number of the proposals that they want to move forward with and continue to do so. Ultimately at the end of the day, we’re not the service provider, but we are a major funder, the major funder.

And so we’re inherently tied on this. And I know I personally too have offered my support and the engagements that I’ve had with the province to advocate for a number of the solutions that the service is providing. I’ll let our staff and Ms. Livingston comment on some of the other work that we may have done.

But I think I would say to you that our commitment remains the same as it did last term, the challenge has gotten worse. And those conversations are happening. And I would say the chief and the county are very well respected by the province. And we just need to get to the point where they actually make the decision to make some of the changes that the service needs.

And they are capable of doing the work. They know what they can do. They know how they can help on the front-end side. On the back-end side, like Mr.

Rayburn said, that is a little more complex because that is where we integrate conversations with the hospital and the health care system. And as Mr. Rayburn said, these are not things that do not come up in our conversations with them. It’s not something that they’re not contemplating in their master planning process, but simply put that process is too long and too far down the road to solve what is a growing significant funding pressure that both the city and the county are facing.

So I wanted to add that context just ‘cause I’ve been involved in some of the meetings and discussions, but I’ll go to the city manager as well too. Through you, Mr. Mayor, I don’t have much to add other than Mr. Rayburn and I keep in close touch about these issues.

We have been in lockstep with the county on any advocacy position around dispatch, alternate destinations, all of that. We’re together on those approaches. We’ve participated together in AMO delegations with respect to these issues. We’ve participated together in meetings with the hospital who have been very with us in terms of trying to problem solve and find solutions.

And I think we look forward to continuing those conversations as we try to address what is clearly an escalating problem in our community. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Ms. Livingston for kind of that context and history.

So I’ll just say this. Just building on Ms. Livingston’s remarks about the hospital, I see a willingness with the hospitals in London to work closer with the city on our social issues. So I ask, because you’re the operator, that you work with London and maybe using those new open paths of communication to find other ways to get your message through and find some ways we can be more efficient and just ease the burden.

Because as you said, this is unsustainable. It’s just four years again. And I know it’s coming down the road just by, I think you’re painting a picture here. And for the London taxpayers and the County taxpayers, again, we’re being pushed into this avenue of healthcare.

And a property tax is not set up to fund healthcare, and this is a clear example of that. So thank you. Really well said again, I wish I had those words earlier because I think what you’ve highlighted is there are real decisions that Lynn and I and others have to make around the table about service delivery in the county and the city that are being impacted by this force push into healthcare. Lynn and I do talk very regularly, almost every Friday morning we have a chat.

And I tell her, I have to make real decisions about, am I gonna be able to provide this service next year? Because I have this new cost in a service area that is being so challenged by something it shouldn’t be in, which is in the healthcare system at the hospital level as you quite correctly pointed out. So that’s the challenge we face because it isn’t sustainable to keep putting that on and on and on, the taxpayer. Now we have to look at are we gonna have service cuts in other areas and these are the conversations that are real that we’re having.

Unfortunately at all our tables. And so it isn’t sustainable, you’re right. Mr. Rayburn, I know you don’t wanna talk about money today.

But one of the pieces of context I’d like you to add ‘cause we have a number of new colleagues here is the exacerbation of this issue in the way that the province actually flows money and the time delay so that we can see volume increases but we actually don’t get the money in the year that maybe we have the pressure. And so there’s this awkward position that we have through the way that the province funds and has changed the funding formula. I know I don’t wanna get into budget to ask but there’s some context here again, we’re getting into the advocacy that you, I think you could add that would be valuable for colleagues as we start to move into the budget process. The councilor started to head down that track about asking more funding from the province.

There was a time period just at the beginning of last term where the idea was that there’d be less funding from the province for land ambulance. And I just, the mayor asked me to just highlight for you how the funding works. So in general, in general, it’s a 50/50 split between the province and municipalities. We have a formula for that 50% between the county and the city for how those costs are divided up and every taxpayer in the county roughly and every taxpayer in the city roughly paid the same amount for land ambulance service based upon weighted assessment and some other small tweaks.

So that’s basically how it works but what the mayor is highlighting for you quite correctly is the system, the financial system for land ambulance has a really tough time responding to sudden changes. And you might say, well, why is that? Because shouldn’t you just get 50% more from the province? No, ‘cause there’s a one-year lag on their funding.

So the charts that I’m showing you, I talk, Lynn and I talk about this all the time. I hate hockey stick charts because I can’t keep up with them from a funding perspective. If it goes up like this with call volume, goes up like this with offload delays, I’m not seeing the provincial contribution. They’re 50% to those new demands until the next year.

So then that means your percentage jumps up to 68 or 70. Again, more demand on the services that we’re trying to provide. And it’s an antiquated system that also needs to change to the councilor’s comments. And, but that is a significant challenge.

There’s other communities, you’re gonna go to conferences and you’re gonna hear, oh, we have offload delay challenges and we have call volume growth. No, you don’t have it like you guys have it and we have it. It’s going like this. And if it goes like this, it’s actually manageable.

It is something that you can do. A little night talk all the time about it would be great if we could just have things going like this, but this is just not manageable from a financial perspective. I hope that helps, Mayor. It helps, Councillor Hopkins, you’re next.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you, Mr. Rayburn for the presentation. I do want to just follow up with one of your comments about the advocacy, I guess, with the provincial government.

And I think it’s generally assumed that the province should be responsible for healthcare. And we can see now the downloading is with municipalities. And I do know the conversations with the provinces being going on for a number of years. If we just look at the offloading and the increases, it, I appreciate you being here.

It’s not sustainable. We know that. We know we’ve been advocating as well. So I’m more or less interested in what we can do going forward and what are the opportunities.

And I heard you touch upon, I guess, some of the agreements with the hospitals may be looking at organizing, or reorganizing that relationship. But I’m more or less interested, you mentioned dispatch. What can, where can we make a difference as opposed to knowing that every year it’s increasing? And it will probably continue.

And I appreciate the comments around how we’re always behind with the financial formula. So we know all that’s going to happen, but where can we make a difference? Is there any part of this conversation that we can take away and go, oh, we need to do this to make a difference, even a tiny difference? I think that you have done everything that you can do as a city, and I just need you to do more.

I think the numerous comments about advocacy and the work that, in your comments about advocacy, are great, but we need to start ringing some bells. Like, we gotta wake some people up. This is not something that can, I think too often, we’re reluctant to ring those bells at Queens Park. The word that I have this conversation all the time, she’s not worried about doing it.

We need to make people understand those hockey stick charts are not sustainable. And I asked you to make it a priority, and I really mean it. Like, make it a priority of every conversation you have. Use the tools, you have much better tools at the hospital.

I have sympathy for them. They have their own challenges that they’re dealing with. But you are getting down the line, the risks and responsibilities and the costs associated with what’s happening there. That is the number one driver of what I’m gonna talk about next time.

And so I think you’re doing great things. I just really think that now I’m coming here, asking you to ramp it up. Like, we really need to have that conversation. We’ve had really great conversations with the Premier, really great conversations with the Minister of Health.

They need to implement it as the Mayor said. They need to do it. Because if we get control of dispatch, all these great programs that Neil and his team think up about how we can divert calls from emergency rooms, and how we can not only divert calls from a cost perspective, but 10 times better care for the patient, because they’re going to the right place the first time. That’s something that we really need.

Make a decision province on giving us dispatch, and that should be your message every time you talk to somebody from that. So just more of the same, Anna, it would be really, really appreciated. Good, okay, Councillor Cady. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you.

Mr. Avern, when you speak with your colleagues in York, and in Peel, and Waterloo, Niagara, are they seeing the same numbers? ‘Cause this is an epidemic. I mean, we really have to be fair.

I think Councillor Layman put it in terms, this is unsustainable, and it’s alarming. Thank you. Yes, so I would be remiss if I didn’t say that, and I think I’ve said a few times, this is a challenge everywhere. You could talk to someone in Grey County, and they say the things Bill’s talking about are challenges here.

You could talk to people in Ottawa, and they’ll say the same thing. What I’m telling you is, is the primary care center, you are really struggling with offload delays in this area, to where the point you’re at the bottom, or near the bottom, and offload delays, in the entire province. So yes, it’s a problem everywhere, but when you combine the fact that you’re the fastest growing, and I already talked about the funding challenges, and the mayor helped me out there, with the funding challenges related to that fast growing population, it’s really hard to keep up with. And then you put the pressure on the post coverage of offload delays, where we’re talking 9, 10, 11, 12 hours, when really our job is to be in and out of there, in 30 minutes.

You can imagine what that does, to cost and pressures on the people delivering that service. So yes, there’s problems everywhere in Ontario, and there does need to be a forum on how we fix them, but your challenges are very acute. And if I thought that your problem was average, in the city of London, or in the county of Middlesex, I wouldn’t be here. I’d just say, that’s the system.

Hopefully somebody that is at Queens Park will figure it out. But the reason I’m asking you to advocate harder, than you ever have before, for the solutions we need, is because you have acute problems. Go back and look at those charts. Those are very acute problems, compared to other parts of the province.

Councillor Ramen, next. Oh yes. Thank you and through you. Thank you for the presentation, and for the conversation here at Council, and I will say that I believe that you’ve been heard, that we need to do a better job of advocating.

But what I will say to that is, we have a government that needs to do a better job of listening. Almost everything on this agenda, is items that the government has underfunded, provincially. And so I, federally as well. But I do think you’ve been heard from that account.

And I will say that, I think we take that strong message, that you’re sending to us forward. But I do think we’ve also done a lot to advocate. But obviously, our advocacy, we’re struggling, all of us, and collectively. I mean, the fact that you’ve done such a great job, of having audiences with both the Premier of Ontario, and the Minister of Health.

And we can’t get the resources we need to make this change. I mean, what more can we do, except go back to those same channels? So, absolutely, I hear you plan to go back to those channels. But I also think it’s important that residents start really doing some outreach as well.

And, you know, I know that they turn to us to do that. But we’re at such a critical point, that I think we also need to inspire our residents, to actually take a pen and paper, send those emails, and reach out, and start advocating. Because these pressures are entirely solvable through the province, thank you. Chair, just quickly on that.

That’s really well said as well, because I like the idea of involving the public. Because I get letters, you get letters, I’m sure, talking about the ambulance system not working well, because of something to happen in off-load delay, or the fact that we were code zero, and we couldn’t go because of call or some other things. All these things that are external to the ambulance system, the public does view, as I mentioned earlier, from the time they think about calling, all the way to the time they get accepted at the hospital, like really accepted at the hospital, as ambulance service. And we really need the public to understand, that this crisis is only gonna change, by not giving up.

Keep asking questions, keep writing those letters, keep saying things like, we need a solution, this isn’t acceptable. If this becomes the norm in this region, where, or in any region, to the councilor’s point, about this is happening in other places. If nine, 10, 11, 12 hours becomes a norm, then we’re in real trouble. We can’t take our foot off the pedal on advocacy.

Councillor Trostan. Thank you, and I’m not gonna repeat the many really excellent points that have been made by pretty much everyone here today. But I do wanna say that, we’re gonna have a real problem in this city, when it comes time for us to having to look at our budget for the upcoming period. And we’re gonna be getting a lot of pressure from people, we’ve already heard it, keep the tax increase low, yet at the same time, we see public services collapsing.

And you’ve spoken to the premier, you’ve spoken to the minister. I wanna echo what my colleague said, they’re not listening. We need a different approach, and I really like the idea of going straight to our constituents, because people are gonna have to understand, if this jurisdiction, like other cities, or other municipalities around Ontario, have to start picking up the slack, for a province that is just not doing its job, it’s going to force us to make untenable decisions with regard to not properly funding, those municipal services that we are supposed to be funding. And we can only rely on private sector donations, and grants, so much.

We are being squeezed by a province that is not listening. And I’m frustrated, because I wanna sit here and say, yeah, I’m gonna vote what you’re asking for, but we don’t have the power to do that, but I think we need to take a, we need to take maybe a slightly different approach, in terms of how we approach the provincial government, because they understand what the problem is, they understand that this system is going to collapse, they understand that this is gonna lead to privatization, and the collapse of a publicly supported system, and they don’t seem to care. So I just wanna, that’s not a real positive way to end, but I think everybody on this panel today is in strong solidarity with you, but I really think you sort of convinced people who already support you. Thank you.

No, ‘cause there’s other speakers, but yeah. I just, just on that, ‘cause I think you’re right, that is sort of a negative tone, and I understand the frustration, I feel it every day as well. That’s why I’m here. But on a positive note, we know that there are solutions.

We have five or six excellent solutions, as Councillor Lewis mentioned already, about how we can provide better service. We just need the tools. They could do it tomorrow, say, okay, you’re in charge of dispatch, and we can implement those things. That’s how easy it could be.

If we didn’t have solutions to these challenges, I’d be even more frustrated now, but they’re sitting there, they’re in a paper, they’re in a proposal, right on the desk, all they have to do is approve it. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, I’m gonna go to Councillor Stevenson, and then I’m gonna add something. So Councillor Stevenson, you go first.

Okay, thank you, and thank you for the presentation. This isn’t new to me, as I’m privileged to sit on the board with these great leaders. I do hear you on the advocacy piece, and it’s amazing that we’ve got solutions that we’re just asking the government to allow to be put into place, so that advocacy piece is great. But we also did hear about the delays at the hospital and the significant cost.

You said the other ones are small, that is the big one, and that one is at home here in London. Most Londoners are very proud of LHSC and being a regional hospital center, and they’re at the bottom of the barrel on this. And I think the public can play a role there, too, to say I hear there must be incredible situations that they have, and it’s costing taxpayers money, right? It’s, and correct me if I’m wrong, Mr.

Rayburn, but LHSC’s being at the bottom of the province is costing London, Ontario taxpayers money. And so when we do the advocacy and as a public, and I’m wondering through the chair, what we as a city can do given our close relationship with LHSC, especially through the whole community, how can we leverage that to support taxpayers in less pressure on their, you know, the most important thing is life and death and the call times and the delays. That’s the most important. But the second is economic challenges and the hit on the property tax bill, and the Ontario government’s one piece, but this is a big one.

And is there a way through the chair that the city can leverage that partnership to make some progress there? Go ahead. Well, we do have some meeting set up with the hospital, but another reason why I’m here, Susan, and again, thank you for all you do for the service, is because you have much more leverage over that relationship than we do. You know, it’s called the London Health Sciences Center for a reason, even though it’s a primary health center for the region, you have more leverage over that situation.

And that’s why Mayor Morgan and Lynn and everybody here that your support team will be with us whenever we meet with them. But I agree, that’s where there needs to be major advocacy as well. ‘Cause without that change, we’re gonna have some significant problems. Thank you.

So my follow up, maybe I wasn’t clear. My question was to the mayor and to the city manager as to, besides just being alongside of Mr. Rayburn, and Chief Roberts, how can we, on behalf of London Ontario tax payers, advocate? So I’m glad you asked that, because I put myself on the speaker’s list next, ‘cause I’m gonna make a suggestion related to this.

So a little bit of foresight. Given that this council hasn’t weighed in, although last council’s had, I actually wanted to invite colleagues to make a motion. I’m not gonna make the motion, ‘cause it’s gonna be directed at me, but I’ll give you some language that I could suggest, that the mayor be requested to support Middlesex County and Middlesex London Paramedic Service in their advocacy, including but not limited to issues of dispatch affordability, sorry, offload delays and funding formula. So included but not limited to.

And the broad base kind of advocacy approach means it may be with the province, it may be an engagement with our healthcare partners in the city, it would be with the support of civic administration and the GR department. But I think a renewed motion from this particular group of city councilors, and not just rely on the previous directions, I think would be advantageous to us making a statement today about this. And I could certainly proceed with those engagements, but I wanna be clear, the county Middlesex, like I will be there with them, and we will advocate together, but they are the service provider and we are a funder. So we need to do this hand in hand together as two municipalities and a service provider and a funder.

That is the way we’ll be most effective. And I’m happy to also leverage other opportunities that I may have through Ontario, big city mayors and other connections with other municipalities or cities who are experiencing the same issues to magnify our voice. So I would take that direction and apply a broad basis to this. So I would look to see if someone’s interested in moving such a motion or you’re not interested.

I wanna make a suggestion. Make a suggestion and then I’ll— Yeah, based on all we’ve heard, I think that it does, I know it’s a very broad motion, but I do think we need to mention the province a little bit more in their failure to respond to some of the clear things that they’ve been told by a variety of different stakeholders. So I do wanna see the province, I do wanna see our targeting of our advocacy work be a little bit more acute in terms of mentioning the province. I think it needs to be in there.

You know what, there’s this agreement on this. So I’ve made a suggestion for a motion. Councillor Lehman, I don’t have you quite on the speaker’s list next. Councillor Ferreira and then you.

So Councillor Ferreira, I’ll go to you. You don’t need to make a motion at this time, but you can do your comments. It’s a suggestion that Council can consider as we go through this debate. And I’ll look to someone as they proceed through the speaker’s list to make a suggestion.

If a Councillor wants to amend it, they can, but given I’ve heard just some discussion on the side, which really shouldn’t happen about disagreements, we’ll start with something we’ll work to the next phase. Councillor Ferreira, though, you have the floor. Thank you, Your Worship, through you. I’ll move that motion on the floor from how you described it.

I would like to see the language too, but I think that’s a good start. And I’m up for any kind of conversation on how to amend that to make it better. But I feel like the advocacy piece is really kind of our only tool that Mr. Rayburn has very well articulated to us today.

I do like how you kind of pointed out with the pre-service and the post-service and kind of like how the post-service component is out of our control. I echo what Councillor Lehman is saying. That’s just extending the ambulatory services into the hospital side. And it seems that our taxpayer funds are now going towards something that we’ve already paid for.

Because from what I understand, the province right now holds on to a bit of change for healthcare spending. And we’ve already paid for those services, but now we’re paying again. So we’re double paying. So I just wanted to make that point as well.

I don’t want to see us double dipping. And if the only course of action is to advocate towards the province, to bring these tools that we’ve already spoke about here, I feel like that would be a good way to go. So I’d be happy to put that motion there. And I’ll keep it brief.

But just listening to the conversation, I feel like that would be kind of the only tool at our disposal right now. Otherwise, what other action could we take is kind of what I’m asking. And I seem like that’s probably a rhetorical question because there’s no answer to that at the moment. So I’d move that motion.

Sure. We’ll start with the language that maybe I suggested and we can look for amendments after there’s a seconder for that. Councillor Layman’s willing to second. Okay.

So let’s get that in each gripe up on the screen. There could be a discussion about some of the wording in it, but I’ll say I take advocacy as this council’s support for me spending time working with the county and focusing on these particular issues related to this service. And we’ll get that up in a second. I have Councillor Layman next on the list.

I’m satisfied with the motion, the way it stands, Mayor. You know, it goes to what I brought forward in my remarks. This is a multifaceted advocacy as we talked about with the county, the province and the hospitals. I think we have to leave it as such.

You know, I don’t want to get into the blame game here. We have a situation on our hands. We’ve got to look at the ways that all our partners can work to address the needs. At the end of the day, these are needs of Londoners and Millsex County residents and how we’re going to address funding.

So I don’t want to tie your hands or you can get those conversations off on the wrong foot, be quite frank. You know, it’s negotiations or negotiations that have to start from a solid and a positive point of view. So I’ll be content with the motion as it stands. I won’t be looking for too many changes and be quite frank.

Okay, so the motion’s up and e-scribe. If you refresh your screens, you can see it. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Are you a sorry, Councillor Ferrer?

You want to be back on the list? Okay, I’ll go to Deputy Mayor and then back to you. Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, I’ll support this.

I’ll echo Councillor Layman’s comments because I don’t want to get into a laundry list of language in this motion. Quite frankly, we could talk about advocacy with the federal government too because it still is not delivering its actual required level of funding to the provinces for its share of healthcare. So it’s easy to start listing, create a long list of where the problems are and who we need to advocate with. I’d prefer to leave it in your hand, Your Worship, to do the advocacy with the appropriate levels of government on the appropriate components of these files as opportunities present themselves.

Councillor Ferrer and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through you. Yes, I would like to add the two different, maybe some language that does add the two different branches that we’re going to be advocating for as well. I’d like to see that.

And I’d also like to see something that would actually work, like something that kind of really shows that we are in a very critical imminent state right now as Mr. Rayburn has pointed out to us. And if we can make something move, ‘cause I see what Councillor Layman has said and he said that Mr. Rayburn has been here before and spoke to the same things.

And I don’t want to be here in three or four years having the same conversation again. So I would like to see some actual significant change. And if it comes through advocacy, that would be fine. But I don’t know what other tool to add to this list, but I would maybe think that more appropriate language that would kind of tie us to who exactly it is that we’re going to be speaking to would probably be a good suggestion.

Councillor, with, and I’ll say to my other colleagues who want to, wordsmith us a bit, with the utmost respect, the county has been very clear about who we need to advocate to, how we need to advocate, has all of the data and all the metrics, knows how to do this because I’ve sat with them at the table and seen them do this very well. And so we don’t need to get into like a lot of word-by-word details, I think, in the motion. Like, I think people understand where this is headed and understand that we would be working in partnership. And I see this as a request from Council to devote time and resources to this, which is the way it will be taken.

The details of the advocacy will relate to some very specific requests that we know are already before the province that we need to kind of get over the line, as well as some of the broad-based issues that have been raised in the evolving pressures in the system, which will be led by the county, will be data-driven, will be specific, and will have the support with this motion of the city of London in my office, as well. So, I mean, we could spend a lot of time getting into details, but like, let’s be, I think we’re all clear on what we’re gonna do. And I think in actual effect, we know what’s going to happen. And so, I can’t stop colleagues from making a bunch of additional motions, but I think, you know, we’re all on the same page here, and we know what we’re gonna go out and do.

And so, we could spend a lot of time on this, or we could, you know, wrap it up, and we can, you know, we can get to the next step in the process. So, Councilor, I hear what you’re saying. I’m not gonna stop you from making an amendment if you’d like to, but I also think we could add a lot of stuff into this if we wanted to. But this isn’t just gonna be a motion from Council, and there’s not gonna be any further engagement.

This, you know, like all of our advocacy, there are opportunities through myself, Councilor Hopkins, those who serve on FCM, those who serve in other provincial agencies that get pulled together from a GR perspective to do this, those work as effectively as we possibly can. So, Councilor Stevenson, did you wanna make a motion, Councilor, sorry? No, I’m not gonna make a motion. I see what you’re saying.

And, ‘cause I don’t have any other ideas besides advocating to the province, I feel like if there’s any other better ideas, I’m open for it, but that’s where it is now, so I won’t be making any changes. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m wondering what this city can do to help educate the public on the fact that LHSC is in the bottom standings on the province, and the cost that that hits the taxpayers. Is there a way that we can educate the public through social media, or as we go to budget time, somehow so that they’re aware and they can help us in the support in terms of lobbying LHSC?

I’m not sure who you’re asking, Councilor, and I would say the budget process itself, given there are funding requests and it is essentially both funding process as well as a public advocacy and information process to get their feedback, so I’m not sure what more you’re looking for, or who you’re asking the question to, I just wanna try to pin that down. Well, I guess I’m asking the city manager, and I’m wondering, I’ll put a motion forward for an amendment if it’s worthwhile doing to say, ask civic administration to prepare an education piece so that the public is aware. By the time we get to budget time, it’s March. It would be really helpful if right now, through social media, or on our website, there was something that we could direct people to so that they could advocate and help to create the changes we so desperately need.

Go ahead. Mr. Mayor, I believe the intent is to try and inform the public, particularly as Council begins to address budget and understand the connection between some of the pressures that EMS is feeling, the connection to our overall impacts on our healthcare system and how that ties back to the tax rate. To me, the best time to do that would be once the budget has been released, there will be public engagement through the month of January, there’ll be information sessions and perhaps then we can be more specific about the kind of information ‘cause we’ll be able to connect the dots on a couple of those components in terms of, we’ll see the impacts from our colleagues in terms of budget and we’ll be able to tie that story a bit together and leveraging what we’re doing around budget during that time anyway, may be the best way to begin to inform the public.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, maybe that same question to Mr. Rayburn and the Warden to see if it was raised that, being able to educate the public and get them involved was a request, how can we be helpful in that or what are their plans to do that that we can maybe get alongside of? Mr.

Rayburn. Thank you, well, we started with this slide today in your deck about what the system pressures are for offload delays and I’ll just quote it. We’ve lost 26,362 hours to offload delays in 2023. We have a 56% increase in offload delays in one year and we have a 159% increase in offload delays over two years.

It’s, that’s just massive and the public that’s listening to this, I hope that they hear that but what we’re doing is we’re repeating this message over and over on social media ourselves because we do get those letters where they say, hey, why did I sit in offload delay? And I have no clue. That’s not a paramount, that’s not an ambulance service. And so we’re doing what we can through social media but we’re more than happy to work with Lynn and your team here on more advocacy and more public engagement about what this means.

And so maybe that’s something that Lynn and I can take offline and work together on ‘cause that joint message is really important, Mayor. Sure. She wanted to know if the council wanted to know if the warden had any comments as well, Gordon. Here she comes here.

You came all this way. We’d love to hear this. You know, you can’t ask me to say something and expect that I’m not gonna say something. It is great to be with all of you this afternoon.

And I mean, I can only confirm what Mr. Rayburn and the Chief have said to you this past hour. But on top of getting the message to our residents about the number of hours that are lost, just sitting in offload delay. You know, it’s a toll on the system.

It’s a toll on our paramedics. But I still want everybody to walk away and know that they have confidence in the system and that when you call 911 this afternoon or this evening or tomorrow morning, that we will be there. We are reacting to these pressures and our paramedics are there to service. So there shouldn’t be any fear that the service is crumbling.

You can have confidence in it. But I think when you’re talking to your residents, it’s that understanding of how many hours are just lost sitting there. I think that your residents understand that. Those are tangible numbers that you can share with them.

And when they’re having conversations, you know, with their neighbors or if they have the ability to speak to their MPPs, they need to communicate that as well. But it’s those lost hours, it’s just sitting there. And it’s, you know, we used to use the term hallway medicine. We’re talking about this last week.

I call it now, we’re in a situation where it’s parking lot medicine because, you know, you’ve got your paramedics parked there and they’re having to extend what they’re supposed to be doing when the hospital should be looking after. It’s just using the same language that we’ve shared with you this afternoon. Sorry, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead. Okay, oh, the button.

Thanks, and thank you for that. And is the county planning to do anything with social media or any kind of public education campaign or is it gonna be, you know, in our conversations? As far as I know, I think it will just be in our conversations. I think we do have a meeting next week with LHSC and the mayor is joining us.

And I think it, you know, depending on what comes out of that, we’re constantly in conversation with the province. I know that at some point the frustration that all of you are feeling, I mean, I feel it too. I mean, Bill said that, you know, I only have a month left being awarded in Middlesex County. So, you know, my filter each week gets, you know, less filtered.

And so I’m, you know, I’m not afraid to have those conversations with the province. And I think, you know, as the month goes on, we know that by the end of the year, we have to move on, the province needs to move on something. And so whether that looks like a social media campaign at this point, we don’t know. Councillor, I have Councillor Hopkins and then you Councillor Troso.

Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. And I’m happy to support this motion. I’ve supported it in the past. And I want to thank the Warden and Mr.

Rayburn for the advocacy and city staff as well with, you know, it’s with the provincial government. We need to raise our voices. I do think though, as we start to address our budget, and that’s what I thought of, right at the beginning, because we know, we all sit on boards and commissions. We know what we’re being told.

We know the challenges of all public sectors are having, you know, these challenges. And it seems to be a continuous conversation. Let’s go to the province. Let’s get the public involved.

Let’s do the education piece. All these, I think, are going to be important. But I think the opportunity we are all going to be faced with as we go through the budget process, how we’re going to deal with not only this. And Your Worship, I think the challenge remains, it goes right to you.

I think you can probably expect a lot of these motions coming forward as we go through the next couple months, the advocacy and the downloading that is happening with municipality. So supportive, we’ve done it before, continue the great work that you’ve been doing, and we’ll see where we go with the budget. Thank you. Councillor Trostoff.

I thought through the chair, I thought you put that very well when you said what the public really understands, in terms of what happens at the hospital door. That’s the crucial issue. And just for clarity, I just wanted to be clear here today, that if the hospital does not have the authority as the hospital to change that role itself without some provincial intervention, is that right? Go ahead Chief.

Through Your Worship to the Councillor. So if you’re asking, does the hospital have the authority to deal with the offload issues? Yes. We are required to bring patients to the hospital.

Paramedics role, is that a pre-hospital care or what I would say in the community care? It is not in hospital care. So the moment we cross the threshold of a hospital, that patient is no different if you walked into a merge. Your cell for you came in through the back of the ambulance.

Once you’re into the hospital, it is a hospital situation to best deal with the patients that are coming in, either walking or via ambulance and to work with us, and obviously Middlesex County and the city lend in to best addresses. This is about what’s called access and flow, motion the patients through the emerge, up through the system, or discharging them out the door. Okay, there’s a motion before us. Moved and seconded, I hope you had lots of discussion, and I don’t see any others on the speakers list, so I’m gonna open that for voting.

I’ll note that this also receives the presentation too. There’s a clause in that that kind of wraps everything up too. Councillor Palosa, Councillor Palosa, marking her as absent. Closing the vote, the motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you so much for coming today and presenting, and I know we’ll be engaging, well, we will be engaging next week, and of course, I know your engagements will continue with council over the next month, and probably beyond that, in your other capacities. Well, that’s great. I just wanted to thank you again for having us this afternoon, and you’re right, those conversations will continue, but certainly appreciate the support and the comments that were shared here this afternoon, and I know that as partners, we’ll get something done. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes item 3.2 is a delegation from the London Transit Commission on their 2023-2027 work plan, and they have prepared a presentation as well, and so I’m happy to turn it over to the London Transit team to present to us today. Thank you, Your Worship. We won’t go through the PowerPoint presentation, that’s provided just in an effort to condense what was included in the letter, but I will provide some introductory comments.

First, I’d like to start by thanking the committee for the invitation to attend and provide an update with respect to the various initiatives that are underway at London Transit. The first section of the report before you includes updates on each of the items in the city’s strategic plan, in which London Transit has a role to play in the delivery of the initiative. Strategic plan initiatives that require additional funding, including the enhanced cleaning of transit shelters, the growth in service levels on both conventional and specialized services, and the continued implementation of the zero emission transit or fleet transition have all been included in LTC’s operating and capital budget requests as part of the growth business case. The remaining initiatives were either already part of the LTC work program for 2023, or will be incorporated into the 2024 to 2027 business plan and related annual work programs.

The second section of the report provides an update on a number of LTC initiatives that were not specifically referenced in the city’s strategic plan, but will be of interest to members of council. The ongoing review of transit services has been the primary focus throughout 2023. The 2023 operating budget for public transit services did not include any growth in either the conventional or specialized service. The commission’s decision to forego growth requests for 2023 was based on the fact that we had outstanding service improvement initiatives from 2021 and 2022 that had yet to be implemented due to labor shortages and supply chain issues.

So as such, the focus of 2023 was to get caught up with all of those backlogged changes and then get prepared for moving forward in 2024. Specific to the conventional service, by February of 2024, 85% of the service improvements that were outstanding will have been implemented. Noting the remaining hours require additional buses that have yet to be delivered. So until such time as we receive those additional buses, we can’t put that final piece in place.

As the report sets out, ridership demand over last September has increased on virtually every route in our system. And unfortunately, the delays in bus delivery and difficulties in returning to the required mechanic complement have limited our ability to respond to these demands. The issues coupled with the nature and extent of construction-related detours, which have affected every LTC route at some point this year, have combined to result in ongoing schedule adherence and crowding conditions system-wide. Fortunately, we have slightly better news with respect to the specialized service.

Over the summer, the Commission approved a contract amendment which provided the opportunity for the contractor to procure the additional required vehicles, a different required vehicle within a shorter time frame, which will result in all of the outstanding gross service hours being in place by the end of 2023. Work is also progressing on the implementation of the smart card readers on the specialized service with expectations for a Q1/2024 implementation. And an administration is in the process of reviewing options for a new scheduling software with features including live vehicle tracking, online trip management, including the ability to ensure equity between all trip booking methods, customizable parameters for trip scheduling, and detailed reporting of key service statistics. While a final solution has not been confirmed, implementation of the replacement software is anticipated to occur in 2024.

In terms of looking forward, at the September meeting, the Commission approved an approximate 18% fair increase which will apply across the board to cash, ticket, and monthly pass fares, taking effect January 1, 2024. This increase was included in the Commission’s 2024 status quo budget in an effort to balance the increased cost of service delivery between a request from the city of London for increased investment and the transit rider. The Commission will also be approving the 2024 to 2027 business plan, which will be aligned with the city of London’s strategic plan and the final approved multi-year budgets for public transit services. The letter and presentation before you provide further details with respect to each of these initiatives, I’ve touched a high level on a number of them and we would be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you, I’ll go to colleagues with questions, Councillor Trostav. Thank you, if you’re the chair. I have two very specific questions. On page 62, under the heading assessment of specialized service booking systems and booking window, I take it to that is with reference to the paratransit operation.

Go ahead, through the chair. Yes, yes, that’s specific to the specialized service. We just need to do the microphone thing. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. So what I’m not seeing here is any reasonable timeline in terms of when transit, paratransit users who have made their position very clear on the current level of service are gonna see improvements on this very issue. Through the chair, as the report sets out, we have been making steady progress with increased service levels on the specialized and as I indicated in the introductory comments, by the end of 2023, we will have implemented all of the outstanding service hours and will be at the approved budget level. So we will have gone from an average weekday scheduled service hours of 395 in January up to 570 by the end of the year, that’s per day.

So again, progress is being made and by the end of the year, we will be at the full budgeted hours. Thank you through the chair, but I’m asking specifically about paratransit scheduling. Go ahead. Through the chair, that was specific to paratransit.

That’s the specialized hours that I was referring to. Okay, under the next page, the 2024 fair adjustment. At what point does the fair in your opinion become too high that it’s gonna start showing drop off in ridership? Through the chair, the rule of thumb that we use in the transit industry is for every 10% increase in fares, we could potentially lose 3% of ridership.

We did share that obviously with the commission, but noting it’s been four years since our last fair increase, coupled with the fact of the significant inflation that we’ve seen, we didn’t budget a ridership loss associated with the fair increase that we’ve got planned for January 1, 2024. Thank you, still through the chair. If I may, I think the flaw in that assumption is that the loss of ridership is not gonna apply across the board to people of all income levels. And the loss of ridership is gonna hit people who have stagnant benefit payments and stagnant wages the most and I think that that needs to be taken into account.

That sounded like a comment, you can comment if you’d like, but I think the councilor’s making a comment unless you’re asking a question. Well, to that, I would put a question mark and say, is this a legitimate question that I’m raising about the disparate effect that this is gonna have on people with different incomes? And is that really taken into account when you apply your across the board rule of thumb? Go ahead.

Through the chair. So as I indicated earlier, when the commission looked at the 2024 status quo budget, we were looking at a significant deficit. In 2023, we’re funding almost $7 million to balance our budget out of reserves. Obviously that’s not sustainable.

Our reserves can no longer support that. And in looking at the significant ask that was going to have to come forward to council in order just to maintain status quo levels of service, the commission felt that it was prudent that that number be shared between the rider and the city of London. So that’s the approach that was taken. Certainly it is a concern.

However, forgoing that fair increase would have meant an even much more significant ask of the city just to maintain status quo. I’ll just close by asking through the chair. If it gets to the point where people just cannot get on the bus ‘cause they don’t have the money, but they have to go someplace, what happens? Isn’t it, doesn’t that just create more of an impetus for fair evasion or fair disputes or disputes with the drivers that have very negative on the consequences?

Certainly, I guess that could be the case. Again, you know, what we’ve put forward is what we believe is palatable. We believe it’s balancing the ask between the riders of the service and the city of London. Thank you, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next.

Thank you, worship and through you. I will just pick up where that left off and then I’ll ask a couple of other questions of our delegates. First of all, I will say I am supportive of the fair increase ‘cause I do think ridership does need to help pay for the cost and when you compare this even to a cost of an Uber or a taxi service or what have you, people still ultimately need to get around and transit is still by far the cheapest available option to them. However, I understand that there was a temporary extension to the pass agreement with the Fanshawe Student Union and the University Student Union at Western as well and that current rate for them and if my math is wrong I apologize but that averaged out over 12 months of the year and I recognize that students, not all students are here 12 months of the year but that cost works out to only about $23 a month.

Will the commission be pursuing an increase and a similar increase, 18% or perhaps even more in renegotiating with the Western and Fanshawe students on their deal for what they’re paying for their student passes? So the commission just at the September meeting dealt with a contract renewal with both Western and Fanshawe, what we proposed and what the commission ultimately approved was a return to a three year agreement that includes an escalation clause that’s made up of a 1% automatic increase each year in cost to help cover the costs associated with growth of the service in addition to the average change in the Ontario Transportation Index over the previous year up to a cap of 5% in any one year. The reason for that cap of 5% is because the student bodies, anything over 5% results in the requirement of them having to go back to referendum and that’s a lengthy process that’s required so we’ve got that cap in place. So the commission did what they approved was an increase of 5% effective January 1, 2024 to the rates that they’re paying right now and then that CPI formula would kick in for the following two years.

Okay, thank you. So I have to say I’m a little disappointed that we’re not asking them to carry their weight as well. I recognize a referendum is a lengthy process for them but at some point they have to do that because what they’re paying is not keeping up and we are actually as a result asking Londoners to subsidize the transit costs for students who are not necessarily here 12 months of the year while at the same time escalating costs on individuals who may reside here 12 months of the year. So that disparities a bit of a concern for me but if the contract is in place then the contract is in place so I offer that as comment for the future.

My other line of questioning comes around the conventional transit service, outstanding service improvements and my particular concern is around the 184,000 estimated annual service hour requirement to improve the frequency on existing routes to be two times the frequency on connecting rapid transit routes. My concern with this is twofold because this is outstanding service improvements and this is our work plan through to 2027. We do not yet even have the first component of the rapid transit system built out. The downtown loop is not quite finished although I look forward very soon to the time that Ms.

Cher will send us a note to say that roads will be reopening along those routes. We do not have that fully built out yet. The East London link and the Wellington Gateway have a couple of years of work ahead both before that happens. So we’re building in service hour increases for rapid transit system that does not exist yet.

We do not yet have an agreement in place around who will be running and administering the rapid transit service. I’ve had, I’ve heard comments that the rapid transit corridors are still going to host conventional transit at the same time. I would expect there to be some crossover but I don’t support actually continuing for example to run the number two from Argyle Mall through to Highbury and then downtown when in fact at Highbury they can get on the rapid transit and take that system to the downtown. So I’m questioning both the number of hours, the timing of the number of hours here and the frequency of two times connecting to the rapid transit because given where we are right now and knowing the frequency can at least envisioned on the rapid transit system although we don’t yet have the operating agreements in place on that, why we would not be looking at delaying these frequencies until the rapid transit system is actually operating and why we’re not looking at three times the frequency rather than two.

And whether that is an option for the commission to move to in an interim situation knowing that the connections don’t exist there yet anyway and that quite frankly come budget time we may not be able to fulfill all the needs right now. So is that an area where there may be potential for some adjustment to adapt to what budget finances may be available? Through the chair, I believe you’re referring to the table and I’m not sure what page it is in your agenda. I don’t have a copy, but the table that lists all of the outstanding conventional service hours, that’s essentially provided as an order of magnitude.

If we look at the number of hours there, it’s just shy of 325,000 hours. I can tell you the growth budget that the commission approved that will come before council is looking for 25,000 hours a year for four years. So that’s 100,000. So significantly less than what we’ve got here.

Obviously depending on what growth is approved that will all be massaged. So this was really more just, this is an order of magnitude inventory of what we know riders have been asking for and requests that are out there or plans that are out there. That’s really what this is, just to demonstrate the order of magnitude. Yeah, about 30 seconds.

Yeah, no, great, that’s helpful. And I did note that the commission’s growth business case did not reflect all of these. So I was trying to understand what parts might be reflected there. So that is helpful to know.

Thank you for that, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I have a question about paratransit but the deputy mayor just said something that reminded me I have another question because he said that he wouldn’t be supporting the route number two from hybrid downtown which if we’re just doing rapid transit has it go right past old East Village and Midtown. So at what point will the residents know what kind of routes to expect? As we’re going through the construction in that area, people are wondering what is going to be the result after?

When will we know what the routes will be like? And that kind of thing. Essentially, the process that the commission follows is they approve a service plan kind of January of the year that the improvements take place that September. So as we get closer to the launch of those rapid transit corridors.

So if you think, let’s say for example, the East is going to launch in September of a year, that January, it would be public, all of the changes that would be associated with that. So essentially about a nine month advance notice of the changes that would be included leading up to that September. Okay, thank you, that’s helpful. And without the specifics, like I get the details but will we know like can residents count that there will be sort of a number two that goes along or is that something that we’re gonna have to wait till nine months out to find out?

I would say residents can be comfortable. There’s not, keep in mind with the rapid transit. It doesn’t stop as frequently as a lot of the local routes. So there will be overlap.

We don’t expect that every resident will be wanting to access the rapid transit. So there will be local routes that will continue to operate on those corridors in many cases. Again, we don’t have plans to eliminate a whole bunch of routes. They may be rerouted to better align with users’ needs.

But for the most part, if residents have a stop that’s near their house right now, they shouldn’t expect that that’s going to go away when rapid transit is implemented. Okay, thank you. I think that’ll be very reassuring. As far as the pair of transit goes, we heard a lot of stories and we’ve talked to a lot of people that spend a lot of time dialing every night.

And I’m happy to see in here that you’re looking at new software and I know it says that you’ll know more at the November meeting, but I wondered, do you have anything that you can share in terms of maybe best case, worst case to see a change there? And then also, if it’s going to be delayed, has there been any exploration of maybe callbacks or some things so that they could get into a queue and have the system call back? I’ll start with your first question. So we’re in the process of right now of assessing a number of options going forward.

Obviously looking to move as quickly as we can. We recognize that these are issues that we had hoped the current software was going to be able to do, but unfortunately it got purchased during COVID and they’re no longer doing enhancements. So we recognize that this is a critical issue. We’re hoping to have an update for the commission.

Nothing that I can really share other than, we’ve narrowed it down to a couple of options and we’re hoping by the November meeting, we’ll be able to give the commission some indication of what the best path forward is, which will include a date, but we fully anticipate that we’ll be able to have a new system up and running in 2024. I can’t really say any more specifically until we determine what that system is and have further conversations with the provider. In terms of callbacks, we are looking, doing some further assessments on the phone system. The issue with callbacks is right now with a demand for the service being significantly more than the service available.

By the time a call taker would be free to call someone back, the trips are usually gone. So it’s really a supply and demand issue. Everyone knows that there’s certain times of day if you need a trip, there’s a window that you have to get through in order to secure that trip. So with the way that system works, by the time a callback would happen in all likelihood, that trip wouldn’t be available.

So that’s really the struggle that we’re facing. Again, these new hours and these new vehicles that we’re adding should go a long way to alleviate that. As I said in the report, we’re focusing the next 10 vehicles that we add, those will all be eight hour shifts and we’re focusing all of those hours between the 8.30 and 6 p.m. time period because we’re finding that’s the time period where we’re seeing the highest rates of trips that we’re unable to accommodate.

So that should go a long way in assisting that. But we do continue to look for ways to better utilize the call taking system while we’re working on looking for something different. Thank you for that as well. And I maybe didn’t understand about the callback because wouldn’t it be the same?

Either people are calling, calling, calling and then eventually there’s more calls than service or they call once and they, I guess, get a message or they get a call back saying there’s no service. ‘Cause right now people, I imagine you turn the phones off or something so that they know when they call like there’s something that says it’s full. So right now our system has the capacity to have up to 20 calls in queue. So there could be eight call takers that are taking calls.

There could be another 12 that are basically sitting getting a message saying, you know, five minutes until a call taker is available. So you’re actually in the queue waiting for that call. As soon as a call taker hangs up, someone else is in that queue. So it’s just the way that system works.

I mean, certainly we can explore. I’m just not sure how that system could be, you know, modified to keep people from getting into that queue so that a call taker would then be free to make an outgoing call. Yeah, thank you. I don’t know anything about that either.

So I won’t even venture. But to know that you’re on it and doing whatever you can in the interim as well as a stopgap measure, anything would be appreciated. Councillor Ferreira and Hopkins. Thank you.

I’ll keep it short. You know, as a commissioner, I’m also a commissioner with Councillor Privel too. So I’ve seen these conversations at the table moving forward. And I can say that, you know, we are in a different place with the LTC considering the circumstances around us.

And I do see that we’re trying our best with respect to the fair increase. I believe that’s like 17% around there. So it is a little bit above 10, but just considering the status of the reserve funds where the LTC sits right now and knowing that the budget asks coming to us in the future and also considering everything else that we’re gonna be deliberating at that time. This is why you see the numbers, the way they are.

There was a lot of thought that went into that before we brought it here to council. So, or before that you saw those numbers. So I just wanted to speak to that. And I, you know, just sitting on the commission, I see the progress that we’re making.

I did ask, you know, going to Councillor Stevenson’s question on the website. I believe you asked that question. I asked that question as well. And yes, we’re hoping to get something back for November, but there is a commitment from the LTC to revamp that system and to make it work.

So I wanted to just kind of comment there too. And, you know, just, we are working as much as we can. Like, you know, we need good transit for the city. You know, good cities have good transit.

Great cities have great transit. And I believe that we have a team here at the LTC that wants to make this city have great transit. So I see that progress happening now. So as you see things start rolling in, you will see this progress happening, but it has happened already.

And we do have the community, like the accessibility community. They do see these commitments. They do see this change coming, but we’re right at the beginning stages. So, you know, we’re just, the support of council is really what we need to move forward.

And I see that’s happening. I see that coming together. So I’m excited about that. So I guess I’ll leave that comment.

I guess I said I was going to be short. So I’ll stop there. Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you.

And through you, I do appreciate your comments, Commissioner, that you’ve seen some progress. I did, I was on the LTC for a very short period of time. It’s lovely to see both of you here. And at that time, it was through COVID.

And I’m really glad there was a lot of catch-up that we needed to do. It was tough going throughout COVID. It was like this perfect storm going on and then throwing some construction projects here and there. So I do appreciate the report that you’re giving us, that we are catching up, that we are slowly getting there.

I do have a question. We know rediship is on the up and up. Population is on the up and up and it’s happening out in Southwest London. There’s a lot of challenges going on and how we move around in opportunities as we build homes and the pressures to build units.

It is here at the city and we know a lot of that growth is gonna be out that way as well. There is a survey going on. I understand through the month of November, public interest and public comments, how can that be shared with the survey? And then if you could just speak a little bit, when you do that public outreach, how that informs your strap plan or the process or the budget going forward.

So just a little bit more information how the public can be engaged a bit more and the process moving forward. Thank you. So with respect to the 2024 service plan, that will be tabled at the commission’s November meeting and that will be followed by a couple of months of public engagement. So certainly, our website, our socials, all of those things that will all be communicated, giving the public the opportunity to weigh in on the draft service plan with respect to what their priorities are going into 2024.

We are also, as part of the 2024 to 2027 business plan, we are undertaking a five-year service plan update. That will be part of the process and that will also have a significant component of public engagement. So that’s more long-term. Obviously, that’s looking at over the next five years and that’s where things like, where are the new homes going to go?

We obviously have to make sure that the transit priorities are aligned with that so that we can ensure that new residents have that option for transit when they move in. So certainly, there’s kind of two things that will be happening, the 2024, which is imminent, but then the longer term will be probably through the spring of 2024 and that will be looking, like I said, over the five-year horizon, but there’ll be engagement opportunities with both. Yeah, and just as a follow-up, thank you for that. And the more you can share these surveys with all of council, I would really encourage you to do that so we can do outreach with our residents as well.

So thanks. Yes, Councillor, you do have some time left. Are you in your next on the speakers? Let’s go ahead.

This is a very, very specific question that possibly Mr. Mathers might want to help us with. At the bottom of page 57, specific to the implementation of London’s rapid transit cars, corridors, a separate business case with respect to those will come forward. Now, I’ve been going to development meetings in pertaining to the Oxford area, and I don’t want to get specific to any particular project, but much reference is being made to the fact that this is on a rapid transit corridor, and therefore it would support a higher level of development.

At what point does it become a rapid transit corridor? Is it now because we suppose we want one in the future, or is it when it’s actually an enacted pursuant to what you’re going to put forward? Yeah, so that’s both a question of Mr. Mathers as well as probably linked into the mass mobility plan work.

So I’ll start with Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so our rapid transit areas are highlighted in the London plan. So if they’re within that area, then it would be a rapid, like a rapid transit related area.

And I’ll let Kelly Cher provide any further details. Thank you, Your Worship. The new mobility master plan will revisit where we have rapid transit corridors identified, and that information will inform future amendments to the London plan. It does include corridors that were identified previously that have not proceeded at this time, and the MMP will look at the future up to 2050 as to where those corridors could be after council considers and approves those decisions.

Finally, and I should ask you a question since it’s your time and you’re here through the chair. Short of going through all of these changes, and short of having a full transit corridor along a particular road, I’ll use Oxford as an example, are there specific things that you can do in the interim in the nature of service enhancements that at least would get us partially to where we need to go? Through the chair, simple answer is yes. What we’ve done in a number of instances is implement our express roads.

So an express road is essentially the step below a rapid transit corridor because we’re operating in mixed traffic, but it has fewer stops, and it’s scheduled at a faster frequency. I can say the one outstanding piece from the previously approved service plans that were anxiously anticipating those new buses is a new express road 95, which will run from White Oaks Mall to Fanshawe College, which will take a significant amount of pressure off of the number 10, which I’m sure many Councillors have heard complaints about the crowding conditions on route 10. So that’s what we do in effort to alleviate the pressures that we see prior to something being designated rapid transit is we implement express roads. Okay, that is Deputy Mayor Lewis.

You have, I think a tiny bit of time left, but you gotta be quick. I only need a tiny bit of time. I think I can provide a little question to our staff for clarification through you to Mr. May.

There’s, can you speak to the difference between a rapid transit corridor and a primary transit corridor, ‘cause from a planning perspective, those are actually two different things. Go ahead. Through you, and the rapid transit corridors are the arterial roads consistently, so that’s like the primary transit that is being referenced here today. All right, there’s no one else in the speakers list that was a presentation.

We had some questions. I look for a motion to receive. Councillor ramen moved, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. We will open that for voting as soon as it’s ready.

And while we’re getting that ready, I’ll just say save some time and say thank you very much for coming today and giving a presentation, and sharing some thoughts with us and answering our many questions. We appreciate it. Councillor Palosa. Councillor Palosa votes yes.

Posing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, we’re on to items for direction. 4.1 is confirmation of appointments. There are BC place London.

Councillor ramen, you’re willing to move them. Seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Thirded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on the appointments?

Go ahead, Councillor Troso. Are these the question to the chair, perhaps, or the clerk? Are these council appointments like other boards and commissions, or is there some other statutory provision that’s reserved for special types of commissions that are outside of our purview? That’s a question for the clerk, not me, so go ahead.

It’s appointments and accordance with our by-law for the London Convention Center Corporation. Okay, and that’s a special by-law that would supersede our normal procedure. Thank you. Okay, great.

If there’s no further questions, the motion’s been moved and seconded as per the correspondence that we received. We’ll open that for voting. Posing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, the next one is the ninth report of the diversity, inclusion, and anti-oppression community advisory committee.

If you read the report, there’s a number of actions associated with this item. Councilor ramen, go ahead, willing to move them. Thank you, I’m willing to move those. Okay, seconder for those items.

Seconded by Council for any discussion. Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Posing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. I’ll just note, the item we passed represented a number of diversity awards.

Although we passed it quickly, we certainly know that we appreciate all of the work done to review the award submissions, make the nominations, and congratulate the winners, they’ll be another further opportunity to celebrate those wins today. But obviously, this is committee’s recommendation to council. It’ll be approved to council. There’ll be more to say at a later time.

The next item is an item of correspondence from Councillors Stevenson and Pribble. I don’t know which one would like to go first, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. I would like to put this motion forward.

I will own that we did not run this past staff, and so I would like to just get their input on that. I’m happy to say what the intention was, which is to, we addressed in our strategic plan the safety concerns at the shelters, particularly the larger ones. And so rather than wait for the multi-year budget, we were looking to see what we could do to look at that, to look at the staffing ratios, to look at the costs. There was a delegation done at the February 1st, 2022 CPSC meeting where the executive director of the Salvation Army Center of Hope had expressed his concerns about the lack of funding.

I also noticed that in July at the community and protective services committee meeting, we approved a whole bunch of additional requested increases from many of our great shelter and service agencies. But for some reason, the Salvation Army, I noticed it didn’t have anything for increased wages for frontline staff, unlike the others. So just wanting to ensure that, especially as we come into winter, that we’re doing as much as we possibly can in those buildings to ensure that we’ve got the staffing, the funding to protect the wages there as the pressure comes on for the hubs and their hiring. And also around recovery services, that I know I’m hearing a lot about a lack of recovery services and gaps in recovery service, where people go to detox or withdrawal, and there might be a few days’ wait or a week wait, which is really challenging for people if they don’t have any place to go.

So the intention here is to ask staff to take a look into that and to report back to us. And I was looking for staff’s input on that at this point. I understand it’s a little bit late, so I apologize for that. I’ll take that as a question to staff, and then you can put your motion on the floor after.

Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, there’s a couple of points of clarification. I think we would need a staff in terms of really understanding what’s meant by recovery services, and starting to unpack some of the timelines.

Reporting back by November 21st would be out of the question for a specific administration. This is probably realistically something we could get to in Q1 of next year, but ultimately, there is no source of funding, at least that first blush. And this is probably something that should be coming through the multi-year budget process, given the expectation would be sustained, ongoing permanent funding for these type of services, however they might be defined. Thank you, I appreciate that.

In terms of the wages, can you address, on, in the July 18th, Community and Protective Services, I already did put the motion forward, did I? You know, so you asked a question about the question for staff, you wrote a quiz of correspondence, you want to put the motion on the floor? I would like to put the motion on the floor. Okay, seconder, Councilor Pribble.

Yes, okay, the motion’s on the floor. You can go with your, this is your questions and your, the case you’re making for your motion, right? So, go ahead. At the July corporate CPSC meeting, there was a requested increase from many of their, all of the service agencies.

How did the service agencies know to ask for increased wages and was that communicated to everyone? Did you get written confirmation back that maybe some of them didn’t need it? Three year worship, absolutely. So, the process isn’t that civic administration works directly with every single service provider.

So, there was no service provider, skipped or missed or excluded from this process each. Operator was communicated to in writing. In fact, we did not receive as it’s noted here, the Salvation Army, we did not receive in July any requests for increase in funding. However, in addition to that work, through the work of the whole of CUNY system response, we have been undertaking a stability of the sector conversation directly with service providers, including these shelters to look at what supports are needed over the next 18 months to help sustain their operations, sustain their organizations.

Some of that work is reflected in the monthly update that’s on this agenda. Thank you and through the chair. So, just to be clear, so Salvation Army said explicitly that they did not need any increased wages in July of this year. Through your worship, specifically about the wages, I would have to double check what was in there, but there was no funding request.

Come through from the Salvation Army. In fact, they actually declared a surplus on their funding. So, we have been working with the two large major shelters on the cold weather response and looking at any additional spaces, looking at additional funding, and you’ll see also in this agenda that we are looking to fund the Salvation Army for continuation of beds that are currently being operated. Thank you.

In this report, they did get an increase in funding, but it was for eight men’s and eight women’s shelter beds, 16 beds. But what I’m saying is when we know that there are issues at the shelter, when we know that they have lower staff to resident ratio, and when we put, when this comes forward to council, asking for increased wages from all the other agencies, I would think it would be incumbent upon staff to check to make sure that if one didn’t ask for it, that maybe it might have got missed. And if that is the case, can we at least rectify that? I don’t see needing to wait to Q1 2024 to make some small changes like that, especially coming into winter.

Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. Through you, your worship. This is why we’re doing the stability of the sector work now.

That’s why it’s happening in the moment. That’s why we’re working with all service providers around what their needs are financially, staff wage-wise to support the stability of the sector. So we continue to work with these service providers on how we can best sustain the sector. That work is already ongoing.

My mention of reporting back in Q1 is to do exploratory work, to do research work, to look at opportunities for newly established emergency shelters or bringing recovery services to London. We do not currently fund recovery services as a municipality to go and seek costs and operational start dates and potential sources of available funding. That cannot be done by November. The team has zero capacity when we’re already trying to sustain the sector and open up hubs and open up more highly supportive housing.

Thank you, and this is why I’m checking with you before we even get into discussion on the floor. When you say that we don’t fund recovery services, can you explain why? Because we are funding highly supportive housing. To me, this wouldn’t be much different.

We’re not talking about healthcare of addiction recovery. We’re talking about something like the Recovery Community Center at Center of Hope, which for $850 a month, they are able to provide a private room, private bathroom and basic support services, not healthcare. So why are we unable to fund recovery? Councilor, I’m gonna interrupt here just from the chair’s perspective.

You’ve written a letter with a colleague. You’ve drafted a motion. And then instead of explaining to your colleagues here why you’d like us to support your motion, you’re just asking a bunch of questions of staff that I don’t even sure I understand how they’re related. So could you get to justifying why your colleagues to support the motion before us?

Because otherwise, I’m not sure, I don’t want you to use up all your time with questions when you could be letting us know why you’d like us to support what you brought before us. And I just don’t want the time to run out and then everybody be frustrated about the process here and a couple of colleagues who’ve written a letter not have the opportunity to make their case. So I just, you got one and a half minutes left in the time and I just wanna have you use that wisely because I know you’re asking staff questions but I just don’t know if the rest of us are kind of waiting for the justification. Like you brought a motion, why do you want us to support it, type of piece?

I hear you and I appreciate it and we are at committee where we get to do the work. So I’m assuming an extra five minutes if it were needed and it may not even be. I was simply just trying to check with staff quickly before everybody starts talking about it. I wanted to ask staff right away.

So the reason why we’re bringing this forward and I’m open to, as Mr. Dickens said, changing it to cute, the timing on some of these, this is that and I apologize that this wasn’t done ahead of time and as we all know, there’s desperate need in this city and we’ve not been hearing about recovery services and it is something that is being asked about by the residents that I represent. And so the reason we’re bringing this motion forward is to find out because there are recovery service programs here that are looking for funding. I would like to know if there’s others, if the city staff have other ideas as to how we can fund or provide recovery services in addition to what we’re already doing to maybe provide some fill in the gaps as to how we can support our people in a path to recovery.

And there are issues that have been addressed as far back as February 2022, saying that the Salvation Army has been underfunded. We know that there are safety concerns. The deputy mayor just said that it’s like 30 to one staffing. I am an accountant.

I don’t know anything about social services and 30 to one does not sound very safe. And so when you say we don’t have the money, we have lots of money for people to look after them, to ensure that the staff and the residents in our shelters where we have 200 and more people in those two shelters and I don’t know what other shelters potentially are understaffed. So this is the reason for bringing this forward is we have a crisis in our shelters and I’ve not heard it addressed. And this motion specifically says, there seems to be a lack of attention towards recovery where under, you know, the expertise of civic administration, where can we play, where can we support and staffing?

Yeah, thank you. I have Councilor Pribble and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you and to my colleagues. This motion was based on the kind of our research and feedback we received both from people on the street and the encampments and from the professional dealing with these issues.

We wanna explore because we do believe that the recovery should be part of the system. We do believe that it’s actually could be costly, effective and long-term effective as well. So we would like to support your support in this and we understand that we just heard from the staff that it’s gonna take longer period of time, but we believe that there is a good opportunity to address these issues and to have our system more efficient. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So I’m gonna try and do this respectfully and not get too heated, but I will absolutely not be supporting this. First of all, to have Councilor’s bring forward a motion and start asking staff a number of questions after saying we didn’t talk to staff.

Before a motion comes forward, there should be a discussion with staff as to the feasibility of these things, not put on the floor and then asking staff if they can do it or not. That is absolutely cart before the horse and we can’t do things that way. The 31 ratio that I was quoted as referencing at a previous meeting, that’s not for the Quentin Warner House recovery program. That is at men’s mission.

I don’t know what the ratio is at Salvation Army, but I did not quote the Salvation Army at 30 to one. I was speaking specifically to the men’s mission at a previous meeting. However, I wanna get to the core of my objection to this. There is recovery dollars available for recovery programs.

It is through the provincial government. Minister Tobolo was just here on Friday morning at YOU and spoke to that fact. So if the Salvation Army wants to run more recovery services, they should be talking to the province, not asking Councilors to bring a motion to have us explore using municipal dollars to fund it. Just, there’s a point of order.

So hold on, Councilor, your point of order, go ahead. I was not asked by anyone to do this. I did it at my own volition. Yes, so Deputy Mayor, you projected— I would withdraw projecting that you were asked.

However, I do want to identify that specifically, Mr. Deactis and the Salvation Army is identified in the letter with his delegation to the February 22 Community and Protective Services Committee. Okay, so you’re withdrawing the projection. Thank you, the point of order’s dealt with, go ahead.

Okay. So coming back to the Recovery Services piece, that is healthcare. There are provincial dollars available, and that’s where organizations who wish to do that work should be seeking funding. So I’m pretty sure you mean a point of personal privilege because you’re taking some offense, what’s it gonna say?

No, I’m not taking any offense. He said it was healthcare, it is not healthcare. It’s transitional housing, supportive, just like our other supportive housing. What I’m referring to is not healthcare.

We’re not having a cross debate. The counselor is making an argument. You can call a point of personal privilege if you’re taking offense, point of orders are procedural, disagreeing with what the counselor said, that’s part of debate. So I’m gonna let the counselor continue.

You can call a procedural motion that I can deal with, but you can’t just call point of order and then cross debate the other counselor. Okay, I understand. And so what do I do when what’s being attributed to me is factually incorrect? Well, you move to motion.

And so the person who moves the motion could do something called reply if what they have said is being misunderstood or misconstrued, but like the debate is for counselors to challenge each other and you’ve used five minutes so far. So this counselor gets five minutes and then other counselors get the time that they want. So people have to say things that you disagree with and debate, right? People say things that, anyways, we’re continuing on.

I’m letting the counselor continue. All right, further to my points, your worship, to be asking staff to report back on the staffing ratios of an external organization. In my opinion is completely inappropriate. If we want to talk about staffing ratios in our own in-house operations, that is one thing, but we do not assess staffing ratios of the work that other organizations are doing.

Now, if we put out a request for proposals and we want to set some minimum standards of care in those requests for proposals, as we did with the Hubs plan, we can do that. And the respondents at that point can indicate what they need to meet those staffing ratios in our standards of care requirements, but we do not dictate to outside organizations what their standards of care and their staffing ratios are going to be. So I also want to come back to the question of receiving increases in funding for staffing and on these service provisions. And through you, I’d like to ask our staff if they can indicate the money that does flow through us to various social service agency providers.

Is that coming from the municipal property tax base or is that coming through the social services relief funds of the province of Ontario? Mr. Dickens, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you and through you, your worship. The housing stability services budget is comprised of three areas. So the homeless prevention program, which is provincial, the reaching home program, which is federal, and then municipal contribution through the multi-year budget. All of our shelters are currently funded through the homeless prevention program, which is the provincial source of funding.

Thank you. So I come back to finding sources of funding. Even our sources of funding that we do provide to our shelter programs flow through from the provincial government. So if there was a desire to reevaluate how that fund is being flowed as was indicated by our staff, the multi-year budget process is the place for that conversation to happen.

So for all of those reasons, I absolutely won’t be supporting this. I think we all recognize that there’s a need out there and we are addressing that need. We’ve spent the last 10 months now working with social service agencies, the health care sector, the police, the business sector in developing our whole of community response and the health and homelessness issue. We have a cold winter response on this agenda today.

We have the October update for the health and homelessness initiatives. We are doing our part, but it is not our responsibility to require outside of an RFP process an analysis of a service organization’s provisions of what their service is. If they want to bid on a future hubs location with a lower staffing ratio as per our standards of care, the Salvation Army should do that. There were opportunities for that to happen.

If they feel that they can provide more beds, that should be a communication through our staff, through the cold winter response for this year. But we don’t have those things from the Salvation Army or from our other service providers, as we heard, there was no request for funding this year, additional funding from the organization. So to come to us today and say, start looking at this, I’m absolutely not going to support this. What I will continue to do is what was included in the hubs plan, which is work with you, your worship and other members of council to continue to advocate with the province of Ontario to take the Premier up on his offer of establishing new rehabilitation centers to host one of those here in London at an appropriate location.

Okay, I have Councillor Pribble on the list for the second time. You’ve some time, but you’ve got lots left, so go ahead. Thank you. So I’m going to try to be as simple as possible.

Do you want to, yes, it should be part of the healthcare, no doubt, but on the other hand, and I heard that we shouldn’t support it because it’s part of the healthcare. If I were to bring up the hubs, I think that there are a lot of aspects there on the healthcare as well, and we moved it forward. What this is is that no doubt that there’s provincial money there, and these organizations that could apply for provincial money, but let’s say they don’t get it. And isn’t it better to have a system and we are approving money, and I have, we’ll go back to what was mentioned as well for the winter response for this year, which I have additional questions, but this is, this makes a, the bottom line is, we need to save people’s lives, and we need to put them back on track.

This is very, recovery is very crucial part of it, and it’s much less expensive than if these people, become, go back out and become high acuity, which is costing us, which we know how much it’s costing us in the hub system. So bottom line is, this, if the funding from high levels of government in Madison doesn’t come through, doesn’t make sense for us, and again, we’ll see it when we go back to the winter response, doesn’t make sense for us to invest lesser money and save more lives and be more efficient, and they all let it go and say, okay, in six months, they didn’t get the money from province, sorry, we are gonna have potentially recovered beds, sitting there, standing there with no heads in the beds, and yeah, just gonna go back to it, oh, three months ago, we didn’t do it because we didn’t think it was a part of it, and then we are gonna start the research in three months later. So I hope you all can really consider, this is to do the homework, to do the research, even if it takes till, I totally understand that it might take beyond November 21st, but this makes complete sense. We are ready, we are proactive, we are gonna be sitting here in three months, that we are gonna hear that province didn’t give us money, and then we start then, doesn’t make sense whatsoever.

Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Frank, and Councillor Ploza both online next. Thank you, I just had a quick question, and perhaps I missed it. I’m just wondering, did we define what recovery beds are?

I don’t know, so no, not in the motion. There’s nothing that defines it in the correspondence. Councillor, so that’s all I have to work with at the moment, unless you’ve got a question specifically for staff. Well, I think I would find it really hard to vote on this if I don’t know what recovery beds are, because if recovery beds are transitional beds, I’d be interested in finding out more information about that, but if recovery beds are essentially detox beds, and I don’t know, again, who is responsible jurisdictionally for paying for what?

So I guess I don’t really feel super comfortable voting on this until I know what we’d be voting on to support. Okay, thank you. I’m gonna go to the next speaker, and then I’ll figure out if there’s a, Councillor probably needs to address something. Councillor Ploza, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and I won’t be supporting this motion tonight. I’ve heard, I guess, really contradictory things that people weren’t asked to do this by the Center of Hope, they’re doing it on their own pollution. So I am mindful that when we start naming organizations in our motions and our background information, that they be consulted in part of it since we are naming them in it, also concerned that as per Deputy Mayor Lewis’ comments, as well, that you have some staff inside going to this, even timelines is a basic one.

Essentially you’re making a pitch and trying to sell us on an idea and facts are helpful. I also find it concerning that sometimes colleagues change their pitch on look how cheap someone can deliver a service to us, and that’s why we should follow their model and rule it out elsewhere when applicable. And then we’ll hear on another hand of, they need more money ‘cause they’re delivering services so cheap and there’s a concern for safety. So having served on the accountability table for the health and homelessness plan, these key providers, they do have executive directors and part of these situations and networks and capacity building and staff is reaching out and working with this group.

This why is a whole community response and well informed? I also will draw some concern. You’ll probably see this more so it’s for all colleagues. As you have key things that you’re interested in or champion for, that as we get close to the multi-year budget process, you’ll see it in December, but we start debating it in February to try and keep all our requests as part of that multi-year budget process that we don’t see them coming out one on one.

As we champion for them, you’ll have the full preview of what’s coming and I do realize some service providers in different capacities are already reaching out to us. So just be mindful of that as your time will be stretched in and your advocacy efforts as well. Thank you. On February, I have to respond to something.

I want you to take the chair. I have Councillor Pribble who wanted to speak again. He’s used up three minutes. Councillor Stephen, who since he wants to speak again, she’s used up all five per minute, so you have to deal with that and I’ll be very quick.

Hey, acknowledging that I have the chair, I will proceed to Councillor Pribble. To sort of chair to my flow, Councillor, the recovery beds are kind of the best descriptions as a solver bed that’s off to detox. And again, just going back to it, because I don’t want to take more time if I come back, our biggest thing is this is to do the research and to be ready. We are not committing any money.

We are not committing. We are not making no commitments. We just want to be ready. We just want to be ready because if potentially some of the agencies do end up having available beds and we do have over 2,000 people on the streets and in the encampments, I don’t want to see that there is 20, 30, 40, 50, even one empty bed that could be used and we could have saved life.

This is getting us ready that when this occasion, if this occasion happens, we can jump on it and be no, because we did the feasibility study, we did the research. If this happens, it’s being proactive. That’s all it’s about. In three months, if this happens, we are in that situation.

Some of the agencies come, we didn’t get the provincial funding, then guess what, we are going to start from the beginning. This is proactive initiative. It makes complete sense. We are making no commitment today whatsoever.

The only thing is, we are asking the staff whose this is part of their responsibility, their agenda to deliver this back to us. That’s all. Thank you. You can also approve all colleagues.

I’m just going to ask you to wait one second. I’m just going to move to the center chair so that I can confer with the clerks if I need to. All right, thank you for that indulgence. Councillor Stevenson, I know you wanted to be back on the list, but Councillor Hopkins has not spoken yet, so I’m going to Councillor Hopkins first.

Yeah, to the motion that’s on the floor then. I really appreciate the efficacy for my colleagues here. I do also appreciate the clarification from Councillor Preble about this is just research. And I did hear from staff to some extent that the stability work is already ongoing.

And I think staff are listening here loud and clear about the work that the ongoing work that’s going on and the need to have that information. I won’t be supporting the motion. I think the timelines are really even the first quarter. We’re going to go through a budget process going right through to March.

But I do appreciate the advocacy around it, but I feel confident that this work is already taking place to some extent. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. We’ll go back to Councillor Stevenson, noting that you have used your five minutes, you’re going to be asking for an extension. Or I think I can just stick to replies, or I can ask for an extension, whatever you want.

But I’ve made a list of the things that I get to reply to, and that might be good enough. Okay, so if that’s good enough for you, rather than moving to an extension, I don’t have anybody else on the speakers list at this time. So I could, wait, I do have Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you, and I’ll keep this quick.

But first off, I want to thank my fellow Councillors for bringing this letter forward. I think it includes some important elements that we maybe need to learn more about. So I really do appreciate that. I’m wondering if maybe we can work together offline to restructure some of the language to bring back some of what you’re looking to bring here.

I agree the timelines might be challenging, but I know I’ve heard as well from many that they want to hear more about recovery services in the city, that they want to see us work together and more thoroughly around what kind of recovery services there are. I know in meeting with providers that there are challenges right now with provincial funding that beyond having another facility, we have funding needs already within our current shelters that require some additional support. So I think that we’re absolutely talking about the same things. So my hope is that we can just take some of this information, restructure it in a way and potentially send it back to caps or somewhere else so that we can get that information that we need to have a more constructive conversation on this topic.

Thank you, Councillor. As the mayor has returned to chambers, I will return the chair to him noting at this time that speakers list has been exhausted. Councillor Stevenson has indicated that rather than an extension, she may be able to address just through reply to the things she’s heard in debate before we go to vote. Thank you, so Councillor Stevenson, you want to reply to some of the comments.

I’ll say this needs to be kept tight to miss statements or misinterpretations of your comments or your motion. So go ahead. Thank you. There was a reference to me saying that it was cheap.

I mean, I’m willing to spend a ton of money on this, but when we say a shelter bed costs $40,000 a year and we know we’re paying the Salvation Army only 18 or 20,000 and they came before caps and said we’re underfunded, I feel like there is an obligation to answer that call. And it was mentioned that I hadn’t consulted, I absolutely have consulted with the Salvation Army around this, I listened to the delegation and I’ve reached out and I’ve consulted, I was not asked by them to do this, but I absolutely have consulted. And in terms of a definition for recovery, as Councillor Privel said, recovery is to support people who are in addiction recovery. So it is not healthcare.

It is people who’ve chosen into recovery are there and could use a sober, supportive housing environment. And if we can offer that at an inexpensive rate at $850 a month, I just think that that’s something that we should be exploring as something new that we could offer. And we talk about stability work, I’m excited to hear that because there’s so many concerns about staffing in the social service agencies, but this is not stable, you know what I mean? The Salvation Army, unless staff can tell me otherwise, this is not about stability, we do not have stability in our largest shelters, that was why it’s in our strategic plan.

So as much as I’m happy to hear that, that doesn’t address this issue. And I don’t know what my last note means, work already taking place. This is about, the work is not already taking place around recovery, we’re not hearing that. I’m not hearing that, the residents that I speak to are not hearing that.

So this is really, was meant to be a respectful way of asking staff to take a look and come back and tell us about recovery. I’m happy to extend the deadline into Q1. The reason was the urgency, but I’m more than happy to accommodate a later date. Okay, Councillor Pribble put his hand up now, the deputy mayor, he spoke while I was out of the room, he had two minutes left, do you know how much time he is?

So I know how much time to give him. I actually timed Councillor Pribble at a minute and 24 seconds of the time that he had used and that’s probably, it’s beginning at 30 seconds. About 18 seconds left, go ahead. Quick, 36 seconds.

I do agree with one thing. When I read the point B, what the Peter Mayor said in terms of the minimum staffing ratios. So I really, I personally, I see his point. I just wanna add there’s a couple of things that my full council stated.

No, the work is not done in this area. That’s why we wanna bring it up. The recovery is not looked because it’s not considered municipal and we have not financed it before. So I just wanted to address it that the work in this area really hasn’t happened yet.

So I just want to mention that. Thanks. Perfect on time. Thank you very much for that.

I don’t have anyone else on the speaker’s list. There’s a moved and seconded motion on the floor. Technically, it’s the committee’s motion. I would need consent from all members of council to change the date to Q1, yeah.

So if there’s an objection, we have to vote on the motion on the floor. It’s in the ownership of the committee now. Is there any objection to you object? You want to vote?

So no, then the motion is with the committee. I don’t have unanimous support. So unless someone who hasn’t spoken wants to amend it, and people are at a time, yeah. All right.

So we’re gonna vote on this as is. It’s moved by Councillor Stevenson. I know it’s not seconded. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble.

And I will open that for voting in e-scribe. Councillor Layman. Fosing the vote and the motion fails four to 10. On the motion to receive the communication from Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble.

Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by, we’re just receiving the communication ‘cause you made a motion based on it, but you did write a letter. So we’re recognizing that letter was written and receiving it, ‘cause I, ‘cause the— It was in the added agenda, just a write up to go with it. There’s no letter. Okay, I’m just taking the advice of the clerk.

You wrote a letter, moved an action, it didn’t stand. So we can receive your communication. And I mean, there’s no, it’s just to receive. There’s no, not take no action or anything.

It’s just to receive the communication, okay. So motion to receive the communication seconded by Councillor ramen. We’ll open that for voting in the system. I’ll just note that it wasn’t just you.

There was also a communication from the member of the public on this as well. Both of those are being received together, so. Fosing the vote, the motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, great news.

We’ve completed items for direction, but we referred, not so good news. We’ve heard three items from consent there. So we’ve got three more items to get through in this part of the agenda. Then we have some confidential items as well.

So I’m gonna deal with these one at a time. I know one was related to conflicts. Others were colleagues, wanted them pulled. The first is the housing pledge.

It was pulled because there’s actually a request for delegation status for us to consider that we’d have to actually pull it. Someone would have to move one. Yes, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. I’d like to move a motion to take a quick break.

For how long? 50 minutes. Okay, motion to take a 15 minute break. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Get all those in favor of taking a break. Second. Could we make it like 10? I know a lot of people are trying to get out of here at a reasonable time tonight.

I’m just saying, can we do a final break? Okay, 10. Motion for 10 minutes. All those in favor?

Post? Laoza. Motion carries. Laoza and I are opposed.

Okay, I’m calling the meeting back to order. We’re on item 2.1. It’s London’s Housing Pledge of Path to 47,000 units by 2031. This is an update from our staff.

There’s also a delegation request from Mr. Wallace to speak to this that he’s here. I’ll look to see if there’s any interest in entertaining that delegation. Councillor Raman is seconded by Councillor Stevenson.

We will, if there’s any debate or discussion on allowing the delegation. Okay, we’re gonna open permission for Mr. Wallace to delegate for voting. Oh, yes.

Councillor Hillier. One more time, Councillor Hillier. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Wallace. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you for Councillor supporting my ability to speak to you on a consent item.

I’m here to talk to you about the update on the pledge for 47,000 homes. First of all, I need to start by a thank you to your senior staff, Scott, Heather and Matt, who are looking, you know, head up three of the major committees that are involved in this. The report is excellent update on where we’re at, what is happening in the field, what’s happening here locally, and a process to get to where we need to get. So it’s an excellent report.

I know you only had it for a few days, but I would encourage you to read it. The other thing, but the point I wanna make here tonight is that sometimes our industry, and maybe all industries, I don’t know, consult told, but that is not the case in this process. We are very active on all three of the major committees that are here on the Housing Supply Committee. We’ve been actively involved with staff on looking at things like open data, which now has come to be.

We’ve looked at what really the yield is in the field for how many houses you actually get per acre per hectare, and what is actually, and we were able to, as a group, together, I think it was 30 or 40 subdivisions. We analyzed, submitted the information. There, it’s a really interactive group in terms of sharing and considering things. Issues like the four-story performer, doesn’t work for us, really, and that there needs to be a review of what that means in terms of the official plan and what we’re able to build in the future, and whether a four-story building actually works.

That’s on the Housing Supply Committee. The Customer Service Committee has been excellent. We’ve been able to the staff of us to identify the hurdles that we see, usually in timing or in process, and we’ve been able to identify those and staff with our consultation and discussion with us. We’re working through the issues to try to find what we can do to actually improve the process so we can produce those homes in a more efficient and effective manner.

And finally, on the Affordable Housing piece, we are interested in affordable housing, and we would call it where I and my group are trying to define, it’s not the deep, deep affordable housing, which you’ll be dealing with in another agenda item in a minute, but the affordable housing that’s between market housing and the deep affordable building piece. So, for example, in the report, a talks about a report that came on tiny homes, on modular homes, and on manufactured homes, that report actually came from us. We did the research, we put it together, we presented it to that committee of what the possibilities are, where the price points might be, what the barriers are, whether that’s zoning, whether that’s DCs, whether that what needs to happen, and we’re just starting that conversation. But what has been great for us from an industry perspective is that these committees are serious about looking for solutions, and looking to our industry to help deliver on that, and we’re happy to be there for that.

The report does say that, you know, see the numbers are down, and we are not denying that. The demand for new homes at all levels is down. Mostly at the lower, well, I’m not at the upper end, but at the lower end of new homes, where people are buying for their first time or their second time. 100% interest rate driven, no doubt about it.

And we do not deny that that is happening, that it is slow out there for industry. But that doesn’t mean that what we’re doing now, in terms of planning, and being ready, and making change, that we’re ready to take advantage when the market does change. It’s really a good indication that you, city council, staff or us don’t drive things. It’s the market that drives it.

It’s the public-black purchasing homes that drive it. But as I think London experienced in the mid-90s, what we experienced during COVID, or shortly after, we need to be ready for when demand spikes. My understanding is that at one point during the 90s, there was a brief time where demand started to increase, but there was no supply. Same issue where it’s saying no, we need to be ready.

We appreciate the effort that staff are taking forward to make sure that we have all our ducks in line when the market does change, ‘cause we do expect it to change. We appreciate council’s vision on where we’re going. We will be, as an industry, providing you guys some updates on where we think the population growth may be coming, and I get the time to wrap up. So, just thank you for your time.

I wish you happy Halloween, and based on the debate tonight, please eat some candy tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

That part, last part had nothing to do with our housing targets, but we appreciate the advice. I don’t know, Mr. May, there’s you, I anticipate you didn’t have a presentation. I don’t know if there’s any comment, okay.

Then we’re gonna proceed into, there’s, this is a report. I’d like to get the motion on the floor. It has a received, and then a piece to be directed, a direction from staff to get priority to develop an application that’s been in the firm, it’s a serve to accelerate and support the increase to housing supply, including initiatives and projects related to housing accelerator fund. So, a summary of the report in a brief direction to staff, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor McAllister.

And now I will start the discussion and the speakers list. Councillor Troz, I’ll go ahead. Through the chair, I just wanna say that this is, this is another example of having something given to us, like at the last minute, and it’s not okay. It’s not okay for me to be able to absorb this.

And I don’t wanna sit here at the last day when I have other things on the council agenda. And there are other adage coming in, and there are other requests for delegations coming in, and have to sort of like, look at this very detailed report and says there’s something in here I wanna object to. It’s just not okay. And I just don’t see anything, I don’t see anything in here.

Is there something in here that couldn’t wait two weeks? Good. That’s through the chair. And of course, Mr.

Mayor, let’s go ahead. Through the chair. So I actually did submit it on, to be on the full agenda. What happened over that period of time, and actually I really wanna thank our friends at Clerks and being able to help us with this, was that there was new information from the province.

So the province submitted this letter that highlighted the targets. We really wanted Council to know the impact, what was happening. There’s a large conversation going on, and the Mayor may want to speak to that as well, amongst all of the major mayors in the province. So we wanted to be able to make sure that whatever we were providing you reflected all of that.

So I do apologize, we knew that is on the added agenda. We did have it ready, but over on Monday night, it was 7.30 at back when we got the first letter from the province, and then they provided even further details on Friday morning, as far as the web posting. So that’s why there’s a short amount of time. And I apologize for that, whenever we can get away from without doing that, that’s always the preference.

Okay, so to continue, it also precludes, and I commend you for doing the best you can under the circumstances. But it also precludes members of the public from being able to at least respond to an added. And I really hate, unless it’s an absolute emergency, where we’re looking at a deadline for action, I don’t wanna do that. So I’m gonna ask that this be deferred to the next, I’m gonna move that this be deferred to the next SPPC meeting, unless I’m missing something, is there’s something that this needs to be dealt with tonight?

That’s a question. I’m gonna pretend you didn’t do the referral yet, ‘cause you asked a question after, so I’ll get your question first, and then I’ll come back. Through the chair, this was just to provide an update. So it’s an update, if it’s received in the next month, it’ll just be a one month old update, but happy to be able to accept on every email you’d like to.

Could we receive it next month, and may I make a referral to do that? You’re allowed to make a referral motion if you’d like. That’s up to you, Councillor. So if you’d like to do that, I’d look for a seconder.

Seconded by Councillor Stevenson. Okay, so we now have a motion to refer on the floor. I’ll look for speakers to that. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, just a quick question. What is the reason for the referral? Councillor, that’s not quite how it works. I’ll go to Councillor Troesauk since he moved it, and I’ll ask you to respond, so go ahead.

Through the chair, yes, thank you. The reason for the referral is, I would like to have more time to fully digest this report, and I would like to give people the opportunity, if they so wish, to send in added delegations. It might not be necessary, but it’s just, it’s very difficult when we already have a busy agenda to receive something here at the last moment. We were given a good region for that, but since there’s nothing really pending, and this is just for our information, I’d rather keep this on the next agenda so I can really digest this and study it more.

That’s my reason. Councillor Hopkins. And just a quick follow up to that, the referral, is there a timeline to it? I took it as given, I took it as the next, available as PPC meeting, yeah.

Okay, I have Councillor Stevenson, then myself. Thank you, I find myself agreeing with Councillor Trasso again. I don’t like added agenda items at all, like there’s a lot going on. The housing is one of the key important things to people of London and to us as Councillors, and so it, like the homelessness and housing stuff, it can’t be added agenda unless it’s absolutely necessary.

I wanna spend time on this at very first glance, it looks like we got a failing grade, maybe I’m too quick to say 37% progress in 2023. Is that on the referral, Councillor? Right. Is that on the referral?

Sounds like you’re debating the report. Oh, sorry, yes, I would like to refer it for the reason that it’s in the added agenda and I really wanna spend the time on it and for people to have the time and to be able to do it well. I’m next on the speaker’s list, I’m gonna hand the chair with Deputy Mayor Lewis. I have the chair and I’ll recognize the mayor.

So I’m gonna speak against the referral, not because I don’t appreciate that people would like to comment further, but I will say the reason why I don’t think colleagues should support the referral is, this is a report that staff had prepared for the regular agenda. And then the province put forward piece of information that should be concerning to members of council. It’s concerning to the Ontario Bixity Mayor’s and the way that they’re assessing and judging municipalities and their performance for things we don’t have control over. I came tonight prepared to speak to this, provide some clarification and seek some direction from colleagues, in the absence of that I’ll probably proceed through the Ontario Bixity Mayor’s anyways.

But there are some serious concerns that are raised in this, that OBCM is concerned about, that our staff wanted to take the time to put some information in here in the context. There’s a difference in the way that municipalities would like to assess how we’re going to ramp up to meet the targets and the way that the province is judging us, I’ll be able to speak further to it if I have the opportunity. Probably gonna speak to the media about it tonight anyways ‘cause they’re probably gonna ask about it. But I actually think we have to have a conversation about this because there’s some fairly significant issues associated with this report that involve the way that the province is actually without consultation deciding to assess municipalities’ performance on housing.

So I’m against referral, I think we need to have a conversation about it, even though I would really also like to go trick-or-treating with my son, but this is something that is important to the municipality in my opinion. I had the deputy mayor next to the list that I heard you back, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, Your Worship, I’ll return the chair to you noting that I’m next on the list. It’s all right, you were chairing, my bad.

Your next on the list, go ahead. Thank you, Your Worship, and through you, I too will not be supporting the referral. Staff indicated to us on the regular agenda circulation that the report would be provided on the added agenda. So people knew that this was coming.

I finished reading this report at about 11 p.m. last night, but I carved out the time to read this report and give it some thought before coming to the meeting today. And as Councillors, we sometimes get information on short notice that we have to carve out time to deal with. That’s the nature of the job.

So the fact that this was delayed because of some changes by the province does not mean that I am not willing to support it moving forward. There are some Monday nights where I would have been at Peck until 11 p.m. and I would have still had to go home and read this, but that would have been my obligation as a council to go home and do that. And so for that reason, at any time when I’m not, sorry, appointed personal privilege, go ahead.

Yes, can the deputy, with all due respect, can the deputy mayor please state his opinion without making us look like we’re not up till 11 or midnight doing our jobs? I can give you my schedule for yesterday. And this was about the people. Okay, so the objection is the way that you are articulated.

A saying obligation and staying up to, like could you please make your point in a different way? I spoke to my schedule last night and my obligation to read the report. So, and I adhere to that. That is how I take this job for myself.

If others choose not to do that, that is their choice. Okay, that’s, but I do not speak to that. I’m not doubling down. I’m saying I spoke to my own schedule.

The second point of personal privilege, I have to deal with the first one. So, so I understand about reflecting on your own personal schedule. I think there are, it is possible for counselors to project that on themselves. I think there’s intent and impact here.

Counselors are feeling an impact. The intent is different. I think you’ve clarified your intent. I think the counselors clarified the impact that they heard, I will issue a general caution about thinking about the way that you approach this.

And also that I think people are, there could be some frustration and it’s a long meeting and I know people have other things in their mind as well. At least some of us do. I don’t want to project things out there themselves. So, I’m going to just ask that this one be dealt with and I’m going to move to the next one.

Counselor Trostow, do you have anything, you said a point of personal privilege as well? I’ll leave that, I’ll leave it go. But I think when he said, when he added that other clause about others have- Okay, I think I did point that out. Okay, continue on.

And for that reason, I will not be supporting the referral. Okay, I have Counselor Stevenson on the referral again. Go ahead. Thank you, I’m just wondering quickly, can we do both and can we withdraw a referral to let those who want to talk about it talk about it and then we could re-bring up our referral so that the public has a chance to do it for the next one?

The counselors would like to withdraw the motion. I would say there’s a perceived part and there’s a direction part. If you want later to refer the direction part, the report is still here and received and can be commented on later if you want. But anyways, I have to ask for permission from the, because it’s a motion on the floor from the group to withdraw, is anybody object to withdraw the referral motion this time?

Point of order? Okay, go ahead. Yeah, procedurally, a referral must be made the first time a counselor speaks to a motion. So if it is withdrawn now, it would be out of order to put back on the floor later.

From the counselor who spoke, yes, yes, that’s correct. The counselor chose so. After hearing the discussion on this part A and part B could be separated and we could move to delay part B while we still accept the report, correct? So I’m just gonna make a call.

And then if someone wants to challenge it, we do the other thing, but that’s a decision-making mechanism. So I’m gonna say, yes, if someone wants to refer part of it, they can do that. I know that some people have already spoken, but honestly, we’re gonna talk about a referral for 20 minutes and we could actually move forward and at that time, we’ll deal with the referral. So I’m gonna allow, even though it may not be technically correct, unless someone’s gonna challenge me to say, if someone wants to refer part of this later, they can.

This is the time where you challenge me. Otherwise, we move forward that way and we move on with the discussion. Okay, so people are now allowed to speak to the main motion. There’s no referral on the floor ‘cause I didn’t have any objections.

No, okay, to removing the referral. I’m actually next on the original speaker’s list. So I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I have the chair again and recognize Mayor Morgan.

Give me some grace to go back to my notes after. Mayor’s looking for his notes. If anyone else wants to get added to the speaker’s list, I’ll start making the list. Councillor Hopkins, thank you.

Councillor Frank, I’ve got you already written down. Okay, all right, I’m gonna say thank you for allowing me to return to my notes. So I wanna say there’s been an issue raised at the Ontario Bixi Mayors with the way that the province is establishing its assessment of municipalities, which is actually critically important to municipalities in accessing the $1.2 billion of funding under the BFF Fund, the Building Faster Fund that the province has established. As you can see from the report, the way that the province has decided to set targets and the way that our staff have tried to thoughtfully set targets in a way that they would ramp up over time from our current state to making the pledge to doing all of the work with the development industry into moving forward are not aligned, which means where our staff think we can ramp up based on everything we know about all the funding we have and where the province wants to judge us on are not in alignment.

And that is just one issue. The other issue is we approve units. We don’t actually pull the building permits. And so if the province is gonna judge us on pulling the building permits, there are some fairly serious concerns that we are being judged on something that we actually have no control over.

If you look at the province’s target that they’ve assigned, you can see that they say our 2023 target is 3,447 units. Now staff would have said 3,180 units. It’s not far apart. As of the 17th of October, we’ve given 3,061 permissions, but that’s not what we’re being judged on.

Our permissions, the only thing we have control over is not what we’re being assessed on. This is a fairly serious concern. If we’re going to not be able to access funding for something we have no control over, like we drive permissions. So, you know, Mr.

Mathers, I actually have a couple of questions for you through the chair. In 2022, how many units do we approve and how many building permissions were issued? Mr. Mathers.

Through the presiding officer. So in 2022, as far as the council permissions 4,000, 97 units were brought forward. And then as far as the actual units, 2,598 building permits were processed. So, the municipality did the work to issue over 4,000 permits, almost 4,100.

And the way the province is going to judge us on that is 2,600 building permits that were pulled that we don’t have any control over, right? In other words, if we were to issue those, and we were judged on those, we would probably be able to meet the target that the province is before. And this is when I go back to shared accountability. Each and every point in this process has an accountability over the housing spectrum.

The federal government has a role, the province has a role, the municipality has a role, the building community has a role, the not-for-profit development community has a role. And I think the financial community who fund projects has a role too. And we need to be assessed on the things that are in our control and the actions that we can take. And so, the difference between the provinces assigned to targets to us, and the way that Mr.

Mathers and his team have thoughtfully and with engagement from the different groups and committees said this is how we can ramp up and meet our target over time, is out of alignment. I would much rather be judged on the way that we believe we can ramp up, and then working to exceed those, and then accessing funding, rather than the numbers from the province that aren’t even linked to the things that we actually have control over. This is an issue that is live with the Ontario big city mayors, and something that council should be aware of, and something that we’re actively engaging the province on. And I can’t emphasize how important this is to us.

And Mr. Mathers indicated to me in our conversation before that by the end of June of this year, the number of units submitted in building permits had dropped to 58% below the time period in 2022. In other words, what Mr. Wallace said in his delegation, yes, less permits are being pulled, interest rates are a problem.

We have no control over that. So we could provide 6,000 permissions this year, and if the permits don’t get pulled, we’re not gonna be able to access needed infrastructure and critical infrastructure funding that we need to permit housing in this province and in this city through the BFF fund. And so that is the concern I wanted to raise before council today. I wanted to let you know that the Ontario big city mayors are working on it, but you should be aware that within this report is both of those items, and it’s really critical that colleagues and the public understand it, because I feel we are being assessed, and then access to funding is being decided based on something that we do not have control over.

We could permit 10,000 units this year, and if 2,000 are pulled, there’s not gonna be any access to funding for us. So that’s a serious concern, and I’ll end my comments there. Thank you, Your Worship. I will return the chair to you, noting that your speakers list is Councillor Frank, Councillor Hopkins, and then Councillor Lewis.

Councillor Frank, go ahead. Thank you, and you stole all of my good comments. So I just have one question through you to staff. Regarding the, so essentially my understanding is, the penalty essentially for us is that we’re missing out on infrastructure funding.

And I’m wondering, is that an annual occurrence, or is it at the end of our 10 year period? I’m just trying to understand how we’re being penalized for developers not pulling permits. Yep, Mr. May, there’s can come to that.

Through the chair, it is annually based, but there’s not a lot of details on the programs at this point, but it would be annually. So it’s the annual access to the Building Faster Fund, which is the main concern, Councillor. Okay, and to follow up, do we know of any municipalities that are gonna meet their targets given the way that this program is structured? Perhaps I can answer that, and Mr.

May, there’s you can comment too, only because we’ve had a discussion on Ontario big city mayors. Yes, there are some who can do that. I would say they had the good fortune of having things land in the right year. If you recall, the provinces actually measuring our tracking towards the 47,000 units, starting in a year before half of us were on council before we even made a pledge, which is another concern.

But yes, there are some municipalities that are in our position to exceed their units based on items that they had in the pipeline and permits being pulled in the right time, in the right year. But even those mayors have concerns that that is a temporary situation for them, and they may be on the flip side of that in a subsequent year. Mr. May, there’s anything to add.

Absolutely, so in the data that was provided on the website by the province of the 20 largest cities on Ontario at this point, only one exceeds the targets, as of the date of the October, at the end of October, and one other municipality is on track of the rest have not met the targets and are unlikely to be able to meet the targets. So 18 of the 20, I’m likely to meet the targets. Thank you, yeah, I have no further questions. I guess I would just, I don’t wanna do another motion ‘cause as you can tell, we’d like to go trick or treating, but I would love to support the mayor and any efforts you can have to change what the targets are ‘cause I think our targets should be based on what we approve, not on what they build.

Thank you, Councillor, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and I’m really pleased that you’re on OPCM and you’re all over this because those are the most important questions to be asking about what are the units, council approval or permit approval. I do have a question about the permits that have been approved, and I really like the table number two in that reporting ‘cause we can really see clearly what council has approved, what the permits have been issued, and what our targets are, and so going back to the permits that have been approved, does that automatically mean that the construction has taken place through you? Mr.

Mathers, through the chair. So that value is the number that we process and then are available for people to start construction. So I highlight in that figure seven that we might have actually already processed and actually done all the work. So as of June 30th, there was 685 where we actually issued the permits, but we had 333 units that were sitting and waiting for the fees to be paid.

So over and above that value, there’s actually maybe actual permits that are sitting there that haven’t been picked up. So which is, it’s a cost and a financial item for people. So if they’re not looking at moving forward very quickly, but it means we’ve done all of our work that we can do as well. So putting those two together is probably the most accurate as far as whether the city’s done as all of the work related to moving the unit forward.

Go ahead, Councilor. Thank you for that. And I do appreciate Mr. Wallace’s comments.

Oh, he’s still with us about, the industry does want to have confidence that these units are ready to go when they’re ready to go. And I know right now interest rates and the challenges of building are challenging for the development industry. But putting that aside, we are the municipality. We are the ones that have been looked at to move these units, to get the approvals.

We’re doing everything possible. I wanna thank staff. I know this, you have to work really quickly with all the changes that are coming down from the province. I haven’t digested everything.

It’s gonna take us a little bit of time. And I sit on planning. So it’s gonna, it’s a lot to understand, but I really do think we really need to understand what we can control as a city and then be judged on that. And I give you kudos to OBCM to really challenge the province to understand where we are as municipalities and what we can control.

I think it ultimately is what I would like to see coming back from the province. I have a Councillor, sorry. My speaker’s list is Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Layman. So if you wanna be on it, go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship. And through you, like Councillor Frank, you highlighted a lot of what I was interested in highlighting. So I won’t repeat that. I will, through you, ask one question to our staff with regard to prioritizing building permits, getting out the door.

Would that include instances where the permit is regarding, say for example, a water connection so that the capacity is there for a housing unit to be built, Mr. Mayors? Absolutely. It’ll include anything that’s like a low hanging fruit that can get a lot of units created.

So we’re really trying to weight the work that we do to those opportunities that provide a significant amount of units. So whenever we’ve got those type of opportunities, we need to take those. It may mean that other opportunities are lost, but we really need to be focusing on those items that are very timely and are gonna get us those units. Thank you, really appreciate that.

I know that in some cases, the constraint, and whether it’s our public work effort, or whether it’s a private connection that’s being arranged, sometimes it’s not the building itself, but the connections to the building that are holding things up. So hearing that that would be considered as a priority as well, glad to hear that. Councillor Lehman. Thank you.

Yeah, this is concerning. You know, we’re close to it. Those of us that sit on the planning, that’s Councillor Hopkins has mentioned. And we look at the amount of hard work that’s been done by the committee, by council, and by staff in improving our processes.

And we did that back when we were inundated with applications coming when money was free. So yeah, interest rates have spiked, but demand is still there. So I truly believe once interest rates soften, which could be on the horizon, it’s hard to predict, that flow will come back. And kudos to staff for preparing when that happens.

I love seeing the actions taken, with the deficiencies report handling, the hub that’s being outside these chambers, terrific stuff to address the concerns of the building community on getting those permits out the door quickly when it comes back. So it’s frustrating that from just our standpoint, ‘cause we know the demand and housing demand is there. And we see it monthly with our permit reports, our zoning applications are going through, but the reports have been sliding. We knew this was coming.

But then to be doubly hit by the financial penalties, a top call on that, due to not hitting targets that the province has imposed. I understand our commitment to 47,000, and we will get there over that period of time. But there’s ebbs and flows during that period, due to, as been mentioned, things outside of our control. I would like to ask a question, maybe to the mayor, you might have more information on this, or maybe we don’t.

These are numbers that have, annual numbers that have been set as targets. Is there ways to make up for deficiency? So let’s say we don’t meet our target this year, but next year we exceed it by 30%. Do we get backfill for, you know, on the funding because we’ve, you know, exceeded that particular year’s target?

I’m gonna let Mr. Mathers comment on that, because he has the details of the program. I don’t wanna go off this top of my head. Through the chair, we don’t have that level of detail that’s provided at this point.

Just in general, when council is approving more units than are being built, that’s creating a surplus that we’ll be able to be used in future years. Whether that’s reflected in the program, that’s something that I think would be very important to have him reflect in the program, but we don’t have the details at this point. Okay, so I’ll just, you know, is my two cents worth to the mayor in these discussions, you know, I’m not too sure. It sounds like you have a very solid case when you’re presenting to the province to address.

We are doing our part. Private money will come when the conditions are right. We can’t control that, but if they push back on that, just maybe an alternative would be to suggest a way that we can recoup the money’s loss when the demand comes piling back in. And we, because of our work that we’re doing to process that heavy flow, do we get the upside to that?

And we got penalized when it was out of our control. I’ll make some comments later, Councillor, on that. I’ll go to Councillor Trostette next. Thank you to the chair.

That’s really a good question. And in order to properly enter that, we would need to be at least a year into the process in order to make that determination. Now, as I understand this, we are subject to a financial penalty by not meeting the requirements. Is that correct?

So the province has set up an incentive program to build housing faster, and they are said if you meet certain thresholds within your targets of which Mr. Mathers will get the information on, you will get access to up to $1.2 billion spread over, I think, three years. If you fall so far below your targets, you’ll get nothing. And if you meet or exceed your targets, you kind of get more.

So it’s expected to be a bit of a tiered program. But this is not them taking money away. This is basically a new fund that they’ve set up to accelerate housing and support housing infrastructure that we would not have access to if we did not meet our targets. Thank you, that’s very helpful.

I’m trying to understand why there is such a gap between approved units and permits issued. And I’ve heard some of the criteria. It’s just not feasible because of supplies or the interest rates or labor. Is there anything that the city can do to increase and enhance that ratio?

So when we approve a unit, for example, is there a time limit under which they need to come in and get a building permit or is it open-ended? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, from the zoning perspective, it is open.

So the zoning is now changed. They would be responsible for bringing in a site plan application. Thank you. Is it put through the chair?

Is it possible that if do we have the ability to limit that? In other words, do we have the ability as a municipality to impose a user to lose it role? Saying essentially, we’ve given you the approval, you were gonna get your permit by a certain day. You perfected your right to get a permit, but it’s not an ongoing entitlement.

It goes away after a period of time. Can we do that legally? Mr. Mathers.

Through the chair, in certain parts of the process, you could do that. So if there was an application that’s been submitted and it’s taken too long to be able to bring forward, at the zoning stage, there wouldn’t be that opportunity, because the zoning is now in place. However, there might be other opportunities. So what we’re doing as part of the housing supply action plan is we’re gonna take each one of the buckets that we’ve shown within the report and then highlight how could we improve that situation?

How can we ensure that, is there opportunities to be able to increase the number of units through each of those different stages? So we’ll be providing that to you, moving forward in specific to each of the different phases of the development process. That’s exceptionally helpful. So I think where I wanna go with this is, and it’s a question for the mayor, and it’s a question of what’s within your comfort zone, because you have to write the letter and you have to deal with your colleagues.

My view is that if the province is going to penalize us for not doing things that are not within our control, that is unreasonable administrative action. And that they should be reminded that even though we’re a creature of the province and all that, and that they have a lot of latitude in terms of setting parameters for us, they’re still under as a matter of fundamental justice in obligation to act reasonably. And if they’re taking away some benefit or entitlement that this city has earned because of our diligence, I think that that could be the basis for a claim of unreasonable administrative action. Now, we’re not gonna resolve that at the table here tonight, but I’d like to request that you and your colleagues think about that.

I’d also like to request that at some point, and we can’t do it tonight, we ask our staff to come forward with some measures that might be viewed as, okay, we’ve given you this entitlement, now move along and do it in a certain amount of time. How would I frame those two requests? So let me give you a bit of information, Councillor, that may address your requests. One is the minister has talked about bringing in or changing provincial legislation under the idea of different types of authority on use it or lose it permitting that may not currently exist today, although we don’t know what that will look like.

But second, at the most recent Ontario of exterior, Mayor’s meeting, which was only, I think, a week ago, Mayor Collier of Ajax brought forward a motion that was passed by OBCM directing our staff to advocate on this very issue because of the concerns that we have. So I don’t require any further direction, and honestly, what I would prefer is, I wanted to bring this to council’s attention today with this report, allow us to work through a process, I would say as early as today, I got feedback from OBCM that the province was open to discussing different ways of thinking about this, although with no commitment or timeline, but we have already essentially done the initial pushback as a group of 29 big city mayors, all of which share the same concern, but I want this council to be aware of those actions and given this report that Mr. Mathers had prepared to know that this is actively being worked on, and I just need to know that council’s supportive in continuing that work and that our staff are obviously supporting me in the advocacy components we will be a part of, but I would say, I appreciate Mayor Collier and the other big city mayors who brought the issue forward, brought a resolution that was thoughtful, and we’ve started the engagement with the province on this already. So last question, so as I understand it, no further motion or directions would be needed from this council, and if we wanted to come back with some other ideas later on, by not taking that action tonight, we would not be precluded from doing it, is that correct?

That’s correct from my perspective as well. I will circulate as I usually do every little while bringing a report forward about the activities of our external lobbying of which I would include the resolution, which we have already published as a big city mayor’s publicly. I can make sure that that comes before council as well, so that you can see what that advocacy position is, and Mr. Mathers, I don’t have, I don’t know if you have anything to add there.

Through the chair, I’ll also bring that back to our housing supply action group, ‘cause we’re right now, we’re formalizing that, and that you’ll have an opportunity to see that, and make comments on it in the first quarter of next year, so this is definitely a very good commentary. I’m scared to ask, but are there any other little things in here that we should know about that maybe we haven’t carefully went out from the report, or is that the big one? I can give my opinion, because I read the report, although I raised a concern, I actually think that the report is quite thoughtful work by our staff about how we’re preparing to meet our obligation of 47,000 units, the challenge that we had through the development, and this report coming forward is the province basically putting out targets without really letting us know they were gonna do that, which obviously impacts the way that we’re thinking about this, but I would say, in my opinion, I thought the report was a thoughtful work of our staff with the support of the committees that feed into it to say, we got a big job to do, we gotta be creative, and we’ve got a lot of ways, and also a lot of information about how we’re going to be much more open and transparent on the reporting of where we’re doing to both council and the public under it, so my answer to that councilor would be, in a personal opinion, no, I think the biggest flag that I wanted to raise, I’ve raised. So in that case, and based on everything you’ve said, which has been very helpful, I’m gonna withdraw whatever objection I came in, and I want you to go ahead and do what you think you need to do to move forward on this.

Other speakers? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thanks, I just have a quick question on B, that it says we’ll give priority to development applications that serve to accelerate, just wondering for the public, which ones, what can we expect maybe might take a back seat? Well, through Chair, I don’t focus more on the ones that are the housing, and we have, as you may know, resubmissions of site plans, and it’s those ones that get to like, sometimes eight submissions.

We need to get the quality submissions and get those through to the building permit, so those are those low-hanging fruit that we’ve talked about, as well as we have many items on our work program that relate to many things that council’s asked for, deferred matters, and things like that, but giving priority, because everything becomes a priority. So that’s also the Housing Accelerator Fund initiatives, we’re elevating those projects and initiatives, get pre-zoned lands, for example, under the Housing Initiative, the first initiative, and that also helps with that rethink zoning project, recognizing that we brought that forward to Planning Environment Committee and Council, in terms of where that would land, and elevating certain, we’ll say strategic projects, first related to housing supply. Any other speakers? Right now we have the entire report with both the receive and direction before us, so that’s what we’d be voting on this time.

Okay, I don’t see anybody want to do anything differently, so that’s voted seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor McAllister. We’ll open that for voting. Councillor Fray, pose yes. Housing the vote, the motion carries 15 to zero.

Okay, the next item is item 2.2, which is the October progress update related to the Health and Homeless School of Community Response. There’s a one request for delegation status under this, and then there’s a number of, well, there’s one letter from colleagues, the other one is going to be just noted, and then there’s I think an additional circulated intent from a colleague that came around today. So I think that the first order of operations here is probably dealing with the request for delegation status on the start of this. Councillor Trostam moves to allow it.

Councillor Stevenson seconds. Any comments on allowing the delegation? Okay, we’re going to vote on that in the system. Frank votes yes.

Housing the vote, the motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, there we are, all these village cares. Go ahead, you got five minutes, and thanks for coming. Okay, so writing have a chance to speak earlier when the Hubble’s program was really being spoken of.

I just want to give a different perspective on the whole program as well as the winter relief program from a person that does outreach. Good afternoon City Council in London. As a look around, I noticed some familiar faces on this council who have supported us at all these village cares. Hello, Councillors Elizabeth Berry-Pluisa and Hopkins and our Mayor Josh Morgan.

I have asked politicians, businesses, trade unions, associations and lenders to assist us with our outreach. I am humbly grateful for all those that have supported us. It is important that all of you witnessed firsthand just how many of our friends and neighbors are struggling on a daily basis. I am Peter Giosa, I am the leader of all these village cares.

We are a small group of volunteers who started providing meals and supplies to vulnerable Londoners in July of 2020. Our first outreach was to the neighbors who were living at Queens Park during the beginning of the pandemic and we have continued ever since. We provide snacks, outreach supplies, cold weather gear and personal care items to Londoners and until recently held a monthly luncheon. We have hosted Christmas, holiday and pop-up events throughout our existence and we have not spared any cost let our vulnerable friends know that they are cared for.

Linda Dietrich and Mocassia have been by my side throughout our adventure as well as a faithful group of volunteers who help in any way that they can. Our whole team has different reasons for serving those in need. I have dedicated this journey to my father, Donato and my sister, Merlu, both passed away at a very early age. All of us at OIV cares have lost close family and friends.

It is for all of you that we try so hard to provide assistance to our city’s most needy. I have two terrific nephews and a fabulous niece as well as very supportive family. I want them to know that although I have done some crazy things during my outreach, try and understand what I’m trying to accomplish. I hope you’re proud of my determination.

Through our weekly outreach and luncheons, we are committed to providing assistance to those who are the most in need. This is a costly venture as I fund most of the initiatives for our group. Unfortunately, we are not a registered charity and we have mostly been ignored and we have sometimes felt very unwelcome. It’s very difficult to gain acceptance but it doesn’t help that I am very shy and unassuming.

It is not my intention to be in a spotlight or to be the focus of this initiative. I am thrilled to ever to have my volunteers receive the recognition that they truly do deserve. I’ve been watching our city and our elected officials wrestle with how to best help that struggle with mental health problems, addiction issues, and homelessness. Anybody else who has been part of my journey from the start is aware that I’m a great advocate for the hubs from the beginning.

I’m here today to let landowners know that the people who are sleeping in doorways on sidewalks and public spaces are in desperate need of our assistance. I’ve had the honor of meeting so many of these people in the past three and a half years and let me assure you their trauma and struggles are real. Despite their difficulties, I am touched by their kindness, gratitude, honesty, and perseverance. The devastation that many of these individuals have suffered and continues to struggle with has affected me deeply.

I also strongly believe that all owners deserve to live in a city downtown and all these village that is safe and clean. The honest and genuine concerns of our citizens need to be addressed and not ignored. Healthy debate of on how to help our friends is most important and welcome. Disrespecting and salting and judging them is not.

Throughout the debate about our city’s homeless relief initiatives there have been calls to some beyond this plan along with concerns on what is the return on investment. Let me answer these comments briefly. We’re not selling a vehicle, reconstructing a street or adding flowers to a park. These are individuals who desperately need our assistance.

While providing outreach a couple of years ago, I met a man who had been homeless for many years. I would like to respect his privacy so I will be brief. I took it upon myself to feed, care for, mentor, and watch over this individual for 20 minutes. 20 months, sorry.

It was a difficult struggle and thankfully my dedicated group also assisted. Whenever they provided care, they did this willingly and they never asked what was the return on our investment in terms of dollars and time spent. We advocated for him, closed him, and asked for medical attention when a situation became life threatening. I promised that I would take care of him until he got housed and we spent a great deal of time trying to teach his vulnerable man to control his temper and aggressive behavior.

Just like the Hobbes, this outreach was expensive and I funded all the meals and whatever was needed for his care. Many hours were spent visiting, caring for, and visiting, and assisting this individual. It was emotionally and physically exhausting. There were times when we questioned our ability to properly care for this man.

The care and attention that was provided, just like what the Hobbes will offer, is immeasurable. We will never place the cost on this unusual outreach. This man is now sheltered and waiting a move to an assisted living home. He recently told one of our volunteers that he would not have survived living rough without our group.

He learned to be patient, kind, and non-demanding. His gratitude is priceless and can never be measured. I truly believe that these are the outcomes that our Hobbes will also be providing. Winter response plan.

The City of London— Could you start to wrap up now? OK, the City of London, please pursue a more robust winter relief program. So much discussion has been focused on the Hobbes that we can’t ignore the rest of those Londoners that are living unsheltered. I want to party to consider starting the program today and extend it past the March 31 deadline.

The cold nights have already started and they won’t end at the end of March. I also hope that you consider providing more daytime programs for these vulnerable individuals. Expecting them to vacate the shelters in the cold winter mornings with nowhere to go needs to also be reconsidered. You come to the end of your time.

Thank you, times of milling. Yeah, thank you very much. That completes the delegation. Colleagues, we have the staff report, which could be put on the floor by someone.

And then we have a series of amendments, I think, Colleagues might want to make your willing to put the staff report on the floor. Councillor Ferrez will put the staff report on the floor, second by Deputy Mayor Lewis. I will look for debate, discussion, or adjustments to the staff report. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead.

Thank you. I am going to move on amendment. Councillor McAllister and I did have this circulated in advance so that Colleagues could consider it. And so that it could be prepared for you in eScribe.

I do want to add an additional component to this amendment in addition to the one time grant of $250,000 to the Argyle and Hamilton Road Business Improvement Associations be approved with funding to be sourced from the operating budget contingency reserve funds. I’d also like to add a second part. And that would be in that civic administration, be directed to reach out to all BIAs in the city of London and invite a representative to participate in the business reference table discussions ongoing. Okay, so you can move that.

That’s not a change ‘cause you put whatever motion you want on the floor, your respect for what you wrote in the letter. So you want to put both those pieces on right now? I will. And then once we have a seconder, I think I have one.

Councillor McAllister has seconded. So you can so now if I could speak to that. So thank you, Your Worship, and thank you colleagues for considering this. As we outlined in our letter to you, the impacts of housing and homelessness, we recognize absolutely that the intensity is greater in the OIV and in the downtown area.

There’s no question about that. But we are increasingly seeing the impacts in the East End Business Improvement Associations as well. And through you, I’d like to use a moment of my time to ask staff if they can confirm the increase in what I’m gonna call hotspots in the Argyle BIA and Hamilton Road BIA catchment areas. Go ahead.

Yes, through you, Your Worship. At the highest level, yes, we’ve seen an increase in the spread of or the shifting of encampments out to both of those BIA districts. We are seeing an increase in call volume asking the CIR team to attend to those locations. Thank you.

The reason I ask is because I wanted to be clear in discussing this with our staff and with our BIA executive directors, it’s not just anecdotal from our BIA’s. It is supported by staff data as well. But I did want to share a little bit of information from the Argyle BIA. So our BIA recently, its membership, has asked for our levy to be increased because the business members themselves recognize that they have to put more in to provide the services that they’re being expected to provide as well.

But currently from our levy, we are spending our businesses own money with a private security patrol, recognizing just in the Argyle BIA alone 11 hotspots and more than 528 calls to our security service to those hotspots in this year to date. And we still have two months to go. If colleagues support this, we’ve had some preliminary discussions between the two BIAEDs and myself and Councilor McAllister. And on Saturday, I had an opportunity to speak to a couple of other board members in Argyle about a couple of options.

And one would be to partner so that we can expand our security patrols to assist our neighbors in the Hamilton Road BIA, recognizing that as a smaller BIA, they simply do not have the capacity to do this on their own. But together, we can realize some efficiencies in doing that, but also recognizing that both our EDs in these BIA’s are spending over half their week responding to calls from businesses, dealing with encampment or homeless related situations on their doorsteps, whether it’s their shipping and receiving doors in the back or the vestibels in the front, half their week is being devoted to this and they’re not able to focus on some of the other BIA duties that they have in front of them. We’re hoping that there might be an opportunity to discuss and for the two BIAEDs to arrange a sort of a shared staffing resource where a person can be that guide to our businesses in terms of how to connect with CRI, how to make sure that your trust pass authority forms are filled out and your stickers are in your window so that when either our staff or London police in many cases have to respond that they’re able to do so with the businesses authorizations, where a call to police is actually not appropriate, where there are other things that we can do without reach to assist businesses. So these are the very high level discussions we’ve had since this report came out.

Obviously the boards have not had a chance to meet yet, discuss in greater detail, but a lot of the shared concerns between Hamilton Road and Argyle, we feel we can meet by working together, just as we’re seeing the OEV and the downtown LDBA work together. And I will speak to the main motion later, but that’s why we’re asking for this one-time grant to our two BIA’s that we’re committing to share and work together to address some of the increasing issues in our two BIA catchment areas. I don’t know how much time I’ve got left your worship, so I’m gonna just check with you. You got like 30 seconds.

All right, so to be very, very quick then, I just wanna reiterate, BIA’s are pretty small operations, right? In Argyle, we have one in 1.7, I would say full-time equivalents. When we’re devoting most of our time to housing and homelessness response for our members, we are not getting to the other work that needs to be done. So, as much as the downtown and OEV are important, and they are, and I am gonna support the main motion, but I think that we also have to recognize that the problem is spreading further down the road in both BIA’s and we need a response there as well.

Thank you, Councilor McAllister. Yes, thank you and through the chair. And I do appreciate the support that the Deputy Mayor has given to this, because I was in complete agreement when we brought it forward in terms of what we’re experiencing. I wanna thank the executive director, Pampton Road BIA for being in the audience with us this evening.

Every board meeting, this is a topic that comes up repeatedly, and it really is detracting from the purpose of the BIA’s. We’re doing our best, we’re sticking to the mandate, which we were given, but we can’t get to that work grappling with the issues that we’re currently experiencing. And actually, just before this meeting, the executive director and I both had a meeting with the Chief of Police. And there is an acknowledgement that we aren’t hitting those service standards.

The community is asking for support and not receiving it. And that is really the unfortunate reality that we’re faced with. And I know the police are doing their best. The police have put together their ask in terms of what they need to get those service levels back up.

But in the interim, it’s going to take us some time to get to those levels. And to be honest, this is a bit of a stopgap measure and that we need to provide some security and stability to these areas of the city. And that’s an acknowledgement in terms of the amendments we’re seeing today. These are BIA’s, these are residents who are speaking loudly that we need to do something.

And I appreciate the work that’s gone into this. And I fully support this. And I know the BIA’s are really behind it. And I look forward to the debate on it, but I stand behind this because we really do have to do something so our businesses can survive and thrive in London.

Thank you. I have Councillor Frayer next. Thank you and through you. I’m going to speak to the main motion as well, but I just wanted to speak to this amendment first ‘cause I do have some shout outs for people in the gallery and here on the floor, but just speaking to the amendment.

I do appreciate the Deputy Mayor and the Councilor of Ward 1 bringing this motion to the floor because you are correct. Our social issues are reaching beyond downtown in OEV. Like I’m from the East End, my entire family in London is in the East End in both of your awards and a lot of friends are there and I’m there a lot. So I know of the issues that are going on and I feel like if we have areas of the city that are being touched by the issues that we’re trying to bring some action to, then you should be able to get that assistance.

So, and I also really appreciate how you’ve added to the motion to bring the other BIA’s in because all the BIA should be part of the conversation ‘cause we’ve said before this is a whole community response. It’s a community issue. So all of the BIA should be part of the business reference table and they should be at that discussion for basically to be able to have their words be brought to the table and to understand how it is, do the other BIA’s fit into this discussion and how it fits into the initiatives that we’re trying to bring. So I appreciate that too.

I will be supporting your amendment to the motion. And so yeah, I just like to leave it right there because I do understand what’s going on. I know you guys have been part of the conversation and both BIA’s if you need the help and there’s data there and you’ve been part of the conversation, then yes, I feel like that would be an appropriate way to go. So I’ll leave it there and I’ll speak to the main motion when we get there.

I have Councilor Stevenson and then Council Raman. Thank you. I hear my colleagues and I do support having the BIA representatives, the other BIA’s on the business reference table. But this particular funding that’s coming forward is coming from the business reference table from the whole community response.

They have spent months working on this before bringing it to here. And I think to all of a sudden just go, oh, let’s add 250 here and 125 here and we’ll figure it out and we need the money too. All the way along, we’ve been told trust the experts. There’s a process here to follow.

I’m all for the BIA representatives being on the reference table and potentially coming back with something. But you can’t in one hand say, we understand that the downtown and the oldies village is different, but we’re suffering too. No, it’s the world’s apart. They’re worlds apart.

So I get that there’s definitely businesses, suffering across the city and it is expanding. And just recently we did the security at 602 Queens. We were getting a CIR staff recommended CIR for special for oldies village. And it was brought forward that there are hotspots.

And so we didn’t get the designated OEV one because of these other concerns. So the CIR calls has already been addressed with a brand new team that is now going to the hotspots in Argyll and Hamilton Road. So the downtown and the oldies village, I mean, there aren’t teams available to remove all of the encampments in the homeless. Like they’re, it’s just, it’s not even possible.

Our businesses are in palliative care mode. Like they’re barely hanging on. We are in survival mode. This isn’t about optimal.

It’s not about, you know, managing the flow. This is about survival. And I feel like it disrespects the process to just come along and say, oh, we need to get money too. Go through the process, join the business reference table, come back with a proposal.

I’ll be all for that. I don’t want to be in a place of, oh, Argyll is getting streetscape money. Well, we need streetscape money. And so and so is getting a water park.

Well, we need a water park. Well, we need, like let’s not do that. We already gave Hamilton Road an extra 100,000 a year for the next four. We just did the streetscape.

This is a process that’s been months in the making. It’s come forward. Old East Village, I mean, we have, I asked, I made a question to staff about what other BIA’s have social service agencies within their BIA dextrous. Can we ask if staff has a response for me on that?

Mr. Dickens. Through your worship, the request that come through Mr. Mathers is office and made its way to my team.

That is not information that’s readily available. That would be new information we would need to go and find and source and put together. Should council request that staff go and compile a geographic breakdown of all social services based on BIA boundaries, that would be a motion that would need to come from council and direction to staff. Okay, thank you.

Well, I have lots to say about that and I’ll refrain. Old East Village has, and we’re gonna talk about this again as we get to the cold weather. But we have social service agencies that the city is using taxpayer dollars to fund on our business main street, and it’s been that way. And I really, I’m asking my colleagues to say, look, we definitely do get to address businesses across the city.

There are businesses just outside of the BIA. We had checkbox, boss cake, we had Lanoisette close. I would love to see the business reference table come back with how we can support all our businesses in the city, not just the BIA’s, but all of them. And I’d love to have their expertise at the table and I look forward to that report coming back.

I’m asking my colleagues to honor the core, the downtown, I won’t speak for the downtown, I guess, but to honor Old East Village and say, we recognize that you are in a unique situation and therefore we will allocate the money as requested by the business reference table and not dilute it by giving it away to others as well. Let them come back and make their case, but in this case, can we honor the struggle of that particular business district and recognize that it is unique. And I’m asking for the honoring of coming back at another time when the work has been done that has been done here because we needed this money four months ago and it wasn’t rushed, it went through a process. I’m asking the other BIA’s to do the same.

We have Council Raman next. Thank you and through you. First to my council colleagues and well, actually first to the downtown and Old East BIA’s, I just wanted to say thank you for one, having this brought on your behalf ‘cause I think it’s really important that the conversations that have taken place, that this is a result of that work and I understand that and I acknowledge that. And I do think the challenges that are being faced by OEV and downtown BIA’s are unique.

I totally agree with that. However, I will say that our BIA’s across the city are sharing similar concerns but haven’t had a voice at the table. So I’m asking to move an amendment to the amendment and I’ve provided wording on that amendment and I did circulate that as well with members of council and that amendment is to include, and I don’t know if you want me to read the exact language but— I would only because you circulated to us but members of the public haven’t heard it if you could read it, that would be great. Sure, thank you.

Or I could have the clerk read it. Sure, thank you, that’s easier for my eyes. That the proposed amendment be amended to include a new part to be added to read that a one-time grant of $100,000 to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association be approved with funding to be sourced from the operating budget contingency reserve funds and that the existing parts be amended to reflect the new part. So council, I’ll pause and see if there’s a seconder for that piece.

Councilor McAllister, okay, willing to second. Okay, so moved and seconded, so go ahead and continue. Thank you and I appreciate the second from Councilor McAllister because I think it’s an important opportunity to speak to what we’re experiencing through the Hyde Park BIA as well. So a letter has been circulated to members of council from the CEO and general manager as well as the chair in which highlights, again, full support for the funding request by the downtown BIA, the Argyle and the Hamilton BIA, and that while we recognize these issues in the Northwest are different and not of the same intensity related to homelessness, our businesses do face daily issues to just yesterday and last night and feel that the Hyde Park BIA could similarly make positive impacts to the challenging climate, both our neighborhood and business communities are facing.

We as well have not had the time to work out a detailed plan but would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with the city and the development and implementation of such a plan and therefore we are making such a request. Just to relate back to what has happened and transpired in the last few weeks, on Friday of last week, the Hyde Park BIA had the first discussions with the board around our strat plan and the work that’s being done on that and then one of the top concerns coming back from our businesses in the area is safety and security. Just reaching out within the BIA today, story after story of just recent events that they’ve been experiencing and dealing with that are quite challenging. And so when we look at what kind of a problem is this, it’s a city-wide problem, we’ve been talking about that.

One of the challenges with the Hyde Park BIA is from a distance perspective, getting service out to them. So they’re actually in a position where they have to answer, in my opinion, many questions, contact from businesses about not hearing back from police, similarly, not knowing what to do because for a lot of them, they’re experiencing these challenges and they’re not sure what resources are available to them because the resources they know of are available in the core and not out to the rest of the city. So they’re trying to figure that out as well. I’ll give you the example of in, I’m not sure, how much staff can comment on the encampments up by the CP rail tracks, for instance.

Those encampments are right in the heart of the Hyde Park BIA. And so we know that we have seen lots of challenges in the area based on those encampments as well. So I do know that in the proximity to the businesses that are in the surrounding area, that’s the reason for this same request. We are seeing these same issues.

And as I mentioned, there’s story after story from our business community about what’s been going on. The challenges they haven’t had a voice, they haven’t had a seat at the table to be able to have those conversations. So that’s the reason for the request and the supporting communication. I have on, so the amendment to the amendment moved and seconded, I have a speakers list on that and it has Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Freire on it, go ahead Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I do not want it to be heard that I don’t understand that the businesses are suffering across this city. I do worry that if we pass these other amendments for the other BIA’s that we’re gonna miss the businesses that aren’t in BIA’s and they need the support of this city council and the whole of community as well. And I really think that’s important that it isn’t just about BIA districts for this, it’s across the city.

The oldest village situation, I don’t know that I can even talk about it without crying because I really think we gotta talk about more than just encampments and homeless and the police not responding because that’s consistent across the city, okay? In the oldest village, there’s a very high vacancy rate and there’s a lot, a lot of social service, a lot of people sleeping and like, but it’s like we’re feeding 400 people within a block radius during the day and those people are hanging around there and it is a unique situation and unfortunately there is a lot of crime. We’ve got, I’ve got pictures where people are like clawing through the walls, they’re cutting out the water pipes and the water meters twice in a month. People can’t get even repair work done because the trucks get broken into while they’re inside for an hour.

It’s crazy. Can you link it to the amendment to the amendment? Oh, sorry. Sorry.

The amendment to the amendment is, I want to address the issues that businesses are facing across the city. I want my fellow councillors to support having the BIA reps go and be a voice for businesses and come back and brings a thoughtful plan forward that will help all businesses. My other reason for not supporting this amendment is I think it’s a disservice to the public when we’re facing such budget crunch times and we’re gonna just approve money without having had discussion and we’ll figure it out as we go. It’s $375,000 and I’m sure that a case can be brought forward to spend that money that would be great but I think we owe it to taxpayers to do that due diligence and that prep work first rather than just emotionally approving funding amendments.

So that’s my comment on the amendment. Okay, next speaker I have is Councillor Ferra. Thank you. So I really am trying to promote evidence-based decision-making and I feel like many disservices would come up from Councillor Stevenson’s points.

I would add to that, you know, we are doing so much work with our health and homelessness summits. We have tables that are specialized on all these different things. And the OEV BIA and the downtown BIA, from the get go have been a part of those discussions at those tables. They bought in, they have been feeding the tables and the members in those discussions, the concerns that they have and the experiences that they have.

And this was something that was a product from those discussions that came out at the end. We, I would like to see other BIA’s. I don’t want to, like I said, I don’t wanna see BIA’s who are suffering from the impacts of COVID and suffering from the impacts of our social issues not get the assistance that they do, but this cash, these funds are to give us a second wind for the downtown BIA and the old East Village BIA. A second wind in helping us pay for some of the costs that our businesses on the tax levy have incurred broken windows or other costs that might come up.

On top of that, you know, they have been there like really what I’m trying to say is they’ve been at the discussion and it was right from the beginning. And on top of the money that’s coming in, it’s not just for recovering costs that we’ve lost, that the downtown BIA specifically I’m gonna speak to has had to put towards some of the expenses that came in the last few days. But on top of that, it’s to recruit some costs for funds that we had that went towards COVID impacts when they should have gone to other areas. So what I’m really trying to hammer home is this money is not a free-for-all.

This money is for BIA’s that we’re discussing right now that have been impacted by COVID, that have been impacted by our social issues. So I would really like to see, this is why I like the motion from Councillor McAllister and the Deputy Mayor of bringing the BIA is in because you need to have those discussions to really have an understanding and get the data to make the decisions before we get there. So maybe going towards senior leadership team, I’d like to ask Kevin Dickens, or Mr. Dickens, if you can, how many service calls does downtown get in an average?

Let’s just say how many service calls has downtown had if you have those, do you have those numbers off the top of your head? And Councillor, I’ll get the answer to the question. Just keep this to the amendment, to the amendment, that’s what we’re doing. It is the amendment to the amendment.

I’m trying to see if there is the amendment. I’ll get your answer and then just do a purpose for linking back for me, go ahead. Through your Your Worship, I actually do have some data, my fingertips, thanks to Mr. Cooper.

We have it broken down through service London data. That’s the data we collect when people log calls. We have it broken down by ward. So ward 13 currently has just shy of 1,200 service calls.

That’s year to date. So January 1 through to yesterday. Thank you. How about ward four?

Through your Your Worship, if it would appease the chair, I may read off our top five or six that I have at my disposal. Is that okay? And so if coming back. I see nods, so I’m— See where this is going?

Don’t worry, it’s not counting towards your time, Councillor Ferriak, ‘cause it’s the answer to a question. So go ahead. So I was indicated, ward 13 is 1,180 service requests through service London, that’s year to date. Ward four, 848 service requests.

Ward one, 283 service requests. Ward two, 179 service requests. Ward six, 121 service requests. Ward 11, 109 service requests.

And because it came up as a discussion through the Hyde Park area, year to date, Ward seven has had 23 service calls in the area around the CP rail area in Hyde Park. We have plotted on our map five service requests. Thank you for that. So I’m trying to find as much evidence as I can to support the motion, and I will if I have the evidence, which is why I feel like the BIA should be a part of the discussion at the business reference table.

If I were to get a report like that, I’d be able to support a motion. For all you know, you might get more than 125,000 for your BIA. But like I said, this money is very, very tightly earmarked for a specific reason. And I don’t want to be going beyond that reason for what we’re dealing with here.

So I wouldn’t be able to support the motion at this present time, but in the future, ‘cause I’m hoping that the BIA does have a seat at that table, something comes back to discuss the impacts that the BIA has seen, and then a recommendation comes from there. I have Councilor McAllister next, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then Councilor Hopkins, and then Councilor Trozao. Thank you and through the chair. And I want to give my rationale in terms of seconding this.

And I really do think that there needs to be united in front of the BIA’s on this. And speaking to the data that Councilor Furrer just spoke about, there is the city available data in terms of CIR. But in terms of the meeting, I just had the Chief of Police, I think what really hit home with that conversation was across the city, our service is pretty atrocious. And I know the police are taking steps to deal with that.

And to Councilor Stevenson’s point, I know, obviously every part of the city’s feeling this, other businesses are feeling this. Our BIA’s, though, are something that we fund. This is a way that we can directly impact these catchment areas that are experiencing a lot of this, to be honest. And so for me, I think that this is an acknowledgement that all BIA’s are being impacted.

Yes, there’s the city component, but I do think that there’s other data that can be brought to the table. From my point of view, I do think that all the BIA’s has already been indicated should be at this table. But from my point of view, I think that it’s unfair that because they weren’t at the table, that they are being excluded. And I think from my point of view, I’m expressing what I hear in my ward.

And I’m sure some of the other BIA’s probably felt this way too. It was an afterthought. And I don’t think that it’s fair that they’re being essentially said, well, like, you know, but scraps that are left, you know, maybe you can have something, right? Like that to me is disingenuous, two parts of the city that play an integral role in our business community.

And I think that their voices should be heard. And I think that by acknowledging that this is a city-wide issue, they should get a portion of these funds. So I still support all the BIA’s asking for this. Thank you.

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, worship. And thank you, Councilor Ferrer, for asking and Mr. Dickens and Mr.

Cooper for getting those service call numbers to us. And I recognize, as Councilor McAllister said, that’s one piece of data. There’s the policing data as well. And there’s other pieces of data too.

I will say on the Hyde Park ask amendments, I do have some reservations that it simply took the number that the Argyle and Hyde Park or Hamilton Road came up with and divided it in half to get an amount for one. I’m not sure if there’s more rationale behind that specific number. I’d be happy to hear that. But we did hear that, you know, it’s about 1/8 of the call levels that I have in Ward 2 in Ward 7.

And I don’t want to get into saying that there aren’t impacts everywhere. There are, I acknowledge that. But as I indicated, you know, the Argyle BIA is already laying out $25,000 of its own members levy right now for security. I don’t know what other BIA’s are contributing.

But I know our members, no, actually that’s not true. Because I do want to recognize, and I don’t think he was able to join us today, but I want to recognize the board chair at the LDBA who took the time to have a significant conversation with me about how funding from their BIA activations and things were being diverted into direct supports, which is why this funding had come through the business reference table. And so I do want to thank Mr. Collier for that, because where I was hesitant to support some of this funding at the start for the downtown, I felt more comfortable hearing why they were asking for it.

I think I laid out why the Hamilton Road and Argyle BIA are asking for it. Through you, Chair, I would be happy to hear from Councilor Raman if there were specific reasons why this number was picked. And I don’t know if she can comment on that, or if you’ll allow through my question to the Councilor, why this number? Yes, I’ll allow it, and it’s on the amendment, and it’s a clarification question, so go ahead.

Thank you, and through you. I think that one, I want to comment on your answer, your question, but I also want to comment on the service London numbers as well, being used as potentially the data by which we make a decision. I wholeheartedly believe that there’s a lot more data points that we can look at, and I can share the information from members of the BIA that was just taken this summer, where they overwhelmingly said they’re having ongoing concerns around safety and security. This was what was identified as a top priority for the BIA that members are asking for security audits for, that they’re talking about what kind of camera coverage do we have in the area, that they’re talking about those continued challenges.

When we’re looking at the number around what potentially needs to be done, we know we’re a larger BIA. We’re a larger BIA, we have a larger membership, so we thought 125 made sense in terms of not in just the amount for comparison to the other BIA’s, but that we weren’t asking for more in terms of our size, based on what the other BIA’s were in terms of their size. So being that we have lots of larger big box stores in our area, we weren’t asking for a tremendous amount more. We thought that that was an opportunity to get a starting point for what kinds of needs that we’re seeing in the area, and again, create a plan from there.

I don’t, go ahead. I appreciate that, and I would agree that the service London numbers alone can’t be the only data point. I mean, as I said, the RIA has had a security dispatch to 529 calls a year to date, and yet our service London one only reflects 197, sorry, 179, so I recognize that there are definitely changing data points there, and I do know, and I’m sorry, again, I’m through you, Chair, I’m putting the Councilor on the spot and perhaps a little unfairly, so I apologize in advance for that, but I’m wondering, ‘cause I know what the ARGA BIA is contributing from its levies, I do understand now from having spoke to Mr. Collier what the downtown business association is contributing from its levy funds to this issue.

Can the Councilor comment on what contribution the Hyde Park BIA is making from its own levy funds towards this issue? Go ahead. Thank you, and through you, I didn’t come prepared with that response of what’s being done at this point. A lot of our businesses are paying themselves for additional security costs, of which they’re bearing quite a considerable amount of cost is which is part of the reason why this has been raised as a big concern, and so what we’re trying to, again, assess now is how do we support those smaller locations, and again, it’s just the dynamic of having a BIA with different needs, and I think that’s really important to note is that all of our BIA’s have different needs.

I mean, being that in our area, we have more big box stores, yes, but that doesn’t change the need, and a lot of the times, most of the things that a business is facing challenges, they don’t know to call service London, they deal with it themselves, and that’s been the reality, and when I hear about those concerns is usually when they start to report them to service London, but there’s just not that knowledge to do so, and so the BIA actually deals with a lot of those calls or deals with calls and directs people as to where to go from there. So keep going, thank you for that, Councillor. I appreciate that, and perhaps offline, you and I can reach out to the Hyde Park BIA ED and get a little more full-sum response to that between now and council. Given what I’ve heard from you, and I wanna say I specifically recognize it’s probably the same with the rail yards, they sometimes deal with it themselves instead of contact us, but I recognize the concern about the CP facility as well.

Having both rail lines border my ward, I see the impact of that on both the north and south of Ward 2, and I know Councillor McAllister feels it in Ward 1 with the Israel Line 2, so I’m gonna be willing to support this amendment for now, but I do want to say I’m gonna be reaching out to Ms. Bekowski for some more information before council, because I do need a little more understanding of why this number in the area, but I do appreciate the information you were able to provide. And I will say I think it underscores perhaps a disconnect. I don’t want to in terms of speaking to this amendment rehash the discussion, but I think that there’s a perception, and we heard it last month in debate around hubs from Ward 7 residents that there isn’t a homelessness issue in Ward 7, but the BIA feels differently, and I think we need to hear that from the BIA lens, and there’s clearly a disconnect between the business owners and the residents in the area about the impact that this situation is having.

So, but again, I just raised that as a disconnect in messaging that I’m hearing from that area, but I appreciate why this is coming forward, so I’ll have some further discussions with you and Ms. Bekowski offline, and we’ll see where that leads. Have Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship, and I think I’m gonna speak to the amendment, and I’m gonna also speak to the main motion, so I can do this as quickly as possible.

I’m gonna ask that you not do that, and just speak to the main motion, ‘cause there’s other speakers still on the main motion list, so just speak to the amendment on the amendment right now. Okay, to the amendment, to the amendment. I’d like to start off, first of all, appreciate the discussion, but I feel no matter where you are in the city of London, businesses are suffering, so that’s where I want to start off. Secondly, BIA’s, all BIA’s, have an opportunity to be part of the reference table.

I think I appreciate Deputy Mayor Lewis’ recommendation. I would ask that you split it out if it’s possible, so maybe I’m doing an amendment to the amendment to the amendment, because I would like to support that process that all BIA’s be asked to go to the reference table, and present their plans to take advantage of the funds that are available here for COVID relief, for businesses. And I would also encourage any business, or business group, to be part of that conversation. You know, I came in here, fully prepared to say yes, everyone gets the money, and any other BIA wanting to step up will probably get the money, but the more I am thinking about this, I do believe in the process.

OEV, the Downtown Business Group, went through the process. The recommendation came towards it to us. I’ve read that. I now am just trying to decipher the plans, and the need for the money, and these amounts, and the importance to the groups, and I hear it loud and clear, but there is an opportunity to go to this table, and get the money that you’re requesting, so I would encourage you to do that.

I will not be supporting the amendments to the amendments. Councilor Shostaya, you’re next. Sorry, I’ll be very brief. I won’t be supporting the amendment to the amendment.

I just think this is getting a little out of control. You know, we had an item on the table tonight that was on the agenda. We’re giving out money. We received a very, very thoughtful, I think, and very detailed letter from the Downtown Group, which I’m going to support.

But I want to stick to the amendment on the amendment. No doubt there are businesses in that area that are hurting, but also no doubt, and I’m glad you raised, I’m glad that the Councilor raised not in the North Side. We have a lot of businesses who are in some stress, who are not in BIA’s. I’ve got a strip along Oxford Avenue that is very depressed.

So on both sides of Oxford Avenue, although the businesses are more likely to be on the North Side. I’ve got a strip along Warren Cliff that is constantly having problems. I mean, the area just north of Oxford. It’s just not limited to areas that have BIA’s.

So I just think, like, we just opened up this sort of, OK, anybody else got a BIA that want to come in with a request? I don’t think it’s a good way to be doing budgeting. So I’m going to be— I want to be opposing this particular amendment on the amendment, but I want to agree that the existing BIA should be part of the table. I’m surprised that that’s not part of the situation already.

But I also want to do a scan of where we have— we have a grouping of businesses on Adelaide Street. It’s on the Ward Ford side, but it’s all those little shops, cheap side, and Oxford in that area. They don’t have a BIA. Maybe they need a BIA.

But I don’t think the numbers that are being thrown around tonight bear any kind of resemblance to something that’s been well thought out. I’m going to say the same thing when we get to the amendment. But for the amendment on the amendment, I just don’t see where that number comes from. So I’m just not going to be supporting it.

Thank you. Councilor Stevenson, and this is your second time on this. So you have about two minutes and 20 seconds left. I only need a short bit.

I’m just going to, again, Sam, not going to submit— I can’t even speak tonight. I’m not going to support this amendment to the amendment. But I would look forward to seeing something come back in the future. On this, it says that these supports that are coming before us tonight in the original one, that they are directly linked to the work of the whole of community system response and have been developed through the business reference table with the support of civic administration and endorsed by the strategy and accountability table.

We do have a process, whole of community. We’re going to get all kinds of requests over the next few months and years, potentially. Let’s let the business reference tables do their work, go through the process, and come back to council. I’m sure it’ll be much faster than these ones.

But I’m not supporting it because we have a process in place. Let’s follow it. I have Councillor Ferreira for the second time. We’ve got about a minute, 50 left.

Thank you, through you. I’ll be quick as well. I want to support the High Park BIA, I want to. I just need to know why I’m doing it and how I’m doing it.

And at the moment, all I know is how I would be supporting it with this motion, which is why I do want to see the BIA go to the business reference table and go through the process. I want to do this right. We’ve already seen two BIAs go through the process and with success on all fronts up to this point, considering everything around us. But just to do things right, this is why I would love to see the BIA sit at the table and then go from there.

Because I am sure, especially if there’s an impact from our social issues right now at the BIA level and the businesses that it supports, you will see me supporting that. You’ll be supporting that 100%. At this point in time, I will not be. I will be supporting.

I like how Councillor Hopkins has broken down the motion. Because I will be supporting asking the BIA to sit at the business reference table. And that’s how far I will go right now. And if it does get to that and the BIA is at the business reference table and a recommendation comes back for some type of financial support from the business reference table, you will see me supporting it then.

So that’s just what I would like to say. Okay, that exhausts the speaker’s list on the amendment to the amendment. So if there’s no further speakers, this is the, if you refresh your screen, this is the change that Councillor Ramen brought forward. Only, which is to amend the motion that Councillor Lewis and McAllister brought forward to add the component about the Hyde Park BIA.

So we’ll open that for voting. Frank votes yes. Councillor Lehman confirming your abstaining. That’s correct.

Thank you. Closing the vote, motion fails. Five to seven with two abstaining. Okay, that component fails.

That brings it back to Councillor Lewis’ and McAllister’s motion to add two pieces in the support for, the combined support for the Argyle and Hamilton Road BIA and the direction to invite the all business improvement areas to invite a representative to participate in the business reference table. So I can go back to that speaker’s list now, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just wonder if the mover would be amenable to dividing the A out into two parts where starting with this civic administration be directed to reach out to all businesses, et cetera. Yes, I don’t have a problem dividing it into two parts, that’s fine.

That’s good ‘cause I already said yes, take a moment. So we’re gonna do this first as the A part, which the A part is just the funding part. So it’s the money part, not the invitation to the business reference table. This is just the money part.

So that’s the part we’re gonna vote on now. I don’t see anybody else looking to speak. So we’re gonna open that for voting. (indistinct) Yes, I’ll clarify.

If you look in East Gribe that a new part CB added that one time grand of $250,000 to the Argonne Hamilton Business Improvement Areas be approved with funding to be sourced from the operating budget contingency reserve. That’s the only part we’re voting on right now. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Trossa, Councillor Layman to confirm. Councillor Layman, no abstains.

Thank you. Closing the vote, motion passes eight to four with two abstaining. The next piece is going to be piece that is the invitation for all BIAs to have a representative to participate in the business reference table. Business reference table.

So that’ll open in a second. Frank votes yes. Just a little ahead of the curve. We haven’t quite opened it yet, Councillor Frank.

Okay, well, I know I like it. Yeah. If I hear trick or treating in the background, I’m gonna be jealous. I would never.

Now we’ll can make their votes if they have too verbally. So this is where you can actually cast the vote, Councillor Frank. Okay, vote yes. But I thought I would like hold over.

Seeing the vote and the motion carries 12 to zero with two abstaining. Okay, so now we’re back to the main motion. Now we’re back to the staff report, which was originally put on as amended in the ways that it was amended, which ended up being just two amendments, the two that both parts that Councillor McAllistering and Deputy Mayor Lewis brought forward. So that’s what we’re on now, Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you and through you. I’ll speak to this main motion. I can do that right now. Yes, now you can speak to the main motion.

Okay, I’ll keep it quick, ‘cause I know everybody wants to get home. So one sec, I’m pretty mature. Because we’ve amended it, I now need to move her for the as amended piece. Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor McAllister seconds.

Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you. First, I do have to give some thanks. I’m trying to give more thanks nowadays.

So I have the executive director for the Downtown Business Association sitting up there and the general manager of the new general manager of Old East Village, BIA. You guys have done some great work right from the beginning. I know these conversations were tough at some times, but I thought you did a fantastic job. So I just wanted to give you a shout out for that.

I think all of the businesses that you support are very lucky to have you. To senior leadership team, everybody sitting on the floor, especially everybody who’s involved, thank you as well. I know that it was a lot of work in the months coming up to this and just want to say thanks to you as well. And for anybody on the multiple tables at the Health and Homelessness Summits, thank you to you as well for your work on that.

As you all know, the Downtown is definitely in need of this money you saw in the delegation correspondence that came on the agenda of the reasons for that, but the elevated costs, the diminished clientele reduced sales. Many tenants are in arrears. I don’t think I saw that. I did want to throw that in there too.

People are having trouble getting insurance, paying their deductibles just because it’s such an ongoing thing. So I am looking for, I’m hoping that we do get full support from Council here for our Downtown because it is the heart of the city. And it is something that as not as Councilors, but as Londoners is something that I would hope you would support. So I’ll leave it there.

Okay, thanks Councilor. Sorry, I got people whispering in my ear. I heard Jen speaking and I apologize for missing the tail end of that. On the main motion, Councilor Trossa.

I’ll be supporting this as well. I do want to refer a little bit to the three page letter that we received from Downtown London, if it would be okay to do that as part of this motion. This is everything. So if it’s, yes, it’s appropriate to talk with that at the time.

Okay, so when you’re coming to Council to ask— You’re going to talk through the chair. Through the chair, yes, and yes. Through the chair, my feeling is that when you come to Council to ask for a request, this is a good model of the level of detail and justification I’m losing my voice. This is a good letter and I’m going to support it.

So I’ll leave it there and let somebody else talk. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I will be supporting this, but I just want to reiterate that I still am a firm believer that there’s a lot of interconnectedness with this and I want to encourage the BIAs to work together.

I really applaud our guy on Hamilton Road for working together. I want Hyde Park to feel like a welcome partner as well because you are a BIA. I do think that there’s strength in numbers and they need to work together because like we’ve said, over and over, like this is affecting us citywide. And I know earlier, I’ve heard a few points in terms of, well, there are other businesses, but like again, like I say, strength in numbers, like I have people who have come to be saying they would like to form a BIA and they really can pull their resources.

So I would encourage the businesses, if there is a desire that there is real benefits to creating a BIA for them to be able to pull their money together. Like we’ve seen the benefits of that and there really is, like I said, like the strength of numbers and I know the one off situations it’s hard because they can’t pull in those kind of financial resources and even in situations like this, we’re seeing that even business communities are coming to us because they need that added assistance. And I mean, these are things that the downtown has experienced, OEV, but like Hamilton Road connects to Horton, Egerton, Rectory, impact Dundas. We are connected geographically, issue wise.

I want there to be recognition of that because we can’t look at these things in silos and pity one against the other. We really do have to present the United Front because it is a city-wide issue and I will be supporting this, thank you. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, there’s a lot in this motion and I’ve got things to say about a few of them, but I too would like to thank the downtown London and Oleast Village for the countless hours that they have put into these business reference table and some of them on other tables as well over the course of this entire whole community.

I’m very appreciative of the work and of the approval coming through this report. I’m ecstatic quite frankly to see this lifeline being offered to an extremely valuable business district. We are home to the National Historic State of the Banting. There’s A Only in Hall, there’s the Clay Works and Palace Theatre and just innumerable ones, those are just a few, but this business district, I really can’t tell you how scary it is there right now and how much they need the support of their city and so I really appreciate this motion and we’re gonna do amazing things with it.

It’s an amazing, amazing community and I just wanna thank all those involved, staff and the whole community and our BIA’s. I also wanted to talk a little bit about the service depot summary here and then I have an overall comment I wanted to make. So on page 14, it talks about the results of the service depot and I was a little surprised to see 1,059 unique individuals have been served in the first 60 days. That’s at four encampments, 1,059 unique individuals.

How many unhoused people do we have and anything you can share with me on how there’s that many unique? Go ahead. Thank you and through the chair, I understand that as the depots began operation, a number of individuals who were housed were accessing the depots for meals. So that is not a true reflection of everybody being unsheltered but there was a significant number of individuals housed accessing those resources.

Thank you, that’s good to hear, I guess, I’m not sure. It’s interesting, I’ll say that. But the meal kits, when I divide it by the four service depots in the 60 days, it’s only 14 meals per encampment. So I just wondered, have you sort of taken a peek at the numbers and worked them to see, ‘cause 14 meals per encampment sounded about right, potentially a fire encampment sizes are limited to a certain amount.

So I guess my question is, how many unhoused people do we have living literally on our streets or any encampments? If you can shed any light on that and what the maximum number is per encampment in terms of tents or something? And through the chair, the number of individuals experiencing unsheltered homelessness is never a static number. I know we appreciate that.

But I think we’re in the 500 plus range at this point. We know about 300 of those are actively engaged regularly with service entities through our HIFIS database but quite a number still don’t engage with our community. So it is hard to estimate and 500, 500 plus is kind of where a comfort level is at this time. Okay, and maybe I’m a bit confused in the other direction now ‘cause I thought we had 600 high acuity and I thought we had more than that that weren’t on our streets that weren’t high acuity.

Maybe shed some light on that or the breakdown, we said 2000 unhoused, how many of them are in shelters? I don’t want exact numbers, just give me a rough, ‘cause that number sounds really low, 500. Go ahead. Through your worship, we have roughly 2000 individuals on our quality by name list.

So that’s what we start with. Those are individuals that are experiencing homelessness. Of those, we have over 600 that have been assessed to be of the highest acuity. There are individuals that experience unsheltered homelessness periodically and those that experience chronic unsheltered homelessness and the outreach teams do their best to keep track, count them, log them into the system.

So that as Mr. Cooper said, that’s not a finite static number but we work from the premise of we have 2000 known individuals experiencing homelessness, about 600 plus are of the highest acuity and often spend their nights outdoors unsheltered. So this is not a numbers game, this is a human being game and those numbers do change quite a bit. Oh, absolutely, they’re the most important numbers, that’s for sure.

So the differential would be couch surfing and that kind of thing as well. You know what, just leave it, I might just leave it for now. When I look at the Service Depot report, it says things like, you know, that it’s one of the key findings was that there was a 40% negative impact on the neighborhoods according to the residents. 35% said there was no impact.

Found that interesting, also that the, I guess I found this report a little bit interesting. I wondered what staff had, what their takeaways were on this because it says, what has gone well with the Service Depot implementation? It says, number three is people are being treated with dignity and respect. Have a difficult time wondering, like we can treat them with dignity and respect, but I don’t see that there’s a lot of dignity and respect in sleeping by the river and I know I had the privilege of spending an hour and a half at one of the service depots and honestly it reinforced what I had believed previously, which was as great as it is to hand out water bottles and sandwiches.

It doesn’t even come close to addressing the needs that they have and I found it quite sad and tragic to ask people what they, you know, if we could help them in 30 seconds. All right, I’m gonna ask for an extension of two minutes please. Councilor wants an extension of two minutes. I need a seconder for that.

Don’t start cutting. Okay, I’m gonna do the extension of two minutes by hand. All those in favor, post, people have to vote. Like, that’s a privilege.

I don’t know which way you voted there. Was it? We’re gonna do it again. I would say by second.

Okay, so you’re abstaining, so I should have called abstentions. I’m gonna do this again. All those in favor of the extension. If I can just say two though, this is committee work.

No, that’s no, we’re voting, no, we’re voting. All those in favor of the extension, please put up your hand, opposed. Motion fails, seven to two. You have 20 seconds left.

So what I would like to say is that last night I was at the London Police Service and we did a budget, a transformational budget with a very large ask. And we saw our chief and the deputy chiefs present with clarity, exactly the point A, where we are at with statistics, measurable statistics, with measurable outcomes, where we will be in nine months in the third year at the end of the multi-year budget. Bold commitments, and I am wondering when we will see that for the whole of community response. Because the mayor had said how much he wanted to see that, and I’m wondering when we get that for this piece.

Your time’s up, question. I’ll go to staff. Your worship, I think we’ve tried to be clear from the get go what it is we’re trying to deliver on, supporting 600 people who live unsheltered. We’ve estimated that that requires approximately 10 to 15 hubs with 600 highly supportive units over the next three years.

Those are the things that we are working on. We’ve also indicated that we are developing an evaluation framework with the experts from our university and affiliates and college experts. That we will be bringing back to council where we’ll indicate the change and how we’re measuring the change over time, what are the specific outcomes we’re looking at beyond, number of people dying, number of people living unsheltered, number of people housed. So we’ve indicated that we’ll be bringing those pieces of work forward.

I’m not sure entirely when the evaluation framework will come forward, but probably in early Q1. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, on the main motion. I am, I wanna first of all thank the community, London, downtown London and EV.

I really do appreciate hearing from the BIAs and the process that you undertook. Very supportive, I do think it’s important that we address the challenges of the businesses. We know investments downtown, we get a greater return. Maybe we need to do a little bit more as opposed to reacting all the time.

That’s why we’re here, coming up with a strategy of something so we’re not always that you have to come and ask for money. So very supportive, really pleased that we’re going to do immediately supporting businesses as we’re getting into an important season as well for most of the businesses. I just wanna just add just reflecting on the conversation we’ve had here tonight. I really do wish we could support everyone, all the businesses in our city.

There is such a great need out there, but I hope that we have a process in place. We do have money and I really would encourage all groups to participate. So thank you. That exhausts my speaker’s list on the main motion as amended.

So the entire motion is on the floor. I’m gonna open that for voting. Okay, open that for voting. Frank votes yes.

Fosing the vote and the motion passes while to zero with two recused. Okay, so that concludes that item that we have pulled. The final one is the community cold weather response report. So that report is before us.

I’ll look for a mover and a seconder on that. Moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Questions or comments on this report? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I have a lot of questions on this report. One of them is I’m gonna start with the most important one first. This has come from the whole of community and which had said that no hubs in Old East Village.

And for that same reason, I would have assumed we wouldn’t be seeing social services funded this way either. There’s also a council approved poor area action plan, number 69 that I’ve been talking about throughout 2023 to say it was council approved that the over saturation in Old East Village would be looked at, that it would be inventoryed, that it would be determined what could be done to alleviate that over saturation and at least mitigate the impacts that are happening negatively. So what I wanna know is why, I wanna find as much of this cold weather as we can, but it cannot be on the main street of a BIA. On one hand, this council has been presented with money to offset the desperate, desperate situation that is there.

And in the same committee meeting, we are being asked to continue the insanity, the insanity of having social services. Okay, we’re not gonna use the word insanity. Lots of people have called points a personal privilege for the way language is gonna be used. Then I’ll take it back.

Yes. I’ll take it back. And the insanity part that I meant is the repetitive nature of doing the same thing and expecting different results. That was my intention.

So I apologize if it came out different. Sounds more like a saying than the way that it came across. Yes, I understand. So thank you for pulling that back.

I understand. So what I want to know is, it was a council approved directive and the whole of community said that they recognize the issues in Old East Village. So I’m wondering how we are being presented with two of the however many are on the very main street of our business district. So I would like an explanation as to why and when this was gonna stop.

Mr. Dickens. Go ahead. Through you, Your Worship, happy to answer the question of why you see those sites in the cold weather response plan that’s proposed.

Those are continuation of services. So as part of the hubs plan, we said no new hubs in Old East Village in the core area. And what this is, is a continuation of services. We’re not adding new services that are not currently already there.

We have absolutely been presented many options, multiple proposals that would add significant services to Old East Village. And we have turned those down and have said no, these are a continuation of existing services. Thank you. And through the chair, when the issue of the women’s shelter on Vendast Street came up in January and I brought this up as it was a new service being added to Old East Village.

I was told by civic administration it would only be four months. It has continued for the full length of the contract, but why am I seeing it again after I had that commitment earlier this year? Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Your Worship. Yes, when the service provider entered into the lease agreement with the land owner, it was our understanding as well that that was a short-term rental. What they have been able to do is work through that property owner to maintain that lease. We did look at options for relocation.

We did look at options for different service delivery models. The service provider and the property owner are looking to stay in that location. The table that has come up with the recommended cold weather response has also included that service as a continuation in that location as well. So my question comes back to the core area action plan.

I had meetings with the DCMs earlier this year to say this was a cleared council directed thing. Okay, all kinds of things happened with COVID. I get that and here we are. But when is this going to be dealt with, this issue that was in number 69?

Who has it and when is it going to be dealt with? Because it has to be addressed. We cannot continue. Three Councillors, is that a question for our staff?

Well, yes, because that we spent $10 million on that core area action plan and that was one of them. And I’ve been talking about it since January and I thought council approved stuff had to be done. Correct. I’m just saying, ‘cause before us what you have is a motion for council’s consideration.

So if council approves it, that’s council’s direction on what to do. So I’m not sure. But it’s in contravention to number 69 of the core area action plan. Yes, and you’re raising that and colleague— So I’m saying we shouldn’t be doing it.

Can we at least have a commitment that this is the last time or that we won’t be putting them on main streets and our BIA is going forward? There gets to be a recognition that that number 69 happened and existed or we’re just saying it, giving it lip service and not committing to that business area. Yes, what I’m saying is I don’t think that’s a question for staff. I think that’s a comment to your council colleagues given the previous council direction and given the item before us is for council approval.

So I think you’re asking some of their colleagues, not staff to make a commitment that is actually— - And forgive my frustration, but it’s heartbreaking to see this come forward like this, you know? It’s heartbreaking to go and talk to those businesses and say hang in there and they don’t see hope, you know? They don’t. So what I would like to ask is in these funding commitments, could we put, is there going to be something like we talk about in the whole of community where there’ll be community engagement, a commitment to good neighbor?

Because that also was part of number 69. So is that going to be part of these agreements? Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, worship through you. Yes, when we look at trying to implement or onboard cold weather response services, we would look to include the service standards and look at those requirements for lead agencies or agencies that are operating in this space to ensure that they’re taking care of the space inside as well as the space outside and upholding those new standards that we’re really trying to elevate the entire community through with the whole of community system response. Is there going to be a commitment letter, like a commitment to dealing with this? Because what I see is arcade getting six hours during the day of food, but then people are going to be turned out and they have no place to go at night.

They’re being fed at 602 Queens and they’re being fed at arcade, but there’s no place for them to sleep. We’re talking about 350 people a day being fed there and we’ve got safe space kicking people out at seven in the morning. It’s heartbreaking. I’ll say that I’m disappointed in this cold weather strategy and I read that there’ll be more overnight spaces so I’m happy for that.

And are they going to be right near where the food is being handed out? Because that’s what we don’t want. It’s a business district that we are going to try to revive into amazing beautiful things in the next six months. But we’re feeding people there and there’s no place to sleep currently.

Is there any exploration or look or hope that we’re going to move this out of this business district? So I’ll have Mr. Dickard’s answer. I’m just going to let you know you got about 30 seconds of time left.

But Mr. Mick, go ahead, Mr. Dickard’s. Through you, your worship.

As far as the commitment letters go, I’m not sure what commitment we’re asking service providers to make. There’s an overabundance of people in need and an underabundance of resources to help them. It would be probably not in our ability to ask people to write commitment letters to trying to solve this homelessness with the limited resources. What there will be though are funding agreements in which we enter into with these organizations, which require them to follow and abide by certain standards and certain obligations as it relates to receiving funding from the city.

As it connects to additional overnight spaces, the report indicates we will be coming back in November. Those spaces are still being negotiated and there’s a lot of inner workings that go on with securing property. So I can’t make a comment or a commitment on where those locations will be at this time, but we will be bringing back an update in November that has additional overnight beds in it. Okay, thank you.

When you go through the cost estimates that you receive from the agencies, is there, do you look at them to see how much, like compare them, how much per day per hour of staffing? Are there any standards or limits or analysis that you do when these come in? Right, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the chair, yes, my team and I review the budgets as they come in. We recognize that every organization does have a different structure of compensation for staff, different levels of benefits, cost different organizations, different amounts. So we do review those. We don’t compare organizations in the way the council is suggesting, but we do look at a reasonable in this and work with the organizations to ensure that what they’re asking for is what they’re providing.

So one last thing, just quick, in the 69, it said where services are being operated in a way that may negatively impact the surrounding business environment, potential solutions will be identified that could mitigate this impact. Could you share what solutions you’ve got, ‘cause I’m assuming you have them for the hubs, what I can share with businesses in that area? Okay, Councilor, that concludes your time, but we’ll get you the answer for this one. Go ahead, Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, through you, Chair. So the property management expectations would be similar to what we have with the hubs, managing congregating of individuals looking for service, managing those lineups, ensuring that there’s no encampments popping up nearby. This is why this work will happen in tandem with our coordinated and foreign response teams, why organizations, as they start to plan, how they’re gonna deliver these services, are looking at those other unintended consequences and looking at how they can provide hospitable space for folks to access services.

So as long as you’re not debating, you can put that on the microphone and if you ask one something split out, I’m happy to take that. Yes, would you split those out for me so I can vote separately? Which one, can you be specific about what you want split? Well, you know what, if you want to think about that, I can come back to you when you’ve got that.

I’ve got other speakers, so just let me know before we get to that point. Councilor Pribble, go ahead. Thank you, a couple of things. I’ll start this by the way, thank you, Mr.

Dickens, I had quite a few questions and he answered them, the detailed one, so thank you for that. I want to look at it from a different perspective. Actually, the gentleman that was here, he left that was speaking and I had some conversations with Representative of Agencies over this weekend. I just want to reiterate one thing that I heard that myself and some other councilors, they keep asking a return on investment.

So I kept telling them that we all agree that return on investment, it comes to the lives, saving lives, no doubt. But the thing is, return on investment comes to it, kind of when we look at these financials and when we have, let’s say, $100 and with $100, can we save five lives or 10 lives? Can we feed five people or 10 people? Can we provide five beds or 10 beds?

So that’s kind of the return on investment. So it’s so kind of that, again, bottom line, it is the lives of people, but on the other hand, we want to make sure that the dollar gets us the furthest and we can serve the most people. So if I look at the big picture, what I’m struggling with is the short-term plans. And you know, when we started from the spring, we started to ask about wintering, sorry, winter response and throughout the spring, we were getting responses that we should have something better in place and there should be no need for that.

We didn’t kind of, we didn’t expect that. Then there was the hubs. And as I said, hubs, I think there was a great work done, lots of people, lots of experts, lots of hours, great. But there was only one strategy that came out of it and only the four high acuity.

And I think we did fall behind and there was the thing that we talked about earlier today, which I’m disappointed the way it went. But this is the thing that I’m looking at. If you talk to the agencies, they will tell you, this is the most expensive financing funding that we are doing because these organizations, they hire people, they can guarantee them work more than four or five months, then they let them go, then we come up with the financing, they have to recruit again. And I just don’t, I still don’t comprehend this.

It’s hard for me to comprehend. Same as the annual ones that they have it from first of April, the 31st of March, and we are dealing with it in July. We are dealing with each other. So help me up.

If you can please help me understand this, why we are financing this and I do know, there’s one, certainly one, maybe more organizations that have provided us for the last three, four years with beds already. So why are we waiting? Why are we waiting for November? In November, they’re gonna, they’ll give them a commitment.

They’re gonna wait if we approve it. If we approve it, they’ll have to start hiring, training, and try to help me understand the big picture division that we are being proactive and we are getting the most after the dollar. So these points, if you can please, someone help me out to understand and how can we be more proactive and I’ll talk this in a better manner. Go ahead.

Thank you, Your Worship, through you. There has been a lot of work done to be proactive and if I might share through with the committee, this table was co-chaired by two members of the community. And in July, they facilitated more than six coalition meetings to start to uncover and plan what organizations were able to provide. They met with the business, the funder, and the developer reference tables.

They held 31 one-on-one meetings with key partners. They coordinated the emergence of a centralized HR plan with London Health Sciences Center and they met with our city team roughly eight times. In one way or another, all interested parties have been engaged and this is still where we are. We have gone back to organizations from the summer looking for support.

We have asked to access empty recovery center beds for the cold weather response. We have looked at where the cost benefit analysis is with onboarding staff in July, knowing that council is expecting us to see a cost per bed in some cases or a value for money on a cold weather response. So hiring staff four or five months before winter and not delivering services at that point was something that we were not comfortable bringing forward to committee to consider. What we have here is the best use of our expiring one-time funds.

We have been the benefactor of some incredible historical investments by the province of Ontario and through the federal government. But those funds were not predictable. They were not consistent and they were not without expiration. And so Mr.

Cooper’s team has been able to reallocate funding every time there was slippage or understanding in a previous program. And we’ve been able to maximize our one-time investments from other orders of government. We feel that what we have here is a direct reflection of what the community is telling us they’re able to provide at the cost that they’re able to provide it. We did hear absolutely throughout this process.

Organizations large and small indicate they wanted 18 months, 24 months of funding. Organizations that are not city-funded, looking to get more permanent funding. The cold weather response is not the vehicle to introduce permanent funding or to introduce ongoing long-term funding. Partly because that’s a backdoor way to do that work, but also we don’t have the funds to commit.

It’s much like asking us to scale up shelters without a source of funding. That is really a multi-year budget discussion. So this, I guess, is what I’m saying is the reflection of where we are after several months of planning and after leveraging every available expiring dollar that we have. And it is informed by, and there’s a reflection of what the community has told us over 31 different times that this is what they’re able to provide.

Thank you. Did we then, did we approach them? And did we say if the funding is longer, if the costs will be actually lower? Because I’m again hearing that, and again, it’s not from one agency, it’s from numerous, that if the people are trained, they can handle the ratio instead of one to five, one of potentially one to seven, and et cetera.

So the costs go down. So my point is for $50, we are getting six months. Could we get for $51, eight months? Did we ask them, did we approach them in this perspective?

So we can get more out of each dollar. Through your worship, as we’ve reported this evening, we are continuing to have the stability of the sector conversations, where we can actually increase the funding that agencies receive. Shelters and other organizations that receive city funding, we’re working with them on an increase to their funding to help them transition and stabilize their organizations during this period. This here was trying to come up with a urgent response to the fact that the temperature is about to drop, and we need some interim short-term measures while we continue to move people off the streets into highly supportive housing, and while we continue to open up hubs.

We did not have the ongoing long-term funding to offer people to ask them that scenario if their services would be cheaper if we had the money ‘cause we didn’t have the money. I hope that answers the question. Yeah, about 30 seconds, Councillor. 30 seconds left.

So the quick difference between them now and the beds, because actually, I think they are gonna be actually behind last year, because if I think about it, we are gonna do it in November while the agencies for them to secure the spaces, to hire the people. So we are actually even behind last year, and we certainly weren’t on very early next year either. So what’s the difference? For example, there’s certainly at least one agency right here, right now, on this list that provided beds last four years.

Why aren’t we making the decision now so an agency can start hiring, recruiting, training? Here are times I’ve, Councillor, but I will have that question answered. Through you, Worship, as I indicated in a previous answer for a different question, there are organizations that brought forward other proposals for overnight beds that were gonna be located in Old East Village, and we did not feel comfortable bringing those forward. I have Councillor Trostow next.

Year time’s up, Councillor Trostow’s next. Okay, well, here we are. Sorry, Councillor Trostow, go ahead. Here we are, we’ve been here a year now.

Look at how much we’ve accomplished. I mean, I look at this report, I look at both of them, both 2.2 and 2.3. I am so proud of the work that this council has done in the last year, and I think of where we were when we started this together. And, you know, we can pick this apart, and we can say things like, it’s heartbreaking that these agencies are here, but you know something, it’s not heartbreaking that Arc 8 is where they are.

What would be heartbreaking would be people not getting the food that Arc 8 provides for them. What would be heartbreaking would be these other agencies not getting the services. You think we have a problem in terms of being approached by hostile people and having hungry people who feel they have to commit to crime or do other things. Just think of how much mitigation we’ve done of human suffering because of these agencies.

And I want to call out Arc 8 and London cares homeless response and CMHA. I want to call them out, safe space, 519 pursuit. London cares homeless response. And yes, they are concentrated.

And yes, it would be better if they weren’t, they were undone this ‘cause that’s where they were. That’s historically where in this structural real estate market, these types of services were able to find facilities. And look at the improvements that have been done. I mean, when you really think about what’s going on at, for example, safe space, they’ve done such wonderful improvements to make that a welcoming space for the community.

And I think we should be very grateful and we should be very thankful that we have such dedicated organizations in our community who are doing this work. And I’m as critical of staff and civic administration as the next guy can ever be. But I do want to take this opportunity today to say, now that we’re reflecting on being here for a year, I feel very fortunate to be part of this group and I’m very thankful for the work that you’ve done. Is it perfect?

No. Are too many of these agencies located in the same area? Yes. Although I think we’re working on that.

So all in all, good work. I look at the schedule one cold weather response, expected costs. And I see a lot of very detailed information that went on to this. And I think we’re being very, very frugal with the money that we’re spending.

And we’re getting money from a lot of different places. This is not all going on the leaving. So once again, congratulations for the work that you’ve done on this. And we’ve had some very robust discussions tonight.

But I want to leave this on a positive basis here. We’ve improved the lives of a lot of people because of the work that our partners are doing. And we should be proud of that. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Your Worship. I won’t repeat everything. Councilor Truss, I was said. But in general, I agree with most of it.

We are doing what we can. We recognize that we have constraints municipally to what we can do. And I’m not going to rehash all of the different jurisdictional responsibilities of different levels of government right now. What I would like to ask, just one question through you to our staff.

And I suspect I know the answer is because things start to wind down. But we have, through these different clauses, some different end dates. In E, we’ve got May 31st. In H, we’ve got March 31st.

There are some different end dates. So I’m just wondering if staff could speak briefly to why we have different end dates for some programs versus others. Go ahead. Thank you.

And through the chair, it was part of the recommendation of the encampment strategy table. A number of those organizations put budgets forward to that time frame. Others for a year time frame. And we paired it back to what we could reasonably afford with expected and forecasted dollars.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And while I know it is frustrating for some of the agencies to have to ramp up, ramp down, ramp up, ramp down, I think we also have to recognize that there’s a cyclical reality to this situation. A number of individuals will find ways to shelter and seek out supports from family or friends during cold weather.

But when that ends, they return to an outdoor living rough situation. I think it’s also— even when we talk about our business supports and those things, there are businesses that are more impacted in the warmer weather as patios start to roll out. And what that looks like in neighborhoods as compared to in some other locations. So I just wanted to ask that because I hear people say, the weather is still cold in April.

Yes, it is. But it’s not cold like it is in January either. And there are limits to what we can do. And sometimes limits to what we can do in specific locations for certain periods of time because of the need for other uses.

So I appreciate that. I also think that it’s incumbent to review these more on a short-term basis because as we stand up hubs, as we see things like in well opening up supportive housing units, the various components that we’re working on, we should see some changes that require year over year fewer of these cold weather responses for shorter periods of time because we, obviously, the ultimate goal is to move people into secure stable housing that they can maintain year round. And so they don’t need cold weather responses. And I know that we are a long way away from that goal yet.

But we still are working towards it. And I think that that’s the thing to keep in mind is that this is not a forever. And I will say to the earlier comment, I do appreciate recognizing that what we have here is some extensions of existing service provisions and that new beds in the OEV area in particular would not be appropriate at this time. I do fully support that because they’re absolutely— as both Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Truss out, said there is an oversaturation there.

And so we do need to look at spots elsewhere in the city. And I appreciate the staff are doing that. And that will see something in a couple of weeks’ time in another cycle, hopefully with a few new beds secured for winter response. Councillor Ramen.

Thank you, and through you. First, thanks for the report. I just wanted to dive into our bed numbers a little bit more for cold weather response. So based on the report, I’m seeing that within our existing shelters, we have 300 spaces.

And then this would include overnight spaces of 30. Thank you, and through the chair, those would be ongoing continuations. The 15 women’s only spaces at Center of Hope are utilizing a reallocation of underspend dollars from last year’s winter response. And then the other 15 beds is a continuation of safe space.

And their budget is identified in the report. Thank you. And just based on our understanding because some of these are continuations, are they seeing continuously that all 15 of those spaces are used? Thank you, and through the chair, yes, there are a number of organizations operating at 100% capacity, 98% capacity.

Our system has been full for quite a while, and it will operate at that level of capacity. I will add as well that through previous decisions of council, there has been 16 beds added eight men and eight women at Center of Hope, and that’s funded to the end of March, 2024, as well as an additional five resting space beds through London Cares to bring their total up to 15 per day to the end of March, 2024. OK, thank you. So we’ve got the 330 plus the 21.

It’s basically a thing, so 351. I’m not a mathematician through the chair, but, yes, I’ll— yes, I’ll say that’s reasonable. It’s a mathematician, he’s putting on his hand, so— [LAUGHTER] Oh, boy. That’s a social service people to do, Matt.

That’s a three-year chair. So there’s the 16 additional beds, eight men, eight women, and the 15 resting space beds. That’s 31, I think, by my account, in addition to what you had already noted. We’re also looking at hubs opening this winter and bringing more folks indoors.

And then we would also be looking at the recent successes of the London Health Sciences Center housing program, bringing 25 individuals directly off the street into supportive housing, and 44 units being occupied at Thompson Road as well. Thank you. So to follow up, how many more beds do you think that we’ll need for the November date to be at a level that we’re comfortable with at the city? Through you, Your Worship, I would say we’re never going to be at a number that we’re comfortable with, and that’s what we’re continuing to work on.

So the outreach teams have been out on the streets. Part of this ask is to increase the number of outreach workers that are available to really start to understand who is still out there. We have our daily interactions, but we’re really trying to understand who is indicating that they’re looking to self-shelter. So having more beds for them may not matter, because they’re not looking to come indoors.

How many individuals are already self-resolving? How many individuals might be indicating they’re leaving the community to go stay with family, or they’re staying with friends now? It is remarkable how when the weather turns cold, family members become perhaps more tolerant or accommodating in certain situations. So that number we’re still trying to define with the help of our outreach workers, but we know there’s a significant need, and we hope to find the spaces that match that.

Are we at any risk of if we approve this today, that in November, that there’s a request back to us, there’s more beds available, but there’s not enough dollars to cover additional beds. Is there any financial risk there? Through the chair, I believe there’s always a risk to that, but we have earmarked and checked all the couch cushions. So to speak, to support as much of this response as we can, with our slippage, one-time dollars, through reaching home and the homeless prevention program.

Okay, so you said there is a potential risk, that we could potentially have information in a couple weeks from now, where we could have more beds available, or there is more spaces available, or we decide that beds are the priority for this winter, and that could change potentially our approach to drop-ins, or are we comfortable saying at this point, we know for sure that these dollars are needed for drop-ins, and this is our approach, and based on that, whatever comes forward in our bed numbers in a couple weeks, that’s all that we sufficiently need, and we didn’t use any resources that could have been used for beds for drop-ins. Through your worship, I appreciate the questions. I’m not sure we can provide the certainty that the counselor is looking for. What we have provided here is the commitment and ability to deliver of the sector on the day and evening spaces, and that we are working to run to ground the overnight.

All of that is being done within the resources we have available. So Mr. Dickens and Mr. Cooper have earmarked funding to try and provide as many indoor spaces as possible.

We will never meet the need of the people that are living unsheltered. We won’t do it. So I just want to be super clear about that. We’re going to try and do as much as we can with what we have both from our financial resources and the ability of the sector to deliver, and the availability of spaces that are within the constraints of expectations related to the hub plan, where new services can go.

So we’re trying to meet all of those components and do the absolute best for people on the streets with what we have and what the sector is able to help deliver. Are we hearing from the sector that they’re able to do drop-ins but they’re not able to do beds or that’s not where they’re at right now? Is that what we’re hearing? Or sorry, going back to our point about not putting them no EV is, I don’t know which one of those things of those competing factors are weighing in as heavily in the decision-making.

I’ll start through your worship. It’s a combination of things that are happening. The great news is we’re able to provide permanent spaces that we couldn’t do last year and those are called hubs. And that’s called highly supportive housing.

What we’re trying to do here is augment that ‘cause it’s clearly not enough. We haven’t implemented the full plan. We are trying to augment it with this cold weather response and align it as best we can with the expectations and principles that were laid out in the hubs implementation plan. That’s a call on resources.

So the sector is delivering robustly on the I would suggest on the day and overnight spaces and we are working to finalize, sorry, the day and evening spaces and we are working to finalize the overnight spaces. Thank you. Yeah, I think what I’m getting at is my fear is that we allocate these dollars and we come up short on our bed plan. And so how do we address that?

Will we have the opportunity to be creative at that point and say, maybe we need to look at some other model or some other example at that point? Or are we far enough and long in those conversations that we know with some certainty that we’re going to be able to provide what needs to be provided as best as we can? I think that’s where I’m struggling a little bit. Through you, your worship as Ms.

Livingston indicated, what you see here is what the organizations have said they’re able to do and able to staff and able to provide. We do have a number of organizations that are committing to and interested in and able to provide overnight spaces. We’re still working through those staffing models. At the same time as we’re trying to secure some additional spaces and make sure those spaces are appropriate and those spaces meet the needs of what we would like to do and balance that with how many people can we get indoors.

But the rate limiting move for a temporary overnight space would not be the funding. In fact, when we come back with a report, it will have a recommendation on a space, on a staffing model and on a source of funding to deliver those services. What we need to do is work in tandem simultaneously with those that have the space, those that are willing to provide the services and our city team to ensure that we have the funding that aligns. If we’re getting proposals that say, “Oh, I can absolutely help, but it’s going to cost you this,” then that’s not reasonable and we would have to work through those scenarios.

So I’m feeling very confident. Is it without uncertainty? No, it’s got tons of uncertainty. I can certainly feel that.

But I feel very confident that we will be able to bring back what is available to us for overnight beds with a staffing plan and a source of funding to deliver on that. That exhaust speakers list on the movement sector motion. Now, I think we’ve got the motion divided as was requested. So I wanna just go over the division.

Councillor Stevenson, I think, and I appreciate you communicating with us when we’re going through this. So what we’ll deal with first is the ones that we wanna dealt with separately, which is items C, D, E, G, H, and J. I’ll repeat that if people wanna circle it. And it’ll be in the eScribe.

So you’ll be able to see the ones we’re voting on, but I’ll repeat it when I can see it. So just again, that’s C, D, E, G, H, and J. Councillor Bribble. I do have a question for you to the staff here.

We have the 519 Pursuit $60,000. And in our addition, in our table— Councillor Cribble is just about your vote ‘cause you used up your time on the question. So there’s a more data here. There’s a discrepancy in the number.

Okay, if that’s the case, then let’s get that clarified. D, I, 60,000, and I just wanna make sure, and this was my question earlier today, and the 113, sorry, I closed it. 113 is put in the table, which is supposed to be, I guess, for the full year. That was the answer, but I just wanna make sure because in the table, we are counting the higher number.

So if we add it together, there’s gonna be a discrepancy. All numbers together, there’s gonna be the discrepancy of 50, 55,000. So I just wanna know which one is gonna be, and if we can replace the 60,000 to 115, I’m okay with it. Okay, which, sir, Cooper, you have the answer to this?

Yes, thank you, your worship, and through you, the chart was incorrectly filled in with that yearly number. Staff are recommending the six-month term on the services, so the total amount would be adjusted down by that $55,000 to be $2,105,014. That doesn’t change any of the motions before us. It changes the summary in the report total, but the motions are actually not totaled in the items that are before us for voting.

We’re not voting on a total block number. We’re voting on all the individual pieces. Correct, I just didn’t know which one is correct. Correct.

  • 60 or 115. Perfect, that’s clarified now, okay. So the way it is in the motions that are before you is the correct way. Okay, so we’re gonna deal with those when separately, all the ones that Councillor Stevenson wanted pulled, but we’ll do them as a block.

I think you said that was fine, okay. So we’ll put those ones open for voting. Colleagues, you’ll be able to use the chevron and see all of them and just take your time and make sure that you know all these ones. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one, noting that Councillor Palosa is absent.

Okay, and now we’ll put the remainder of the clauses on the floor, which is everything that’s left in the original staff report that we haven’t already dealt with. Same mover and seconder. And we’ll open that as soon as it’s ready. Closing the vote and the motion carries 13 to zero.

Okay, that concludes the items for direction, including the ones we referred. There’s not any other additional business or deferred matters. We have three in-camera items. One on the regular agenda, two on the added.

Colleagues wanted to defer those to Council. They want to deal with them now. If we deal with them now on the motion to go into camera, motion to defer. Thank you, yeah.

I’d like to defer to Council. Okay, and just let people know, we need to defer to Council. There’s different rules for debate and discussion and limitations, so that’s fine. But so there’s a motion to defer the remaining in-camera.

Items to Council for consideration, seconded by Councilor Cuddy. It has a debatable motion, so as anybody have comments on the deferral. Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Yeah, I won’t be supporting the deferral at this point.

We are now almost six hours in. I know that there were a number of people who wanted to leave for various reasons tonight for family commitments. That time has passed for me, as I suspected has passed for others. We’re here to finish the job.

Councilors see that on the deferral. Yeah, I was just going to say if we’re going to refer, I want to refer to the next SPPC, not Council, so that we have the time to discuss those matters. So otherwise I’m good with the Deputy Mayor to finish off tonight. Any other discussion, Councilor Ferreira?

I was going to say committee work stays at committee, but I was okay about deferring because we have been here for a while. So now I’m a little conflicted on how I want to vote. So I’ll hear, I’d like to hear what everybody has to say. While you’re the last one on the speakers, listen, there’s not anybody else.

So it’s kind of just be a vote. There’s no one else who wants to speak. So you’re just going to have to think about it right now. So the motion is to just have these go to council where we would debate them and make the decision there.

It’s moved and seconded. Everybody said their piece, so we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion fails for tonight. Okay, motion to move on camera then to deal with these items moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

I’m going to do that by hand. Oh, no, it’s not. Okay, that’s open for voting. Councilor Perbal, Councilor Trossau.

There’s a vote open. Councilor Ferrera. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, this will take a moment.

Takes. Recording stopped. I’m going to ask the Deputy Mayor to report out from our in-camera session. Thank you, Your Worship.

I’m happy to report out that progress was made on the three items for which we went to in-camera. Those are with regard to land acquisition, litigation, potential litigation, and personal matter identifiable individual. Okay, and with that, I don’t know if colleagues felt like this meeting was a thriller or a horror movie, but I hope you have a happy Halloween and I’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Cuddy and Deputy Mayor Lewis, all those in favor?

Motion carries. We are adjourned.