March 5, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:33 AM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen, E. Peloza (until 10:22 AM) and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   Contract Amendments to Maintain Day and Overnight Spaces for Unsheltered Londoners

2024-03-05 Staff Report - (2.1) Contract Amendments

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken with respect to the Contract Amendments to Maintain Day and Overnight Spaces for Unsheltered Londoners report:

a)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $139,600 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary drop-in space and security services, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

b)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London at a total estimated increase of up to $129,000 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in a) and b); and

d)    approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report dated March 5, 2024

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions BE TAKEN with respect to the Contract Amendments to Maintain Day and Overnight Spaces for Unsheltered Londoners report:

a)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $139,600 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary drop-in space and security services, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

b)    that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back at the next Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the plan for 602 Queens (the provision of homeless services in that area and how any security concerns have or will be addressed);

c)    that Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in a); and,

d)    that approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending existing Purchase of Service Agreement with London Cares as outlined in the attached Schedule 1 of this report.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to amend part a) to change the contract extension end date to be June 30, 2024 and increase funding to $209,400 and part b) to change the contract extension end date to be June 30, 2024 and increase funding to $193,500

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part a) to read as follows:

a)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with London Cares at a total estimated increase of up to $139,600 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary drop-in space and security services, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

Motion to approve part b) to read as follows:

b)    an extension to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service Agreement with Safe Space London at a total estimated increase of up to $129,000 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2024, to May 31, 2024 BE APPROVED, to continue temporary day and overnight drop in space, as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by J. Morgan

Motion to approve parts c) and d):

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in a) and b); and

d)    approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation of the City of London amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report dated March 5, 2024

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated March 3, 2024 from C. Watson, W. Thomas, D. Brown, Coordinators, Midtown Community Organization with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 11:33 AM.

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 (2 hours, 13 minutes)

Good morning, everyone. We’re gonna call the sixth meeting. It’s a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. We’ll begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabe, the Haudenosaunee, that the Lene Peiwak and Adawanda are in peoples, and we honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home, and acknowledge that the City of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit peoples, and as representatives of the people of the City of London, we’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

I also want to acknowledge, for those who may be listening in, the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request, and to make a request specific to this meeting, you can email sppc@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I also want to acknowledge online, we have Councilor Palosa, Councilor Van Mirbergen, and Councilor Hill, you’re joining us via Zoom, welcome colleagues who are joining us remotely, all other Councilors are in chambers, and I’m going to begin the meeting by looking for any disclosures of pecanary interest. Seeing none, then we will move right along. This is a special meeting.

We only have one item on the agenda. This is 2.1, the contract amendments to maintain day and overnight spaces for unsheltered Londoners. So I’m going to look for Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’d like to put forward a motion for 2.1, and I’ve circulated it to the clerk.

Okay, so you’re putting forward an alternate motion to what’s in the report? Correct, I apologize, Deputy Mayor, I forgot to copy you on the email, so I’ll send it right now. And we’re going to need a moment for clerks to get this into e-scribe. So while that is happening, can I ask if you could read the motion out to us please?

Yes, thank you. So the motion is that on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager’s social and health development that the following actions be taken with respect to the contract amendments to maintain day and overnight spaces for unsheltered Londoners report. A, to approve an extension to the existing municipal purchase of service agreement with London CARES at a total estimated increase of up to 139,600 excluding HST. For the period of April 1st, 2024 to May 31st, 2024 to continue temporary drop-in space and security services as per the corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3E.

B, that civic administration be directed to report back at the next Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on the plan for 602 Queens AV, the provision of homelessness services in that area and how any security concerns have or will be addressed. C, that civic administration be authorized to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in connection with the contracts noted in A, and D, that approval given herein be conditional upon the corporation of the City of London, amending existing purchase of service agreement with London CARES as outlined in the attached schedule one of this report. Thank you, Councillor. And do you have a seconder for that?

Councillor Pribble is seconding. Okay, so we have a motion that’s been moved and seconded on the floor that is somewhat different than what was circulated in the staff report. So we can begin a speakers list if colleagues wish to speak to this. Give me just one moment while I, yep.

So I’ve refreshed my own screen and can confirm that that’s an E-scribe now. Okay, so now I will look for speakers to this. Councillor Pribble. So dear colleagues, if you look at the motion proposed by the staff and the motion that’s in front of us right now, as you can see, there are only changes to B and there’s the addition.

And the addition is really kind of looking at the big picture and for our staff to report back on these activities. So A, C, D, no changes, B is the addition. And that’s really the only thing what we are looking for from additional from the staff. Thank you.

Councillor Pribble, looking for other speakers. Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and through the chair to staff, I’m just wondering in regards to item B, if you are to report back at the next SPPC, when would you have to have that report done? And is this a reasonable timeline?

And we will go to Mr. Dickens for that. Thank you, and through you, chair, the report would be due to the clerk’s office next Friday, 9 a.m. And Mr.

Dickens and just Councillor Frank did ask if that timeline is workable for you. Through you, chair, I don’t see how that would be workable. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes.

So in regards to item B, I do like the concept and theory, but the timeline I think is not, we wouldn’t get very good at information if you would have to get this information within a week. So I’m not supportive of that, but I’d be supportive of switching the date. I’m also not supportive of eliminating the funding for Safe Space London. I think that they do good work.

And I think that if we’re going to extend London Cares, I think it makes sense to extend Safe Space and apply the same fairness to both agencies. So I won’t be supporting this, mostly because it just dropped item B and as well, I think that the deadline for the report is untenable. Thank you, Councillor Frank. I’ve got Councillor Palosa next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I get we’re doing committee work with committee, just I always appreciate things being circulated advance, just noting that B isn’t B as Councillor Frank has stated, Safe Space has been eliminated as a service provider. So somewhat freshly incorrect.

Looking to you procedurally, is it easier if a person moves an amendment to put Safe Space back in or to defeat what’s on the floor and then move the recommended staff report? So I am going to rule that this one is substantively different enough from the staff recommendation that rather than getting into amendments that you would vote to defeat this and then put a different recommendation on the floor if you wish to add an additional service provider. I’ve got several hands up, Councillor Palosa. So I’m just seeing if people are looking to get on the speakers list or if questions procedurally.

It’s not friendly. If somebody wants to make an amendment, they always can, I’m just ruling that if this were defeated, I would allow the original staff recommendation back on the floor because this is not substantively different, or sorry, this is substantively different because it’s two service providers versus one. So that’s why I’m saying, I would not prohibit the original motion from coming back on the floor, on procedure, Councillor. Just on procedure.

Sorry, can the Councillor use their mic for us remotely if you can follow the conversation? Thank you. Yeah, we’re working on that, Councillor. I was waiting to get the mic.

And if the mover and seconder said the amendment would be friendly, does that change it? I mean, I- Nothing procedurally prevents a Councillor from making an amendment to this motion that’s on the floor. Councillor Ploza asked which would be cleaner. I think that both options are available.

I’m just saying that I would not rule the original motion out of order to come back on the floor at the staff recommendation because it is substantively different. Councillor Trussau on procedure. As I still have, just so focused on myself, Councillor Ploza active on the speaker’s list. Yes, I’m not speaking to the merits.

And I did discuss this with Mr. Dickens, just so you know what’s coming so you can take all these procedural things into account. I do intend to make an amendment to change May 31st to June 30th for both B and C and also to multiply both for by 1.5 to reference in the other month. Just so you know that’s coming, I won’t speak to the merits of that now.

I did run this past Mr. Dickens, just so you know that that will be coming up next. And I think that’s inconsistent with this. Yes.

I do appreciate that, Councillor Trussau, because that starts leading us into amendments of amendments of amendments. And we only go two levels deep on amendments. So colleagues may want to consider that in regard to whether or not they wish to amend this item or not because you will hit a point where you cannot amend it any further. And I will return to— I have a point of order.

Mayor Morgan. So my point of order is I want to know how you would rule on if this is defeated, the originals put back on firing any sort of amendments. If someone wants to add back in a reporting piece under a reasonable timeframe, is that going to be in order in the future? Or is this the only kind of shot at the reporting piece?

With a different timeframe, I would rule that as substantively different enough to allow a reporting mechanism to come back in. Perce, procedure, Councillor? Okay. Thank you, Chair.

I’m procedurally just trying to understand how we’re removing one section that the report refers to of which the report is built on with no consideration of the report in the motion. So I’m just trying to follow along here. So for instance, we’re talking about day in overnight spaces, yet London cares, doesn’t provide overnight spaces, yet it’s still part of the function of the motion. And then I guess on a separate motion, we’d clean up receiving the report, which deals with safe spaces as well.

So I’m just wondering procedurally, how are we catching everything in the report? It’s as if we’re just omitting as if we didn’t receive and that’s concerning for me. So Councillor, just for my ruling from the chair in terms of how that would proceed, we always receive reports at the end of a process, whether or not we took action on all of the items in the report, regardless of that action or not, the report always has to be received at the end. So that report would still be received.

A Councillor always has the prerogative to put forward an alternate motion to the staff recommendation. And so in this case, with the preamble at the following be taken with the contract amendments to maintain day and overnight spaces, we would actually be taking no action on the overnight, if that’s helpful. Okay, we’ve had a lot of procedural questions. I still have Councillor Palosa on hold to speak to what’s on the floor right now.

So unless these are very specific procedurally, I’d like to return to the speaker’s list so we can have some debate on this. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, you went on the speaker’s list. Councillor Preble, was it that to get on the speaker’s list again, or was that for procedural question? It is actually procedural because I did want the overnight and the approval so for safe space as well to be considered.

So there’s this motion that we put in to get to is Councillor Stevenson. What I wanted to accomplish is the point B report back. So Councillor, you’re getting into rationalization, not procedural. So I think you need to get on the speaker’s list again to address that.

You’re starting to rationalize the motion, not ask a procedural question. I’m gonna return to Councillor Palosa. She’s been waiting patiently so that she can finish her thoughts on her first round of speaking on this. Councillor Palosa, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Glad that colleagues are so passionate and interested in this motion and the care that it would give to this community. My thoughts would be that we either defeat what’s on the floor or what’s on the floor is removed and we can certainly amend the original staff recommendation.

I’m absolutely happy to receive a report back at future SPPC meetings on this issue because certainly at the contract end date of the 31st of May, we’re still gonna have unhoused residents who need showers, washrooms, and care. And that needs to be continuing conversation in the community. And we could always pull apart different funding sections of it as we normally do should people have preferences over what funding is given to what providers. So that’s, I can’t support what’s on the floor, but happy to amend the original staff recommendation when this is time to procedurally keep it clean and focused as we move this conversation forward.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to explain why I brought forward the motion that I did.

There was a lot of concern in the area about the services for lending care is stopping at 602 Queens. And this is a building that, you know, $3 million was put into in renovations. I know that only 500,000 came from the city. It opened last January.

There was a lot of high expectation around it. And there were a lot of problems last year. And we spent a lot of money on security, addressing those issues. And there was a lot of shock in the community when we found out that there was no longer going to be these services at 602 Queens.

And so I am supportive of the motion to extend it for two months because they are vitally needed services with the showers and the washrooms and the laundry. And my request for the report is so that we can explain to Londoners why these decisions have been made. So in the October 31st, SPPC report, the whole of community had spent months and months deliberating what was going to be best to address this crisis in our city. And they brought forward some contracts that went to the end of May, some that went to the end of March.

We relied on that. And we’re just brought forward two year contracts for our emergency shelter system with large increases. I believe lending care is 4.5 million a year now. And so I’m assuming that the whole of community has a plan, that they already have an explanation.

They understand why this is best for our community. And I just want that information to be able to share with the public. So I’m not asking for any additional work to be done. I’m asking for the decisions that were made to just be shared with us.

How is it going to impact that area? I’m assuming that there’s an explanation. And so I did circulate with staff regarding the timeline just this morning, but I didn’t hear back. But if not the next SPPC, we’re going to be at the point where the services are ending again.

And so how do we provide reassurance to those who work in those agencies, to those who rely on those services, who live in those communities? We said there would be no more band-aids. We said we had a plan. We said, trust us.

The experts are involved here. And this is a band-aid. We’ve got staff who think that they’re able to work at the end of March. And now we’re going to add two months.

So I do support it at 602 Queens because it’s laundry, washrooms, showers, at a place that is serving over 300 meals a day, most days. So there’s a lot of people there that are in need of those services. I didn’t include the other one because that was originally funded on temporary winter funding. I was told it was only going to be four months.

It’s been extended and it’s been extended. That one has been known to be temporary. This location at 602 Queens, there was at least a public expectation that that was going to be ongoing given the financial investment in the renovations and the other services that are there versus a standalone that was done with temporary winter funding. So my understanding— and I also understand that we don’t have a lot of money.

We were told there was no money left, that there’s no money for the cold weather response. So I think we need to be really, really careful about how we’re allocating the limited financial resources that we have. So I’d like to ask a question to staff. If not the next SPPC, how is it that we make decisions such that we’re confident that a two-month extension is the correct thing?

Or if Councillor Trosto is going to bring forward three months? Whatever it is, what’s the rationale behind that being OK? And how is that going to impact the community? So before we start allocating it in this thought of fairness— Sorry.

You did ask a question to staff. You’ve got about 45 seconds left. Would you like staff to respond before you wrap up? Or do you want to finish your— you’ve got 45 seconds?

Yeah. I think a question to staff to say like guide us here, because the concern in the community is just going to happen again. So again, if you want me to go to staff first, let me go to staff. And Mr.

Dickens, I want to allow you a little bit of leeway here, because you’ve heard about when what the timelines are. You were asked prior by Councillor Frank what the reasonable timeline for a report back is. You’ve been asked if these contracts expire. Are you going to be back with more extensions?

So I want to give you some leeway to take the time you need to sort of lay out for us what your timelines are here if you can provide us that sort of overview. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate that leeway to be able to do this and help bring the committee along. So what got us here today is the fact that we entered into some initial agreements under the expectation that we would provide services through till the end of March in these cases, recognizing that overnight spaces were later approved in November by Council and those extensions or those approvals went through till the end of May. What has become clear throughout this process is that these services are well used.

They’re having an impact. Is there still a need in our community unequivocally? There are people that require these services that are benefiting from these services and through consultation with the encampment table and listening to these groups, it has become clear. And we were asked directly to extend these services to align with the other Council decision, which is the wind down of overnight spaces by May 31st.

This ask before you is to align these programs, these drop-in services, the overnight spaces that save space to coincide with the wind down of the other overnight programs of May 31st. It also allows us to start to create runway to bring forward a longer-term community encampment strategy. That encampment table is currently meeting while we’re meeting this morning. And they are looking at what the steps need to be in place or need to be taken to address the acute and immediate needs from a human rights and a basic needs perspective now in April and May and June, July and so on.

What Council will receive in June is not the, what are we doing at the end of May? What are we doing in June? That stuff is happening right now. That table, we may be back to you in April with, this is what that group has come up with.

We may need to reintroduce depots. We may need to look at other ways to provide life-saving services from a human rights perspective. What will come to you in June is our longer-term encampment strategy that some of you have had the opportunity to engage on and provide feedback on as have service providers, as have those that are living unsheltered homelessness. It is my expectation we will also be embarking on further community consultation on that long-term community encampment strategy.

That encampment strategy is expected to indicate and signal where we will see ourselves responding in all matters of weather, including cold weather. So while on paper, this looks like services end in May and staff aren’t coming back until June within encampment strategy. The encampment strategy is a long-term vision for our community on how do we address encampments. They are here to stay.

They are the fabric of every municipality now. What is our strategy to support them and address them? What is happening in the interim is how are we meeting people’s basic needs now and for every week going forward in the interim. So I hope that provides some clarity.

What I don’t have chair is clarity on what homeless services in that area entail. We know that there are council approved temporary services operating at the corner of William Street and Queens Ave. Does that include this report back on how security concerns have or will be addressed? I don’t know what that catchment area looks like, how far into ward 13 and ward four and beyond are we expected to stretch.

That would indicate, that would dictate some of our reporting back timelines as well. As far as the whole of community system response, if I could chair, we do have a plan forward. We’ve been crystal clear, we are coming to you in March with an evaluation framework to talk about how we’ll know if it’s working. We have seen hubs open and continue to scale.

We have seen highly supportive housing come online. There is a vision and a plan and a council endorsed roadmap to get there. That stuff has not changed. These are temporary services to meet an acute need.

We’re asking to continue to meet the needs of people. Those needs still exist and we’re asking to align it with the other approvals that are already in place. Thank you chair. Mr.

Dickens, just before I return to my speaker’s list, you mentioned that you have a framework coming to us in March and so I just wanna give you the opportunity to give us a target here. Are you anticipating that for the March 26th SPPC meeting? That is correct, Chair. At the March 26th SPPC meeting council will receive the whole of community system response evaluation framework as well as our highly supportive housing plan.

Thank you, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to set a date in there, hopefully proactively so that all colleagues are aware of that date. Councillor Stevenson, as I said, you got about 45 seconds left. Did you wanna use that now? Yes, and thank you for that.

A question is to, in the reported states that the Center of Hope Shower Program was funded for two years and I’m just wondering if staff have an explanation as to why that wasn’t provided at this location back at that time. Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, I don’t have an explanation of why letting Cares do not include that as part of their stability of the sector request.

It was a request that was made by Salvation Army. It was in the SPPC report that council endorse as part of sustaining the sector. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and just to follow up for staff as to what is expected to happen at 602 Queens once the Leningares portion is no longer there in terms of security.

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair. So as we’ve indicated to the Councillor in leading up to this meeting, they operating partners at 602 Queens Ave include multiple organizations, Thames Valley Family Health Team, Regional HIV/AIDS Connection, Leningares and Sisters of St.

Joe’s. That space opened and the capital contributions were made for that unique service delivery model. What is in this report was above and beyond and added into that service delivery model in the previous year’s winter response. It was extended through this year’s cold weather response.

The drop-in services, those drop-in portion of Leningares would wind down and cease to continue. However, those service delivery partners remain at 602 Queens Ave. This Livingston and I are actually planning to be meeting with the operators of that space next week to hear from them about their vision in terms of providing clinical services and providing basic needs and providing food at that location. It is operated by that consortium of providers.

It is not something that has been funded as a hub or anything like that through the whole of community system response. So as far as what the future holds for 602 Queens, when some of these temporary drop-in services end, it has been made clear to us that those partners remain at that location, Leningares remains at that location and services will still be provided at that location. I do not have and I’m happy to ask clarity when we meet with those partners next week, what their vision, what their plan is for security. Thank you, Mr.

Dickens, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you for that. And so is there no concern then that once this temporary funding ends that people will still have access to those showers, bathrooms, via some of their agency potentially? Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, Chair. I’m not sure that there’s no concern. Temporary services are things that scale up to meet a demand.

And they’ve been really effective. We went into the winter with over 100 active encampments. We currently have over 40 active encampments. We anticipate those numbers are going to increase.

Council directed us and made really significant investments to provide temporary services. It doesn’t mean those investments were going to eliminate the need for encampments or eliminate homelessness. I think we all acknowledge that. I’m not sure that we can effectively say that there are no concerns that people will find other alternatives to these services.

These services are in high demand. We could open up six more locations for showers and laundry when people are wet in the spring and their feet are never drying out and their socks are never warm. We could absolutely do our best to scale up to meet that demand. Will we ever probably not?

We’ll continue to try to do that through permanent avenues such as the creation of highly supportive housing and the 24/7 hubs and rely on other partners like the Salvation Army that do provide this service and others. So I can’t say, Chair, that we have no concerns. Of course we have concerns. We will always have significant concerns for our vulnerable population.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Councilor Stevenson, you got 10 seconds to save that. Okay, I’ve got Councilor Pribble.

I had you next on the list, were you? Thank you, and through the chair. I’ll start with a comment and the comment is gonna be that the things that we are doing certainly in the streets of downtown London, they are working because I can say this honestly on almost everyday basis. I do between 11 p.m.

and 1 a.m. I do downtown work and I do the count and the streets are really at the best as they’ve been for last winters. I cannot say it about encampments, not because there couldn’t be improvement, but I’m not there on everyday basis. But my question is, and there was a, I just wanna clarification.

I know the chairs mentioned that the framework is gonna come back March 26th. With the framework, I look at the proactive, the future vision, the big picture. But then our staff said the evaluation is gonna come March 26th. So the evaluation is more the past and the framework is more the future.

So I want to clarification on this part. And the reason what I’m asking is, and this is one kind of this two month and I do see the rationale from our staff to bring it to May, everything ends in May. But where do we have, I look at this homelessness and this what we call the whole of community system response, it’s a big beautiful picture. It’s not beautiful, it will be when we get there.

There’s many, many puzzles. And these puzzles I consider to be part of it. And I’m looking for the bigger picture than two months. So in May, we are not here and we are under the pressure of people who are homeless, people, Londoners, and we come up with again two, three months.

And I’m looking for this pieces of puzzle that this is the piece of the puzzle. This is for the lower Q&A. This is for this type of person, proposal for not two months, but six, eight, 12 months. This is the picture that I’m looking for.

So when the chair mentioned the framework 26, I was very happy to hear that. And I said, this might be it, but then the staff said it’s going to be evaluation. So evaluation is kind of the past. If you can please clarify this.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Pribble. I will go to Mr. Dickens.

I’m just going to, thank you. Sorry, Mayor Morgan, I’m adding you to the list. Just on the evaluation framework though, I just want to remind colleagues that this is the evaluation framework for the whole of community response that we have been talking about for a few months now, that we have partners like Western helping us develop the metrics by which we’re going to be measuring our success. It’s not an evaluation of the past.

It is how we are going to measure ourselves in the future. But I will go to Mr. Dickens if anything I’ve said is incorrect, but I’m going to go to him if there’s any clarification he wants to add to that. Thank you, Chair.

You did an excellent job clarifying that. But yes, it is the whole of community system response evaluation framework, which evaluates the whole of community system response as we go forward. The other piece around looking beyond two months, Council will know that our whole of community updates, the quarterly updates that will be coming to Council in April. And in that April update, I anticipate you will see our 2024 deliverables for all of the tables will be in that quarterly update.

That should give you a very clear picture of where we’re going and what we’re doing beyond the two month window. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Councilor Pribble, did you want to continue or do you want to come back later?

Okay, I’m going to apologize. I had sort of, I saw three hands over here and I’m not sure if they were all hands going up to speak. I did have Councilor Trussell, Councilor Raman and Mayor Morgan. And I’m not sure which order people put their hands up in ‘cause I was kind of catching them out of the side of my eye.

I think I’ve got Councilor Trussell first, then Mayor Morgan and then Councilor Raman. Certainly if you feel like I’ve gotten you out of order, by all means let me know but Councilor Trussell, I’m going to go to you next. I’ll start by saying that I think we should vote down this amendment, it adds unnecessary complexity to what we’re doing now. I want to also start by saying that I thought, and I think I was reading the same report as everybody else, but I thought that the staff report that we received for this meeting was very clear and it was very limited.

And I think we’re trying to make this a lot more complex than it needs to be. Because in fact, what’s in front of us? Is this report that says, hey, we originally planned this to end March 31st, we’ve got our long-term plans, medium to long-term plans coming to the table in a few months, we still have the need, we don’t want this to just expire March 31st and we need to extend it. I think that the numbers that were provided for us in the report were very, very precise in terms of what those extension numbers were.

And I think to just say, well, we’re going to shut down one of the two, but keep the other one, is not something that we should be doing if it’s not part of a longer-term discussion. So I think that the motion that’s on the table right now is very simple, it’s very straightforward, it’s about a specific extension. Later, I’ll talk about that, but for now, let’s just vote this motion down so we can just get on with the discussion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Councillor. And I’ve got Mayor Morgan next. Thank you, so I’ll be voting against the motion and supporting putting the original staff motion back on the floor ‘cause it’s the order that the chair has suggested we do things. I just, on that, I just wanna clarify a couple of things ‘cause I understand what colleagues are saying, but I think it’s really easy to mix a bunch of things ‘cause we’re doing a whole bunch of things at once, right?

We’re providing affordable housing, we’re doing all the work on RGI, we’re doing general homeless work, we’re doing the whole of community response, we’re also doing temporary cold weather related responses, all of which council is making decisions, and it’s really easy to kind of pack that all together in different pieces, but at the end of the day, what we have here is a request for an extension of Septemberary services. Mr. Dickens has clearly articulated, we feel our working, we’ll align it with the other temporary services that we’ve decided to bring online, and in the meantime, through other work that is happening, we’re going to continue to get the pieces that are being worked on through the whole of community response over here, and again, it’s really easy to mix everything, but we already did the Hubs implementation plan, we have the assessment and monitoring framework, which I would say is not just important to us in success in making changes as we owe, but also important to the province as a funder and a potential additional funder to ensure that we’re tracking metrics and showing that we’re actually making a difference with the money that we’re spending, that we’re making the adjustments we need to make, that framework is really important, and having professional partners to assist with that is critical. You know that the encampment table is bringing forth the encampment strategies, Mr.

Dickens has mentioned, which will guide, in a more structured way, how we address encampments and cold and warm weather responses through the future period of time. So, you know, all of these things are coming at once, and it’s really easy to kind of, I think, pile them all together, but at the end of the day, the decision before us is actually quite a clear one. Do you want to extend some life-saving services for another couple of months to the end of May to align with the other pieces that we have that are working? And so for me, that’s a yes, and at the right time, I think both of these organizations should be doing that.

Now, I do believe, and I do support the idea, that we need to stay up to date and be really informed on all of the pieces, but I think, you know, we have to be careful to just kind of pile everything into each and every decision we make. We’re dealing with a, you know, evolving situation through the different phases, and as you know, council, back when we even started the winter temporary response, we made significant changes to the staff’s recommendation. We actually added a lot more services than we, you know, we otherwise, we invested more money. We’ve decided to do something, and from all assessment, including councilor Pribbles, this seems to be working, right?

So we’ve made a good investment here. We can continue that good investment for another couple of months. We can transition to the next phase, and we’ll continue to make the best possible decisions we can make in what is a evolving and changing situation each and every day. So again, by the order of which the chair suggests we do things, I would encourage colleagues to vote this motion down, and I’m happy at the appropriate time to put the original staff motion back on the floor for us to consider the entire staff package.

Thank you, Your Worship. I’ll just advise Councilor Flosa already indicated she’ll put the original staff recommendation on the floor. So I, at the appropriate time, if this fails, I will go to her for that first, ‘cause she’s asked for the opportunity to do that. I’ve got Councilor Ferrer next on the speaker’s list.

Thank you, I’m happy that the original motion will be put back on the floor after this. I do hope that we all vote this motion down. And I have also seen a noticeable decline of people living in encampments on the street as well to Councilor Preble’s assessment. So we did see that in correlation with the cold weather response starting up.

So there’s obviously a difference that we’re seeing here. And Mr. Dickens pointed it out and the staff recommendation points it out as well. 102 encampments in November and down to 40 at the moment.

So we should provide the service. We should extend the funding so that these vital services can be provided because we’re seeing that noticeable difference on the ground, on the floor, or here in London. Other areas that have already been picked up too, these services are operating at or near capacity. So there’s clearly a need here.

And as Mr. Dickens pointed out, if we were to open up another location, more capacity, we’d probably also see those services be fully utilized as well. So I’m hoping that we do vote this motion down and we do have that new, the original motion come on the floor and we do vote that up. So I like what I’m hearing here.

I hope that the committee, this is a general consensus here for this motion and for the next one. Thank you, Councilor Ferreira. And I’m just going to first apologize because I missed her on the list and then I’m gonna go to Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you and no apology necessary.

I’m gonna start with a comment. And my comment is a reflection on where we are. So this week we’re going to recognize International Women’s Day and it is not lost on me that we are discussing removing 15 women only resting spaces, overnight resting spaces during this week. And that’s just a comment.

I will not be supporting the motion that’s on the floor and I will be supporting the original motion. I do have some questions though around the London CARES funding that’s been provided in the appendix. My question actually relates to the fact that about 56% of this funding is security, $77,500 of security costs. And I know I’ve shared this before.

I’m of the opinion that we’re spending a lot of money across the city on private security. We heard repeatedly during our budget debates that this is something that we’re seeing, that we’re seeing increased private security, not just for businesses, but for community agencies and our social services. So I wanna see us move to a more sustainable model and I understand why London CARES is asking for security costs. They need the security function in order to provide the service.

I had an extensive conversation with Mr. Dickens yesterday about some of that as well. However, I do think being that this funding is being requested for April 1st that I would like to get and have a better understanding of when septed reports are done, how often do the police interact with and attend at London CARES in order to provide additional security supports. All of these are choices and priorities, right?

And residents in this area have written to us and they’ve told us they don’t feel comfortable. They’re not feeling safe. There’s also safety concerns for people that are receiving services at this location because of some resident interactions. So there’s a complexity here that we need London Police to get involved with.

And you know, if it was a choice between being at Masonville Mall or being at this location, I think that’s a worthy conversation for security concerns and for our policing needs in the city. So I’d like to get a better understanding of that because if we are looking at longer-term models, we need to look at the security costs as they continue to escalate. 56% of this expense is security. So, Councilor Raman, I did hear a question in there to staff, I’m not sure that Mr.

Dickens can speak on behalf of LPS, in fact, I know he can’t, but if he’s able to provide us some comment on the security component of this. Thank you, Chair. There’s actually a slight decrease in the security costs from the original contract. It’s down ever so slightly over the two months that we’re asking for the extension.

I don’t have it my fingertips, the number of serious occurrences that involve police. If there is a police involved incident, we do receive a notice, serious occurrence notice from the provider. And that happens at all providers via emergency shelters or otherwise. What I do have is that the partners that 602 Queens have have looked at some of their interactions with security or that security have had interactions with over the last little while.

And they’re indicating that numbers are up. And as Council will know, the security is actually in place 24 hours. And they’re seeing an increase of interactions happening overnight, as well as an increase in interactions happening in the evenings. I don’t have the finality of those interactions or what that means or where that goes, but they are indicating those numbers are up both overnight and during the evening hours.

And so I’m just gonna ask before I go back to Councilor Raman, Mr. Dickens, if perhaps I know I might be asking you to maybe give us a sneak preview of March 26th on this, but would things like those serious occurrence notices be potentially one of the metrics that’s being looked at in the evaluation framework moving forward or would that be separate from, because this is not a direct provider. And I’m just trying to anticipate maybe a little more information for colleagues to not have a whole line of questioning around security. Through you, Chair, it would be at a higher level than that, like not looking at specific security interactions or police interactions at each unique space.

It would look at a higher level. Thank you. Councilor Raman. Thank you.

As I stated, I won’t be supporting what’s on the floor. And you know, looking at the services provided at London Cares and Safe Spaces, I see very little difference in what is being reported here in terms of, you know, of laundry services, of food, of resting space, the only difference I see is clientele, thanks. Thank you, Councilor Raman. Councilor Lehman.

Thank you. Obviously, this issue of homelessness is very complex. The mayor touched on, you know, not just the things that we’re looking at today, but the other things that the city does to address what the needs are for folks in our city. The frustration I have a bit, though, is we seem to be coming at this as a bit ad hoc.

And maybe the report that’s coming in March will address these concerns. A couple of months ago, we extended contracts, winter response, you ended at the end of March. Now it seems to be going to the end of May. I would suggest that it’s no longer winter response.

It’s almost morphing into more of an alternative form of shelter going through your Councilor, trust how mentioned that he might wish to extend it even into June. I thought we had a hub system that was going to address our situation along with our winter response. So are we moving away from the hub system? Or are we adding another component to our strategy for homelessness, which involves some of these other things that were originally winter response that are now morphing into something else?

I just want to have a bit of context. When are we going to see a fulsome plan with the cost associated at the end of the day? Because what happens in too much from now? Are we going to be here again being asked for more money and more funds and more funds?

So I’m not saying I’m against it. I want to see it looks like we’re having success here, but it makes me uncomfortable approving bits and pieces along the way, so through you, Chair, too, to staff on that. And I’m going to go to Ms. Livingston for that.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the comments. We have a plan. It is the whole of community system response. The plan is the hubs and highly supportive housing.

While we are standing those up, though, we are still dealing with a very evolving and precarious situation in terms of the number of folks that are struggling on the streets. So the question is, while you’re standing up, your hubs and highly supportive housing, of which we’ve done two and 69 and we have more coming on, while you’re doing that, how do you best support people and our community who are outside? So that’s the issue. And the steps that we are taking began last fall with staff brought forward the daytime and evening, which was for March, counsel then approved overnight and set the timeline of May.

We are with the understanding that we would be bringing forward a longer-term permanent encampment strategy. That will move us out of lurching from cold weather to hot weather to it will give us a year-long approach. That is what is coming to you in June. In the meantime, we’re trying to make our way through a very difficult situation.

I appreciate the frustration. But the reality is it is evolving and precarious. So how do we respond best? So what Mr.

Dickens has brought forward is the desire to align day and evening with overnight. So we have some consistency in those life-saving services. And then counsel in June will see the longer-term encampment strategy, which ideally takes us out of any kind of discussion of winter response. It moves us into how do we support this, while we are also building a system of hubs and highly supportive housing.

It’s a bit of where we’re at, but we do have a clear plan of what we’re heading towards and the encampment strategy is also going to be part of that. Sir Lehman, you’re good? Councilor Pribble. And Councilor Pribble, I’m just gonna let you know you’ve used about two minutes and 10 seconds, just under three minutes left.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff. Oh, sorry, Councilor Pribble. I’m gonna interrupt you.

I had Councilor McAllister next and then you. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate it ‘cause I haven’t had a chance to speak yet.

So thank you, Councilor Pribble. And one of the things, and I’m sure this will be included in the report, but I just wanted to comment on it following up on Councilor Lehman’s point. And I’m hoping that we, with the report that’s coming before us, see more information in terms of the workforce development, because what I have heard from a lot of our agency partners, and we know the strain is there on these agencies in terms of the work they’re doing, but ensuring that we have the necessary staff in terms of whether it’s the whole of community response, the work they’re doing currently. And so the reason why I’m in favor of extending the contracts, but even to Councilor Trossa’s point, maybe pushing it a little further, ‘cause I wanna make sure we have the appropriate runway for the agencies to continue the work they’re doing, but then transition to a more stable model.

So for me, it’s ensuring that our timelines align, because what I ideally would like to see is that we do have a more stable system, and I do hear this from a lot of our agencies as well, that they’re looking for a more stable funding model, because for us too, it’s hard to make these decisions on a temporary basis, because really it’s not knowing what the future looks like, and I think we all feel that. But for me, I think it’s hopefully we can get to a point where we actually see the transition from what we currently have to that more stable model, and ensuring that we have the workforce to support that, because ideally, we’ve all endorsed the whole community response, and we wanna move to that, but we also wanna make sure that we have the funding, that we have the staff to have those things succeed, because at the end of the day, we wanna see that, and Londoners have told us that they’re looking for the stability in the sector, they wanna see the homeless supported, but we have to ensure that we have a longer-term plan, and from everything I’ve heard that is coming, I’m very appreciative of all the hard work that staff have done with our agency partners, but really just making sure all those components are in place before we move to that longer-term model. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister.

Councilor Perwell, now I’ve got you on the list. Thank you, and sort of chair to the staff. We just heard a few minutes ago that in June, we will receive longer one-year strategy, which I’m really happy about, it’s great, but would you be able to say, or what’s your anticipation in terms of making the announcement in June, and when will those initiatives start? When will they kick in?

The reason why I’m asking that is, because I do believe this will be approved, what’s in front of us? So everything will end, end of May. In June, we will receive a report, and what’s the plan between these initiatives end in May, and when is the approximate start of the initiatives that will take us for 12 months? Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, we’re jumping the shark a little bit here in terms of being able to give you finite numbers about a report that will come forward in June. However, as I’ve previously indicated during this meeting, the encampment table is meeting today in real time, and they are looking at what can we continue to do, and what do we need to additionally do to meet people’s basic human needs from a human rights perspective. Now, next week, April, May, June, and beyond.

As Ms. Livingston and I have both indicated, the June report will map out the long-term permanent encampment strategy for us as a community. So that is where, in that June report, you will see how we approach encampments, considering different municipal cases that have taken place, looking at human rights lens, looking at feedback from lived experience, and how do we support people around all 12 months of the year? So those details will be in the June report.

I do not have them or the ability to share them today. Councillor Preble. Thank you. So potentially in April, May, we might see a couple of other extensions.

Once we know that potentially in the June report, those initiatives won’t start potentially until July, August, September. So we might see additional interim asks just like what’s in front of us now, Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, I’m not able to commit to what you’ll see in April and May.

What we’re bringing forward to you today is an ask to extend until the end of May. What the encampment table is looking at is what is already in place in terms of meeting people where they’re at, providing their basic human needs, food, water, access to hygiene facilities, things like that. That table will continue to map out what that will look like. May we’ll step it back.

So that table is well connected to what’s been happening throughout the winter. So they know there’ll be an anticipated need and strain on the system as more encampments start to reappear. So their planning is looking at coming out of winter where we are into what that is anticipated to look like throughout March, April, May, June, July, and so on. That is the acute day-to-day, how do we help people now that are living outdoors?

The June encampment strategy is a longer, more fulsome picture of how does the city of London approach encampments? How does it tie into the whole of community system response? How does it tie into a housing model? How does it tie into a human rights lens?

How do we tap into best practices from across Canada and throughout other parts of North America? That strategy will give us an opportunity to come before you and say, we have engaged with you, we’ve engaged with other key partners and priority populations, and this is what we’re looking to do as a community. This is our position on encampments and how we can help people get out of them ultimately. That is very different than what the folks are doing right now.

Yes, we may, as part of our April update, we may have an access as we need to increase the number of porta-potties. We need to reintroduce some different depot services, maybe perhaps in different locations, but that is what that table is mapping out right now and the information they’re gathering in real time. And so I can’t commit that we won’t come and ask for some short-term relief to help address the increase in encampments, but what I can unequivocally say today is that we’re asking you to consider an extension for these two programs ‘til the end of May. Councilor Preble.

Thank you for the answers, and I do understand your reasoning, and I hope that what’s gonna come in front of us in June, that if it’s approved by the Council, that those initiatives will start as soon as possible. Well, thank you. Thank you, Councilor Preble. I look to see if there’s any other speakers on the list, and I don’t see anyone else on the motion that’s on the floor.

So I am going to ask Councilor Layman to take the chair just ‘cause I’m gonna share a few thoughts. That’ll go to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

So through you, first a couple of comments that I’m gonna share. When I received this report, my initial knee-jerk reaction was no, because I, too, am frustrated with bits and pieces here and there, where I am not necessarily fully aligned with the Mayor on this, is that I think we do have to put it all together and look at how all of the pieces interact, and I’m frustrated when I don’t see that bigger picture, but I do know that that bigger picture is being worked on, and I do know that the evaluation framework is coming and is gonna be put in place. I think my bigger frustration, quite honestly, and one of the reasons I won’t be supporting this motion, is I actually have a bigger challenge with the ask from London Cares, who just received a very, very substantial increase in a two-year contract agreement, and to hear that these services were not envisioned as part of this while the Salvation Army’s were, is extremely frustrating to me. I also agree with the point Councilor Raman raised with the security costs, and everything she said is right.

Both the people receiving services and people in the neighborhood are benefiting from these security costs at the moment, but throughout the city, private security is not the way forward. If we are funding private security for everything, we are going to run our money very quickly for other things we need, and I think we’re already seeing that, and we saw during the budget debate a number of business cases that had private security costs involved in them, and it was not just in the social services area. It was across the board, and that is frustrating to me, that we continue to see that. So, I do appreciate though, where this ask is coming from, in terms of aligning everything with May 31st.

I won’t support an extension beyond that. I think that then we run into, then we’ve got to extend everybody else further months too, and I’m not prepared to do that. I do think it’s really important to say, and I hope this is not actually to staff, but to the agencies at large out there. We can’t keep doing a couple months here, and a couple months there, things have to be aligned, and the service package that you’re going to offer has to include everything that you’re going to offer.

I can’t have, for me in my head, I can’t support letting care sing after a significant increase. Well, now we need another increase, because we didn’t include these services in the increase we just got, in the last cycle. We just approved at the last council meeting. So, I’m not going to support the motion on the floor.

I certainly, I know that the original staff recommendation is coming, when that comes forward, I’m probably not going to support the London Cares clause, because I think that that should have been done in their long-term package of services that they just received a two-year contract. But I do think that there is some value in maintaining the 15 spaces, that we have at Safe Space, for the same amount of time, that we have the other spaces aligned for in the community right now. I also think that we have to recognize, during these transition times, there may be some interruptions to services. There may be some services that end, and services cannot continue in perpetuity when we’re trying to transition into a new model.

That hub’s model, the supportive housing model, that should see a shrinkage in these other services. As people are becoming housed, there should be a shrinkage in some of these less sustainable short-term services that are being offered out there. So I just wanted to offer my thoughts on that. I did want to potentially ask, but I think I’ll save it for the main motion.

I will say, though, that after an initial reaction of no, I took time, I read it again last night. I recognize that this is funding coming from an existing revenue source. This is not a new ask. This is simply because our procurement policies require our approval on an amount this size.

So I’m just gonna, I think, wrap up for there for now. But I just wanted to say I share both. I share the frustration, extremely frustrated with the way some of this is coming in bits and pieces. I also share the optimism of the fact that there are a lot of efforts being made to bring forward a cohesive plan.

When Mr. Dickon said, the annual encampment strategy, and I think this is really important. It’s not a year-long encampment strategy. It’s an annual strategy going forward year after year, after year, it’s not a one-year strategy.

It’s how we address it moving forward from now on. So that’s where I am right now, and I just appreciate people giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts as well. I’ll return the chair to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I don’t have any other speakers on the list at the moment. This is on the alternate motion that was put forward. I’m gonna look to see if there’s anyone else before we call the question on this. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote.

While there was a momentary lag in the e-scribe, if your vote could not be submitted, try again, it’s working properly now. Using the vote, motion fails two to 13. Thank you, colleagues. Councillor Palosa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At this time, I’d like to put stops to original recommendation from report on the floor, which includes funding for lending cares and safe space. I believe I have a seconder in Mayor Morgan.

Yes, and Mayor Morgan’s indicating he’s happy to second that for you. So the original staff recommendation is now on the floor. We now have a new speakers list because we have a new motion and we’ll take it from there, Councillor Trussa. Yes, I’m wondering if this might not be a good time to make my amendment, which the clerk has the language for.

And if I may do that, I simply would like to extend the times in A and in B from May 31st to June 30th. And correspondingly, I’d like to change 139 to 2094 and in part B change 129,000 to 209,400, which is 1.5 of what the original numbers were. And I’d like to put that on the floor. I think it would work well with this motion.

And I won’t speak to the merits of it now if I could have a seconder. And did you, sorry, Councillor, did you send that language to the clerks? - Yes, I did. I hope my numbers were right.

Well, certainly we can go to Mr. Dickens to crack that if they’re not, but we’ll, we’ll just give the moment for that to get into E-Scribe. Is there a seconder? Councillor Hopkins.

Okay, so we now have an amendment and we’ll just wait a moment. Councillor Trussa did provide his intent, but we just need to get that in E-Scribe. And if you refresh, that is now in E-Scribe under motion four. And we’ll look for speakers to that.

Councillor Trussa. Yes, I’ll start. I recall back in the fall, I asked for a longer period. And the reason why I asked for a longer period in the fall was we need to anticipate what’s going to happen as best as we can.

So every time we come to the table with like a new amendment for one month or two months, it’s a lot of wear and tear. It’s an additional staff report. If what I’m seeing in front of me right now is that we’re going to be getting a full report in June and we’re going to be making new policy then, then it seems to me as if we’re not going to be able to have that continuity of services until at least July 1st, which is why I’m putting forward the amendment to extend this from May 31st to June 30th. I do not want to have to come back here in May and have this exact same discussion for one month.

And I do believe it’s important to have continuity and services. I do believe it’s important not to have a gap because I think if we have a gap, it’s really going to disrupt the progress that we’re making, particularly on the street and in the neighborhoods. But even more significantly, out of respect for our service providers and partners, I would like to give them just a little bit more certainty in terms of being able to plan their staffing schedules and I think giving them three months instead of two months right now is just a very marginal change. It will help them do that.

It will ensure a continuity of programming until we go into the new phase. And I hope that counselors will support that amendment. Oh, by the way, one other thing. I did discuss this with Mr.

Dickens and I’m asking him if he could comment on the practicality of this. We did discuss whether or not there was funding for the additional month. So could you address that, please? Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Trussow. And I was actually going to ask Mr. Dickens to confirm that the numbers that are in the motion are in fact correct too. So Mr.

Dickens, you have the question from the Councillor and I’ll turn the floor over to you. Thank you, Chair. I sit with the benefit of Ms. Barbone beside me to do the numbers work.

You do not want to leave that up to me. And we have confirmed those numbers are close. They’re very close. They’re confirmed and in conversation with Mr.

Cooper, the one month extension would be something that we could accommodate as well. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you. That was going to be my question, making sure we had the numbers correct. I am seconding this amendment. And one of the things I have heard loud and clear is the need in the community.

I’m really pleased to know somehow June seems to be the date where we get the reports, the encampment strategy is going to be really important. So extending it another month, having that, I guess more of for staff working within the agency, having some security and understanding where this program will go is important. The need is there. I do have a question through you, Mr.

Chair, to staff about other agencies may requiring extensions. I wasn’t, there was a comment based on the previous conversation that there could be more requests coming forward. So I would have without putting staff on the spot, how many agencies out there would require further extensions. Mr.

Dickens, I think, and I don’t want to put words in Councillors’ mouth, but specifically, I think there was reference to the other agencies that are expiring May 31st. And so how many of those contracts, because this report speak to aligning with the other contracts that will run out May 31st, how many of those additional contracts are there? Through you, Chair, with this table just being, or sorry, this motion just being tabled to extend this report to the end of June, we have not had any conversations with those other providers. They’re providing a number of dozens of overnight spaces, and I’m sure they would love to see those continue in perpetuity beyond the end of June as well.

So we have not engaged those providers. They have also entered into this, knowing it’s a temporary scaling up. Those organizations are also looking, as are all organizations, looking to identify how they fit into the whole of community system response of where we’re going. And as Ms.

Livingston said, it was a really important point. The system we’re trying to create to serve the highest acuity individuals in our community does not immediately negate or replace the fact that there are still individuals in need of care today. And as we build up one system, we’re trying to maintain and sustain the other. That’s why we came forward recently with an ask of two years’ worth of sustaining the system funding, so that that base level of service can continue that continuity of care, and it allows organizations to start to adjust and align with where the services are going.

Again, recognizing we are trying to serve the highest acuity individuals that have often gone un or underserved in our community. So, sorry, I’m pontificating a little bit to your question, but to answer your question specifically, we have not had conversations with those other cold weather response providers. Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that.

Through the chair to staff, I appreciate that information. I think it’s really important that we have, what I hear, loud and clear from staff, is that we’re trying to align all our services and keeping these two providers consistent, going into June when a lot of our encampment strategy will be coming forward and other work being done in the community, how everything aligns. It allows these agencies to continue, and I have heard loud and clear. There is a need in the community.

That’s why I’m supporting the amendment. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m wondering if this can be split into two. And I agree, I’m hearing things look a little better right now out there, and I’m very grateful for that.

But there is a lot of people in need, and we have a lot of services that are ending in a very short period of time. And I don’t know what to tell people. And I too, like the deputy mayor, I’m not happy about paying this additional money to lending cares, and I don’t understand why it wasn’t included or why they didn’t feel that it needed to be part of the stability of our system going forward. And I would love to know why, because I’m assuming there’s a good reason.

But I’d like to be able to share that with the public. And in the meantime, I am very concerned about what is gonna happen to those people who, St. Joe’s Cafe is serving what 300 meals a day to people right there. We spent, I think, close to a million dollars on security last year because of the desperate situation.

And I wanna know what we believe is going to be different, and how we believe people are gonna be taken care of when all of these services end. And so I would reluctantly agree to the lending care’s extension to the end of June, because at least then it would continue until we get another report. I wanna know what’s happening before it happens. People want to know what is happening in our city and in and around these areas.

And there’s been a few comments made, I didn’t call a point of privilege, but I really dislike the insinuation that my opposition to funding safe space has anything to do with the women and the clientele that is there. It is not that. We have a lot of services that provide services to those incredibly vulnerable women. I am posed to the support and services that are offered there.

On their website, quote, it says they helping those who provide sexual services to operate with safety and dignity. It does not say help to get women out of the sex trade. It says help them operate. They are pro-prostitution.

They support it. It’s a bit empowerment and dignity. And no, and I disagree, just like I disagree with providing addiction services to people who trapped in addiction in helping them with their addiction and helping them just a different philosophy. And I’d like to be able to do it without insinuating that somehow it’s an insult to International Women’s Day on Friday.

It’s also a completely different service. We’re talking about lending cares. It’s open to anybody who’s there right beside a cafe where there’s hundreds of people come every day versus another organization that is located on the main street of my business district, a district that is struggling, that is trying to survive there. And we were assured, we were assured that it was temporary.

It is unfair to the taxpayers right there that their money is going to fund this organization in the core, in the heart of the business district. The provision of sexual services is not something that enhances that business district. There are a lot of good neighbor concerns. There are a lot of safety concerns.

And I have been consistent about that. I’ve consistently said to council, please, I am the ward counselor in that area. We call, and I think it’s a disservice to keep referring to these services, both of them as life-saving services. It makes it very difficult to vote against, and yet we are all agreeing to end them.

And we have all agreed to end them several times. So to try to shame me for saying, let’s end it now, is I think disrespectful. This is a difficult situation. We are in a difficult situation.

And I don’t know what the right answer is, but I’m asking you to please not prolong the situation. We just gave half a million dollars to the old East Village business district to help them. I’m asking you to, if this council believes in that organization and wants to continue to find it fine, then another location. We should not be putting social services on the main street of any of the business improvement association districts in our city.

It’s contrary to what is trying to happen there. And I’m really asking my fellow counselors to hear me on this. It is not about those women. It is so much more complex than that.

And there is a desperate need out there, and I am supportive of something that will work. Thank you, councilor. I’m just going to intervene here. I don’t think that another counselor was trying to shame you.

I think that the other counselor was stating her reason why she was supporting something. And to your point, absolutely, colleagues need to be able to have different points of view, different philosophies on things. And I do hope that people will be respectful of that as we continue forward, as well as to the work that staff is doing on this, to the best of their ability. Looking to see if we have other speakers on the amendment-only, councilor Palosa.

Thank you, speaking strictly on the amendment through you to Mr. Dickens or his staff. Are the two organizations mentioned for the contract extension letting cares and safe space willing to extend another month if that conversation’s been had in addition to finances? Mr.

Dickens. Through you, chair, again, this motion just being tabled. We did have a conversation on the financials with the counselor. These organizations, I’m sure, would be able to, and they would be interested.

And again, we go back to really focusing on the services being provided and the vulnerable people and the help that it’s creating. And if we look at that, then these organizations would absolutely want to continue helping those folks. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, a follow-up to staff.

Thank you for that. With your report coming back, and I know it’s always as soon as possible, but potentially June, would any of this be not an alignment with what you would see coming from the community? I’m assuming not as I serve on one of the tables as well, and just making sure that I would say this is going a little bit over and above, but realizing it could provide, as Councillor Trow said, some stability in the industry and their employees as they go through this, in addition to the residents who use these services that they know that there might not be that leg and gap or where they can go while they’re waiting for council to have this information and make the larger picture decision. Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and I hope this answer will provide clarity. So the June report on the encampment strategy gives Council a policy position. Gives you the ability to set direction and policy for how this community approaches and supports and addresses encampments.

In that will be the type of services that are needed to support people living unsheltered. But I just want to be clear, this is not an on/off switch of the services end May 31st, or the services end June 31st and the encampment strategy comes and therefore it’s a complete, we just take it here and put it here. The encampment table is already focusing on how do we meet people’s basic needs on a day-to-day basis? Now again, tomorrow April, May, June, July and beyond.

The encampment report, the strategy that comes, is our opportunity for you to weigh in on a policy and direction of how we support encampments as a municipality. So it will embed key services, basic human needs, service delivery models, some costing, but it is not an immediate, here’s a report funded today. These services end, these services start. It is the policy framework for you to consider and give us direction to proceed.

The basic human needs on a day-to-day basis is being discussed and still continues to be provided today. And we will see where those directions come. Just quickly check my notes here. There are four pillars that are being considered as part of the encampment strategy report.

With our encampment table, I should say, that’s transactional outreach, the impacts of weather, encampment protocols, and pathways to housing. So that is the work that’s being undertaken right now and then you’ll see that reflected in the policy framework that we’ll ask you to consider. Councillor Paluzzi, you good? Councillor Layman is next.

Thank you, I will not be supporting this. This kind of ties back to my comments before having these ad hoc amounts coming before us without a comprehensive strategy. Funding is limited. It seems the issue, it can be deemed unlimited.

But funding is, I don’t know if this is the most efficient way to tackle our problem. That’s the whole purpose of having a whole of community response and plan, whether it’s shelters, affordable housing, rank your day income, our hub system, to just randomly add another month here without due process concerns me. I supported the previous motion. Staff brought it forward, I understand the logic behind it.

And Deputy Mayor did raise some concerns that I share with London Cares and when I consider a poor ask in the last time to not have foreseen this. So that gives me cause for concern. But the biggest concern now is just peacemealing this without a clear plan, a clear understanding of where funding is gonna come from and the limitations to that funding. So I will not be supporting this.

Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. So specifically on this amendment, I see the rationality just for continuity reasons. And we see that the report’s coming back mid to late June and just to ensure that we are still providing these services to hold us over till we get there.

But I also see, and the reason that we’re here in the first place is because we have relatively speaking to the other providers in the cold weather response, we had a date misalignment. So we’re bringing the dates back up to par. So my question would be back to staff. If we were to prove this amendment to bring us out to June 30th, we find ourselves now kind of in the same situation we were before with vis-a-vis with the other service providers cause everyone else is supposed to be having their agreements end on May 31st.

So I don’t wanna be peacemealing this myself either. So just looking forward, should we be also considering the other service providers for, you know, to bring us down to the June 30th moment so we can have continuity on all fronts? Mr. Dickens.

Sorry, Mr. Chair, I’m gonna blame the city manager for distracting me. It’s an ongoing problem. I’m gonna pass.

I have good news for you, Mr. Dickens. It won’t be a problem much longer. Amen.

If I may or may pass this to Mr. Cooper, who is paying attention, I’m sure. Thank you, and through the chair, the conversation hasn’t been had with those other organizations, right? I think as Mr.

Dickens alluded to earlier, if we had those conversations, the focus on the vulnerable populations would likely persuade those organizations to want to continue on. They all have different lease agreements, so there would need to be some work done for those other organizations to extend beyond that May 31st date, but I’m not gonna say it’s not possible. We would also have to look to find an alternate funding source. Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you for that. So I’m just, I don’t want to find ourselves in this situation again. I’d like to look a little bit further out, so that would be a conversation I’d be willing to have, but I would support this motion as it is, this amendment anyways, just for the continuity reasons alone, because we’re expecting that report to come back, and I would hope that in that report, we’ll have a source of funding, and we’ll have a whole policy on how we’re gonna go about things. But I do have concern with, now we’re again in a mismatch with the end dates between these two service providers, and the other service providers we have within the cold weather response.

Thank you, Councillor Ferrera. I’ve got Councillor McAllister next. Thank you and through the chair. I’m supportive of this extension.

I think something that might be missing in a conversation we’re having right now is, I actually view this as a bit of a distinction of services, in terms of the cold weather responses that we’re funded, when you look at actually the services they’re providing, you’re looking at more what I would call the shelters. I think that this is actually providing kind of a missing service that I do hear a lot of demand for, in terms of laundry facilities, shower facilities. These are also services that are desperately needed in the community. They’re not as extensive as say, the shelter system that we did fund through the winter, recognizing that you do need a lot more staff.

There’s obviously longer-term security. This is more of what I view as the temporary side of those services in terms of these are things that people use on a more daily basis. They’re very important, but not as heavy as say, creating a whole shelter system to support it. We might have others come before us, but I actually would think that a lot of them are probably looking at this differently in terms of the service that’s being provided with a contract like this versus a shelter system.

And I definitely think the shelter is vitally important, but I think we have to distinguish between the larger support network that’s needed for a shelter system versus the services that are being provided at these two locations. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. I did have myself next on the list, but then Councillor Raman got her hand on.

So I’m gonna go to Councillor Raman next, ‘cause it’s easier to deal with everybody else before I pass the chair over. Councillor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I appreciate the forethought of which my colleagues are bringing this motion.

However, I wanna acknowledge that we have somewhat of a process and I feel as though we’re kind of stepping over our process, even if it’s for good intentions. One part of that process is allowing active participation in the decision-making process for those that are impacted by the services. So if we have a limited amount of funds and we know that this potential contract amendment to now extend to June could then also have a reactive response from other providers where they too will come back for a similar request, would we potentially put ourselves in a position where we’re not able to fund all the requests and we don’t map the most efficient request to the limited pot of money? I think that’s my concern in the end is that if let’s say the rest of the winter response funding partners come back and ask for funding, we may now not have an opportunity to make a decision that has the most impact and is most efficiently managing the limited dollars that we have because we’re trying to be proactive without the information as well as without potentially more of an evaluative understanding of what those that are most impacted would like to see continue in terms of services.

I completely agree with Councilor McAllister. I think that these services fill a gap, but what we do know is that those gaps also involve seasonality. And so I want to ensure that that funding is being used in the most effective way. And so I’m supportive of up until May 31st, as was discussed with providers, as well as those that are impacted.

I’m not supportive of an extension until I have a better understanding of what the entire sector and table are recommending past May 31st. Thank you, Councilor Raman, Mayor Morgan. So first off, I want to agree with everything Councilor Raman just said. And then I just want to add a practicality here for colleagues ‘cause what we do here is really important.

We speak, we share our opinions, we try to find consensus. What I hear and what I’m hearing from colleagues is wide support for the staff recommendation. And if it gets amended, way less support for the as amended motion if you add the additional time. And so I just want colleagues to listen to that.

Like as we consider this, I think there’s a really good next step here that is widely supported by Council to support the staff motion. And I think that there’s another process here by which we add an extension beyond what was originally contemplated or asked for when the staff brought the report forward that maybe as Councilor Raman and Councilor McCallister said may have some value in the community but is also deploying resources that we can’t deploy in other ways. And you hear your colleagues not wanting to do that. So just think about where we have a wide consensus here and where we might go down a path of the as amended motion.

If this amendment passes might have way less support on Council than if we go with the staff recommendation. And I think for us, I think there’s a really good signal we can send here to say we got this, we support this extension, we’re moving forward, but we’re gonna go through all those steps that Mr. Dickens talked about. Like all of the things that are going to lead us to, you know, a different set of decision-making down the road than maybe the framework that we’re operating within today.

So, you know, and the last piece on there is not, what Mr. Dickens was suggesting is coming forward with the in-camera strategy is not here’s the strategy and here’s the package that you’re gonna fund today and all that, like it is the overall framework under which we will, the policy framework, under which we will make decisions on how to approach encampments, gold, warm, weather responses in the future. It is not the plan and all the funding envelopes and all the pieces to it on that day, right? It is a really important decision-making framework.

And, you know, Mr. Dickens can correct me if I’m wrong on that, but that’s my understanding of what is going to come forward, which will help guide us. Just like we had a humps implementation framework, just like on many different things that the city does, you know, we have frameworks that we try to make decisions within. So, that’s my caution with colleagues.

I understand people’s desire to want to add to what is the staff motion, but I think, you know, there’s probably some unintended consequences to that that maybe people aren’t thinking on the next vote that we’ll have after that one. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’m gonna look to any other speakers on this, and I do just wanna draw folks’ attention to, we are now at 1107, we have council at one PM. We have a single item on the agenda, and we have been at it for over an hour and a half now.

Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair. I’ll be brief. I share the concerns that the mayor brought up just with the support.

If we were to make this amendment, I don’t want to lose this opportunity to bring us out to this date, to the May 31st date. I do also have some concerns with not everything, not being on par, but I also have concern with the continuity part. So I’m struggling with the amendment right now. I support the amendment, but considering the full context, you know, I’m just trying to weigh out my options.

So going maybe to Mr. Dickens and just speaking on the continuity aspect, if we were to just approve up to the May 31st date, there would be that gap for so many days, perhaps a month, and I just wanted to know what would happen with all the services when the funding will run out on the May 31st until we get the report back for the new policy on how we’re going to do things. Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Chair, as we had indicated that a Cameron strategy report will identify the types of services that we feel should be provided in our community. And it might include showers and laundry and access to different things that are similar to what are in this report today. It may talk about where those services should be located or how they should be delivered or the hours in which are most beneficial to deliver them. So the like for like may not necessarily be there.

So when you talk about continuity, the Cameron report will certainly talk about basic needs like shower and laundry and access to food and water. But by extending until June and coming back with a report in June that shows council, these are the type of services we need in our community to address and support an unsheltered population. There would be an anticipation that there would be things that look different. Like I said, location, timing, provider, what that looks like.

There would also be an anticipation that there would be an element of procurement that would need to take place which may not align with our reporting schedules here as well. So I would just want to caution that it’s not a finite, you know, bring the report forward. If we keep this till the 31st, everything will just flip over July one. We don’t know, I don’t have the minutia of what that in-camera strategy with those basic services and the ways in which and where they should be provided in my hands at this point to be able to assure you that this extension means there will be no break in service.

Councilor Ferrer, thank you, Chair. Okay, I think I understood. So really my concern is as of May 31st until I guess July 1st, let’s say, will individuals not have these services? Will there be a gap in the services?

Will we not have, you know, drop in spaces? Will we not have the laundry? Will we not have hygiene services? Is there a gap in that month’s time?

So Councilor Ferrer, I’m not gonna ask staff to keep answering the same question. I think Mr. Dickens answered that he cannot really give you an answer on that today because he does not have the full detail jet. Okay, thank you.

Looking for any other speakers on the amendment, this is the extension only, Councilor Trussa. Yeah, I’ll just wrap up and I was asked a question about whether the agencies would want this money. So according to this motion, the funding is only through May 31st. My amendment makes the funding through June 30th.

I did have the chance, I did have the chance, I didn’t have, I’m sorry, let me just collect my thoughts here. I did have the opportunity to talk to London, to safe space London. I did have the opportunity to talk to safe space London and they absolutely really appreciate the one month extension largely because it gives them more certainty in their planning for their staffing. I did not have the opportunity to talk to London cares.

I can’t imagine the agency would prefer to have their funding expire on May 31st as opposed to it expiring on June 30th. The other question that came up, which I think I should respond to is, well, why didn’t I include in my amendment the other agencies? And the reason for that was I was working on the staff report. The staff report was very thorough in terms of providing what the numbers would be for those two agencies, for me to on an ad hoc basis at another agency that wasn’t even the subject of the staff report would have opened up even more questions.

By the way, if somebody wants to come back after we look at their numbers at the next SPPC meeting and add the other agencies, that would be fine with me. And I would definitely support that. But I don’t think my motion should be faulted for only including these two agencies because these were the two agencies that were subject to the staff report. And finally, just to clear up the uncertainty, and I hope I asked this before and got a clear answer.

I did speak to Mr. Dickens about the availability of the funding for the month for these two agencies and it was confirmed that it was there. So I think we’re not gaining anything. We’re not gaining anything by saying, well, this is to ad hoc.

This is not due process. It is due process. There’s a staff report on the table and I made an incremental change to it. So I really want to, again, urge my colleagues to allow, is my time up?

Okay, so again, I want to urge my colleagues to allow these two very incremental amendments. And if somebody wants to come forward with something else’s for the other agencies, I would be in support of that, too. I don’t want to see a gap and I don’t want to see uncertainty in terms of staff and planning. Thank you.

Few seconds to spare, Councillor, well done. Councillor ramen. Thank you. My fellow Councillors, his comments raised a question for me to staff if possible.

I just want to ask, do we know for certain that we have enough funding to provide support to every other service provider that we are currently supporting through for winter response into the same timeframe? So that was already answered, Councillor, and staff indicated a different source of funding would have to be identified. So we’d have to identify another source of funding if we were to fund the others. So I guess my issue continues to remain that we are not doing or having an evaluative conversation around what services are needed from May 31st onwards.

And I do think that we have a desire to support these organizations right now. We have consensus, it seems to support them to May 31st. My concern is that if we get into what do we fund past May 31st, I don’t have enough information right now to decide with limited resources how we allocate those funds. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Lehman, can I ask you to take the chair again, please? Please go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you, so I’m gonna try and be really brief because Councillor Raman and Mayor Morgan said a lot of what I was gonna say. I will not support the amendment and if the amendment passes, then I won’t be able to support the main motion either.

Because I do think we’re setting up a precedent where the other providers are then going to expect to have their funding extended without us having a source of funding identified through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I’m wondering if you can, through you have staff respond to, do we even have our 2024 provincial funding confirmed in our social services area? Or are we still waiting for a provincial budget to confirm what our allocations might be for this year?

I’ll go staff. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I believe we do have our HPP funding for 2024. It’s beyond that that we don’t have the extended agreements in place yet with the province.

Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So knowing that that is our situation that we do actually have our provincial funding and then adding that to the fact that as we’ve heard the existing funding is not sufficient to extend for all of the agencies, that even underscores more for me why I can’t support an extension at this time. We do need that evaluation of which ones may or may not continue forward past that.

So I’ll leave it at that. I won’t be supporting the amendment. I’ll return the chair to the September. Looking for any other speakers before we call the question on the amendment.

It was previously indicated that Councillors might want to vote on that separately. Councillor Stevenson, you had indicated that. Do you still want it separated or are you okay with the amendment on the extension to be together? Together is fine, okay?

So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment. Sorry, that would be number four, Councillor. Closing the vote, motion fails four to 11. Thank you colleagues.

So now we’re back to the main motion as moved by Councillor Palosa and seconded by Mayor Morgan. I know we’ve had some fairly substantive conversation around components of this anyway, but we are back to the main motion. We have not had speakers on the main motion. We want right to an amendment.

So I’ll look to see if there’s any speakers to the main motion. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, a question through to staff. The admin costs for safe space seem to be, by my calculations, 15% instead of 5%.

And I know in previous reports, it’s set up to a max of five. I’m just wondering why the difference this time and. Staff just need a moment there to— Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

Just going up the response I sent to the Councillor this morning. So when we look at the admin expenditures for safe space, it’s the 16,500 on the total of the 129,000, which gives us about 12 and a half, 12.7% of their admin. When we look at that, that is comparing to their previous or the original cold weather funding, whether admin allocation, sorry, point of the wrong one here. And so many emails this morning, my apologies.

So when we look at that 12.7% admin cost, we feel that that’s an arrange that we’re comfortable with. Our funding envelopes are multiple and convoluted when you look at HPP, our municipal funding targets and our reaching home. So when we look at the percentage of their admin, that is a cost that we’re comfortable with. As for the increase, it’s relatively similar to the first four months worth of funding that Councillor Perft.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and not to disagree, but the admin cost on the last one was 12,000 for four months, which is 3,000 a month. And this one is 16,5 for two months, which is 8,250 a month. Just seems really out of alignment, even with the lending shares, their admin’s only 2% is $3,000.

I can make a few comments if I can give staff a chance to just take a peek at that. Certainly, but we give Mr. Dickens a chance to reconfirm. And if you wanna share a couple of other comments, and Mr.

Dickens, if you can just give me the wave or the thumbs up when you have some numbers to, or some confirmation of numbers to share back with us. Yeah, there were a lot of emails this morning. I did appreciate all of the answers. I would like to be that I can vote on it separately.

And I understand we all might have differences of opinion on certain things. But I really am asking, Council, there was in the Court Area Action Plan, it said that there was an oversaturation of social services. And we added to that. Council added to that because there was a dire need.

And it was promised that it would be short-term. And so for whatever reason, the whole of community has not brought this forward as something that’s gonna continue. It didn’t come forward as a budget case. And so from what we can see, it is not going to continue to be funded.

And so my request is that we allow it to close on March 31st as previously planned to allow that core corner in that business district to be transformed into something that is more in line with the business community that is looking to redevelop there. And so like I said, it is going to close at some point because we have not provided permanent funding. And so the staff there have been told that they’re gonna be done March 31st. So 26 days before they’re done, we’re gonna extend them another two months.

I’m not sure what that does operationally to have this kind of last-minute change. I’m less concerned with lending cares because they have a large budget and a large staff. And I’m assuming that they can coordinate that. So this area of the city has paid its fair share.

I supported the 120 beds and the ones on Dundas Street on the main street because we’d already funded daytime services there and because it was winter and people needed overnight shelter. Now that we’re into, this is talking about April and May, I am gonna support somewhat reluctantly the availability of the showers and the security and everything until I get some assurance as to what’s gonna happen when we stop. I wanna know what’s gonna happen there to the best of our ability to be able to predict it. Why didn’t that come forward?

Why wasn’t it recommended? Why is this something that we believe to be better to have these services end at that location? But in terms of part B, I have been asking this council to please support this business district and to please allow them to move forward in a space that is more supportive. We gave money to them, knowing that they’ve been having a really difficult time.

We’re gonna have construction that Elizabeth and Dundas again this year. And that corner could really use a transformation. This is only gonna be temporary anyway. It would be really nice to be able to move forward prior to summer beginning in that area.

Councillor McAllister is that point of order? Yeah, a point of order. We have supported the OEV, BIA. They also got the security.

I think it’s disingenuous to say that council, as a whole, does not care about OEV. We have our actions have shown that. And I am getting kind of tired of hearing that we don’t support that part of the city. I think that that’s the council’s opinion.

Yes, they have struggles. We all have struggles. And I don’t think it’s fair to say that we’re not supporting OEV. Thank you, Councillor.

And I’m gonna apologize ‘cause I was talking to the clerk about the process for splitting up this so people can vote on things separately. And I’m not sure exactly what it was that Councillor Stevenson said that triggered the point of order. So I apologize for that. But I do take Councillor McAllister’s point that council has invested in the OEV business area.

So it’s not that council is not making some commitments there. So, Councillor, if you can just, as you finish your comments, if you can just keep that in mind moving forward. Yes, and we were very appreciative of the 500,000. Very, very appreciative.

I know there was also a deferral of some loan payments which was really appreciated by the businesses there. There’s some really great things happening. I’m just saying this is going to end March 31st or May 31st. It’s going to be painful no matter what.

And it would be helpful to this business district if we could move forward sooner versus later. And even from a cost perspective, it’s $31,000 a month for lending care. It’s 64,500 for the other one. I understand it’s a totally, you know, comparing apples and oranges there.

But in terms of meeting the need of washroom showers and laundry, which is desperately needed, open access to that is at the location that is half the price. So I don’t know, I haven’t been effective in getting my, you know, in this before. But I am asking council to, we get to stop funding social services on the main street of this business. I, you know, I’m happy to be around the corner on another street.

I’d support the social services. But this main street, we get to start moving away from that. And I’d appreciate your support by voting no to be. Thank you, councilor.

Any other speakers to this? Just going to go back to Mr. Dickens and see if he’s had a chance. I know you were conferring with the treasurer.

If we can just get some clarity on the numbers. Thank you, chair and through you. And in conversation with Mr. Cooper here, who’s been very helpful this morning.

The allocation that council approved in October was roughly the $259,000 to safe space. That is the budget that we have been able to work within. As safe space finalized their contract, their actuals, their actual budget, not the proposed budget, had an increase in the admin line. So we stayed within the approval that council gave, where that money or how that money was allocated or distributed, changed where their admin was actually significantly higher than the proposed, again, staying within the budget envelope.

So what you see in this report is actually a small decrease, which we articulated this morning. The monthly average for the first four months for the safe space contract was $8,425. And what you see in this report is a monthly average of $8,329 in their actuals. So again, part of their proposed allocation, the total allocation did not change.

We stayed within that. And what changed was the distribution of those funds. This report is consistent with their actual budget. Thank you.

Councilor, you’ve got about 10 seconds left. So if you’ve got a follow up to that, it may have to be very tight. Yeah, I just do have a quick follow up. So just what is included in that admin, ‘cause it seems quite high.

And I forgot the other one, so. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair.

So the safe space with their budget, their staffing line actually went down in their proposed budget because of some ineligible costs. So those ineligible costs get recouped under their admin line. And admin is really things that are not direct service. So you’re looking at organizations carrying insurance and having printing costs or having an HR support of finance person, things that you can’t claim against direct service.

So those are the admin costs to unpack the line-by-line item on the $8,000. I don’t have that at my fingertips. No, that’s good, thank you. Thank you.

Looking for any other speakers, and I’m just gonna advise colleagues in conversation with the clerk, because people did indicate that they wanted to vote on these things in different ways. We will call part A first. That is the London CARES component. We will call part B second.

That is the safe space component. And then we can call CD and E together, which is authorizing civic administration to take the necessary acts to enact whatever we have approved in A and or B. And the conditional upon the amending of the purchase of service agreements and the it being noted that the communication was received from the Midtown Community Organization coordinators. So just wanted to hopefully answer people’s questions process-wise ahead of time.

So it would be A and then B and then all of the other components after that. And I have no other speakers. So if there are no other speakers, I am going to ask the clerk to open the vote only on part A at this time. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

Now I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on part B. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. And now I will ask the clerk to open the vote on sections CD and E. Sorry, there is no E, it’s just the being noted part.

Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. That concludes our consent agenda. It was quite a consent.

Now we have no scheduled items, no items for direction, no deferred matters or additional business, no confidential. So we only need to look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Hopkins and seconded by Councillor Frank. We can do this by hand, all those in favor.

Motion carries. And you have an hour and 27 minutes before we reconvene for council.