July 18, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and E. Peloza were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED Councillor J. Pribil discloses a pecuniary interest in item 2.1 having to do with Film London Review and Next Steps, by indicating that his son is contemplating seeking project support from Film London.

2.   Consent

2.2   Whole of Community System Response -  Q2 Quarterly Report

2024-07-18 Staff Report - Whole of Community System Response-Q2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the Whole of Community System Response - Q2 Quarterly Report BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

2.1   Film London Review and Next Steps

2024-07-18 Staff Report - Film London Review and Next Steps

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to continuing Film London through the London Economic Development Corporation:

a) the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for funding for Film London starting in 2025 until 2027 for consideration as part of the 2025 Budget Update process;

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to offset the costs by a reduced contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund and to include a review of the Film London Office in the next budget update; and

d) subject to the approval of funding through the 2025 Budget Update, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward an amending agreement to London Economic Development Corporation Purchase of Service Agreement to reflect the continuation of the Film London program.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, pursuant to section 27.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Item 2.1 in Stage 2, Consent, to be considered before Items for Direction and for Item 4.2 g) to be heard first in delegate order.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to continuing Film London through the London Economic Development Corporation:

a) the report BE RECEIVED for information;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for permanent funding for Film London starting in 2025 for consideration as part of the 2025 Budget Update process; and

c) subject to the approval of funding through the 2025 Budget Update, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward an amending agreement to London Economic Development Corporation Purchase of Service Agreement to reflect the continuation of the Film London program.

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That part b) be amended to read as follows:

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for funding for Film London starting in 2025 until 2027 for consideration as part of the 2025 Budget Update process;

That a new part c) be added to read as follows:

c) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to offset the costs by a reduced contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund and to include a review of the Film London Office in the next budget update.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion be approved, as amended.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

2.3   11th Report of the Governance Working Group

2024-07-18 Submission - GWG Report 11

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 11th Report of the Governance Working Group from its meeting held on June 24, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the report dated June 24, 2024, Councillor Role Description, as amended:

i) the document BE REVISED to include all changes as amended during the discussion;

A) that the phrase ‘Correspond with constituents in a timely manner’ BE REPLACED with the phrase ‘Communicate and follow up with residents as appropriate’;

ii) the document, as amended, BE FORWARDED to the City Manager for review;

iii) the document, attached as amended, BE REFERRED to a future Council Resourcing Review Task Force for consideration, as applicable;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to staff report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees dated June 24, 2024:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend Council Procedure By-law A-50 to remove the requirement of the Striking Committee to make recommendations for appointments to Community Advisory Committees and to update the mandates of both the Corporate Services Committee and the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to reflect the change in standing committee that considers community advisory committee appointments;

ii) the balance of the report on the updated General Policy for Community Advisory Committees BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration; and

iii) the associated request for delegation status from T. Khan, ITCAC Chair, BE DEFERRED to the September 23, 2024 meeting of the Governance Working Group for consideration at that time;

c)   the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report Amendments to Council Policy: Remuneration of Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members dated May 13, 2024, as amended:

i) updates to the policy BE DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the August 15, 2024 special meeting of the Governance Working Group with a draft terms of reference for a Council Resourcing Review Task Force, the purpose of the task force being to consider:

  •    base compensation for Council and the Mayor;

  •    compensation for additional service;

  •    an equity lens;

  •    consideration of Council severance pay;

  •    councillor role description;

  •    realistic job preview document; and

iii)  the letter from the London Police Services Board BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that members had a general discussion about a need to review how Council is resourced to perform their roles and the necessary scope of a task force to review the required resources;

it being further noted that the Governance Working Group received the attached communication from B. Brock and the following individuals made verbal presentations with respect to this matter:

M. Horak

B. Brock

M. Wallace;

d)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 and 4.2 BE RECEIVED.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That part d) be approved and reads as follows:

d)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a by-law to a future meeting of Municipal Council to amend CPOL.-228-480, as amended, to amend the Council Members’ Expense Policy to reduce the annual budget allocation in section 4.1 from $15,000 to $13,500 commencing in 2025;

Motion Failed (5 to 6)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the balance of the motion be approved.

Motion Passed (11 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Delegation - Kelly Paleczny, General Manager and Scott Collyer, Vice Chair - London Transit Commission (LTC) 2023 Annual Report

2024-07-18 Submission - London Transit 2023 Annual Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the London Transit Commission 2023 Annual Report BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to section 36.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, K. Paleczny, General Manager and Scott Collyer, Vice Chair - London Transit Commission (LTC) BE PERMITTED to speak an additional five (5) minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.2   1st Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group (SORWG)

2024-07-18 Submission - SORWG Report 1

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 1st Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working from its meeting held on June 26, 2024:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Grants - Neighbourhood Decision Making communication received from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman dated June 14, 2024, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Budget Amendment to the 2025 Annual Budget Update for the Mayor’s consideration to reflect the following:

A) the London Community Grants, annual Grassroots, Innovation, and Capital Grants stream for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 years to be funded to a maximum of $250,000/year through the Community Investment Reserve Fund while the program is undergoing further review. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M; and

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the London Community Grants Program, including the multi-year stream and the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program and bring forward a report prior to the end of Q2, 2027 with options for consideration on rightsizing and scope of these programs; including the alignment or conflict of NDM with regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and new Parks Reserve Fund, should Council choose to reinitiate the programs for the 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget;

iii) the delegation requests from N. Karsch, M. Cassidy, S. J. Taylor, R. Bloomfield and B. Samuels BE REFERRED to the July 18, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration, it being noted that the City Clerk’s Office will reach out to the requesters;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

  •    M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    S. J. Taylor, Nonprofit Manager, Social Impact Consultant, MA, Candidate;

  •    R. Bloomfield; 

  •    B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    Members of the Executive Committee, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association;

  •    C. Callandar, Executive Director, Meals on Wheels London;

  •    A. Heartsong;

  •    K. Ledgley, Executive Director, London Children’s Museum;

  •    J. Stewart, Resident of London;

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London; and

  •    H. Rajani;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee about the suggestion to engage with KPMG LLP for the delivery of service review training for the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, with the cost to be funded from the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy (EEE) Reserve;

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group with respect to the London Police Services Reserve Fund on potential opportunities for the consideration of this working group, including potential changes to the associated by-law, as required;

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group about the potential for partnerships in municipal golf;

iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the July 15, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group to discuss the City’s policy and general information related to venue naming rights with respect to any potential for revenue generation;

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to license City facilities for the sale of alcohol as a revenue stream, including a list of potential facilities;

v) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in the first quarter of 2025 with potential options for Council’s consideration with respect to the Surplus Deficit Policy;

d) clause 4.4 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals:

A. Fleet, Executive Director, Growing Chefs! Ontario;

M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

R. Bloomfield;

B. Samuels;

N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

L. Bowden;

L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network; and

K. Creighton, Director Sustainability and A. Robinson, Green Economy London Coordinator, London Environmental Network;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals;

M. Rumas;

B. Stephenson;

A. Badillo, Executive Director and J. Horrell, President, Urban Roots London;

C. Walters, CEO, Alzheimer Society Southwest Partners

G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

M. Pridding;

Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis; 

M. Romain;

W. Arnott, Interim Executive Director, Humane Society London & Middlesex;

B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Franke

That the delegation requests for M. Cassidy, R. Bloomfield, B. Samuels, N. Karsch, L. Bowden, L. Derikx, A. Fleet, K. Creighton and A. Robinson BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part a) i) A) be approved and reads as follows:

a) the following actions be taken with respect to the Community Grants - Neighbourhood Decision Making communication received from Deputy Mayor S. Lewis and Councillor S. Lehman dated June 14, 2024, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a Budget Amendment to the 2025 Annual Budget Update for the Mayor’s consideration to reflect the following:

A) the London Community Grants, annual Grassroots, Innovation, and Capital Grants stream for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 years to be funded to a maximum of $250,000/year through the Community Investment Reserve Fund while the program is undergoing further review. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M; and

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part B) be approved and reads as follows:

B) in lieu of the current Neighbourhood Decision Making Program, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to explore options to fund parks improvements through a participatory decision-making model through the Get Involved program while a parks improvement project moves forward. This initiative is to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund with a maximum of $25,000 per parks project and an annual total of $125,000 for 2025, 2026, and 2027. It being noted that this funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1M;

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part A) be amended by adding a new part B) and existing B) be changed to C).  The new part B) to read as follows:

that Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to offset the costs of the Capital and Innovation Grants for $250,000 a year by a reduced contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund. This funding is contingent on the Economic Development Reserve fund having a remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1 million.

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Mayor J. Morgan BE PERMITTED to speak an additional five (5) minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Deputy Mayor S. Lewis BE PERMITTED to speak an additional two (2) minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

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

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

Motion to approve part ii), iii) and part b) and reads as follows:

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake a comprehensive review of the London Community Grants Program, including the multi-year stream and the Neighbourhood Decision Making Program and bring forward a report prior to the end of Q2, 2027 with options for consideration on rightsizing and scope of these programs; including the alignment or conflict of NDM with regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and new Parks Reserve Fund, should Council choose to reinitiate the programs for the 2028-2031 Multi-Year Budget;

iii) the delegation requests from N. Karsch, M. Cassidy, S. J. Taylor, R. Bloomfield and B. Samuels BE REFERRED to the July 18, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration, it being noted that the City Clerk’s Office will reach out to the requesters;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received communications from the following individuals with respect to this matter:

  •    N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

  •    M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    S. J. Taylor, Nonprofit Manager, Social Impact Consultant, MA, Candidate;

  •    R. Bloomfield; 

  •    B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    Members of the Executive Committee, Orchard Park/Sherwood Forest Neighborhood Association;

  •    C. Callandar, Executive Director, Meals on Wheels London;

  •    A. Heartsong;

  •    K. Ledgley, Executive Director, London Children’s Museum;

  •    J. Stewart, Resident of London;

  •    M. A. Hodge, Climate Action London; and

  •    H. Rajani;

b) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee about the suggestion to engage with KPMG LLP for the delivery of service review training for the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, with the cost to be funded from the Efficiency, Effectiveness and Economy (EEE) Reserve;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part c) i) be approved and reads as follows:

c) the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group with respect to the London Police Services Reserve Fund on potential opportunities for the consideration of this working group, including potential changes to the associated by-law, as required;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part ii) be approved and reads as follows:

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to the September meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group about the potential for partnerships in municipal golf;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part iii) be approved and reads as follows:

iii) the Civic Administration BE REQUESTED to attend the July 15, 2024 meeting of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group to discuss the City’s policy and general information related to venue naming rights with respect to any potential for revenue generation;

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part iv) be approved and reads as follows:

iv) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to license City facilities for the sale of alcohol as a revenue stream, including a list of potential facilities;

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part v) be approved and reads as follow:

v) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back on the potential to eliminate snow plowing of sidewalks on residential class streets by passing a by-law requiring property owners to clear the sidewalk along their property; and

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part vi) be approved and reads as follows:

vi) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back in the first quarter of 2025 with potential options for Council’s consideration with respect to the Surplus Deficit Policy;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the balance of the motion be approved and reads as follows:

d) clause 4.4 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard delegations from the following individuals:

A. Fleet, Executive Director, Growing Chefs! Ontario;

M. Cassidy, CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

R. Bloomfield;

B. Samuels;

N. Karsch, Director of Programs, London Environmental Network;

L. Bowden;

L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network; and

K. Creighton, Director Sustainability and A. Robinson, Green Economy London Coordinator, London Environmental Network;

it being further noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received communications from the following individuals;

M. Rumas;

B. Stephenson;

A. Badillo, Executive Director and J. Horrell, President, Urban Roots London;

C. Walters, CEO, Alzheimer Society Southwest Partners

G. Henderson, CEO, London Chamber of Commerce;

M. Pridding;

Councillor C. Rahman and Deputy Mayor S. Lewis; 

M. Romain;

W. Arnott, Interim Executive Director, Humane Society London & Middlesex;

B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

The Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee recesses at 4:45 PM and reconvenes at 5:02 PM.

4.3   2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group (SORWG)

2024-07-15 SORWG Report 2

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2nd Report of the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group from its meeting held on July 15, 2024:

a)  the following actions be taken with respect to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group’s Annual Work Plan, as amended:

ii) the draft Annual Work Plan as amended BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received a communication dated July 12, 2024 from J. Kearon, Associate Medical Officer of Health, Middlesex-London Health Unit with respect to the proposal for alcohol sales in Municipal facilities;

b)  the following actions be taken with respect to the submission regarding revenue generating ideas from Councillor S. Franke:

i) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to forward the communication with respect to Local District Energy Systems for new subdivisions and the downtown core utilizing sewer heat exchange and renewable technologies as primary energy sources to London Hydro for their review and feedback, with a request to report back to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group in Q4 of 2024; and

ii) the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to investigate cost-saving opportunities in our tree sourcing, specifically looking at the financial cost and benefit of owning and operating or subcontracting a tree nursery and report back to the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group on the potential return on investment and long-term benefits in Q4 of 2025;

it being noted that the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group received a communication date July 7, 2024 from Councillor S. Franke with respect to this matter;

it being further noted that the Civic Administration advised the working group of a planned review of tree sourcing in 2025;

c)  clause 4.3 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

4.4   SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Mission Strategy 

2024-07-18 Staff Report - SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Mission Strategy

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the July 18, 2024, SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Strategy report;

a)    a single source award to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. BE APPROVED, as per Section 14.4 e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to provide Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, with options to renew for two (2) additional years;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate $1,800,000 of the previously approved one-time funding from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (approved by Council on February 13, 2024) to fund the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024;

i)    that Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.’s budget for the $1.8M single source award be distributed to Council and attached to the Council agenda;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for consideration through the 2025 Budget Update process for funding in 2025 and future years;

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

e)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a new and/or amending the existing Purchase of Service Agreement with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.;

f)     the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the Provincial and Federal governments to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond; and

g)    Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter.

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

H. Benedict, E. Campbell and H Hodgins from Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.; Rev. Dr. J. Laurence, Minister of Worship and Congregational Life, First-St. Andrew’s United Church;

Rev. J. Prince; 

B. Wood, Office Admin. WOUC;

D. Astolfi, VP, Supportive Housing & Program Development, CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services; and 

S. Omonfoman

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the delegation requests for S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to extend one-time funding in the amount of $687,000 to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. for an additional 61 days until September 30, 2024 to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund and that Civic Administration engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year Round Stable Responsive Services proposal.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Failed (4 to 9)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That pursuant to section 33.8 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion be amended to include new part f) to read as follows:

f) the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the Provincial and Federal governments to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond;

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion be amended to include a new part g) to read as follows:

g) Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy.

Motion Passed (12 to 1)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

The part b) be amended to read as follows:

i)    that Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.’s budget for the $1.8M single source award be distributed to Council and attached to the Council agenda;

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That part c) be amended with a new part i) to read as follows:

i)    Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to relocate the front door services off Dundas Street as part of the budget amendment preparation for the 2025 Budget Update process for funding in 2025 and future years;

Motion Failed (4 to 8)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the motion be approved, as amended and reads as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the July 18, 2024, SS-2024-237 Single Source Award for Year-Round Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Strategy report;

a)    a single source award to Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. BE APPROVED, as per Section 14.4 e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, to provide Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, with options to renew for two (2) additional years;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to reallocate $1,800,000 of the previously approved one-time funding from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (approved by Council on February 13, 2024) to fund the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services for an initial period of August 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024;

i)    that Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.’s budget for the $1.8M single source award be distributed to Council and attached to the Council agenda;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to prepare a budget amendment for consideration through the 2025 Budget Update process for funding in 2025 and future years;

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

e)    the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into a new and/or amending the existing Purchase of Service Agreement with Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.;

f)     the Mayor BE REQUESTED to advocate the Provincial and Federal governments to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond; and

g)    Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to engage with the Old East Village BIA, local residents and Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the Year-Round Stable Responsive Services strategy.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard verbal delegations from S. Campbell, Executive Director, Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. and K. Morrison, General Manager, Old East Village BIA with respect to this matter.

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

H. Benedict, E. Campbell and H Hodgins from Ark Aid Street Mission Inc.; Rev. Dr. J. Laurence, Minister of Worship and Congregational Life, First-St. Andrew’s United Church;

Rev. J. Prince; 

B. Wood, Office Admin. WOUC;

D. Astolfi, VP, Supportive Housing & Program Development, CMHA Thames Valley Addiction & Mental Health Services; and 

S. Omonfoman

Motion Passed (10 to 2)

4.5   Request for Recording and Livestreaming Working Group Meetings - Councillor A. Hopkins

2024-07-18 Submission - Recording and Livestreaming-A. Hopkins

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to record and post publicly the meetings of the Governance Working Group and the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group using the ZOOM application, it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 4, 2024 from Councillor A. Hopkins with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to record and livestream the meetings of the Governance Working Group and the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group, in the same manner as the meetings of Standing Committees and Council, it being noted the technology to livestream and record is provided for in Council Chambers.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended to read as follows:

That the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to record and post publicly the meetings of the Governance Working Group and the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group using the ZOOM application, it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated July 4, 2024 from Councillor A. Hopkins with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (8 to 3)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the motion to the request for recording and livestreaming of working group meetings BE REFERRED to Civic Administration to report back to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration of alternate technology options.

Motion Failed (3 to 8)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be approved, as amended.

Motion Passed (9 to 2)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 8:26 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (7 hours, 34 minutes)

Good afternoon everyone, it’s 1 p.m. So I am going to call the 12th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. We begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee, Lene Paywalk, and Adawanderin. And we honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today. And as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425.

Colleagues, I will advise that Councillor Hillier is unable to join us today as he is ill. Councillor Pelosa, as Colleagues know, has a situation at home. And so she is planning to join us remotely. All other Councillors are with us in chambers.

We do not have Councillor Trussau with us yet, but I’m sure he will be joining us shortly. I am gonna begin by looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest, Sir Pribble. Thank you, Chair, and his two consent 2.1 from London Review, and next steps, thank you. Thank you, so noted.

Any other disclosures of pecuniary interest? Seeing none, then we will move on to the consent agenda. I have been advised, obviously, with Councillor Pribble’s conflict, that item 2.1, the film, London Review, and next steps will have to be pulled to be dealt with separately. And item 2.3, Councillor Hopkins has requested the 11th report of the governance working group to be pulled in dealt with separately.

Therefore, that only leaves us with item 2.2, the whole of community system response, second quarter report on the consent agenda. So, Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I was wondering, given that we have guests for item 2.1, I was wondering if I could do notwithstanding our procedure, still having 2.1 be heard within the consent portion. So, I think, Councillor Frank, what we would do is we would make item 2.1, we would still deal with separately, but rather than moving it to deferred items at the end, we could hear it as an item for direction before the listed items.

So, if that’s your intent, seeing thumbs up. So, there is a motion to change the order in which 2.1 is heard, and Councillor Frank, you’d indicated you had another change of order that you’d like to request. So, I think perhaps if we could just do these both at the same time, that might be beneficial. Sure, yes, and then as well under 4.2 under items for direction, if we could move the delegation that’s listed under G for growing chefs, if we could move that to the top of 4.2, just given I know that there’s a medical appointment later on, and if we could move it earlier, that could then still be heard.

Okay, so we’re just gonna give the clerks a minute to draft that up, but just so colleagues are all caught up. The request is a change of order, so that following the consent agenda items that have not been pulled, we would then hear 2.1, the film London Review and Next Steps, and then a change in order on the delegations on 4.2 to move Mr. Fleet from growing chefs to the top of the delegation list. So, is there a seconder for that?

Councilor, lots of seconders, I got Councilor Cuddy first, so will this Councilor Cuddy as the seconder? And if there’s no discussion on this, and I’m seeing none, as soon as the clerk has everything in E-Scribe, we will get the vote open, so bear with us for just a moment. And that vote’s now open in E-Scribe. Yes.

Press how you might please. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Colleagues, so that leaves us with 2.2, the whole of community system response, Q2 report on the consent agenda, looking for a mover and a seconder to get the staff recommendation on the floor, which is just a receiving the report moved by Councilor Cuddy and seconded by Councilor McAllister. So now we’ll open the floor to any discussion on this.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I was wondering through you to staff about possibly receiving, or maybe clarify for me again, when we’ll be receiving updates in terms of the goals and outcomes that we have for this whole of community response, ‘cause I know in the beginning, we said fewer deaths, fewer encampments, more people housed, and this has a lot of where we’re at and what the committees are doing, but I’m just wondering about outcomes and maybe some kind of an annual update. Also, the other aspects of it, including how are we doing with the neighborhoods and the businesses and the parks? Let’s ask Mr.

Dickens that question. Thank you, Chair, and through you, as part of the evaluation framework that Council endorsed, we made a commitment to report back in September with the blank or template evaluation framework tool that would be populated. So that is coming to the September 17th SPPC, which will outline the evaluation framework and then all of the data covering those topic areas will be gathered throughout the year. We made a commitment during that reporting to Council that we would have an annual report back to SPPC and Council that outlined all of the outcomes and the measurements that have been taking place and track that those changes over time.

And sorry, that annual report will happen in 2025. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. Can I just clarify when in 2025, like is that gonna be early in the year for 2024 or is it the end of the year?

Mr. Dickens, when in 2025, I know you might only be able to give us Q1 or Q2 or could you indicate when you anticipate that in 2025? Through you, chair, the framework will come in September of this year. And then we will look to be reporting back one year from one Council endorse the evaluation framework.

So you’d be looking at tail end of spring or summer of 2025. Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you, that’s all for now. Any other speakers on 2.2?

Councillor McAllister. Thank you, through the chair. There is one item that kind of stood out to me in terms of the quarterly report, just ‘cause I’m hoping to get a bit more information in terms of our workforce development table. I know, especially with recent announcements in terms of a CMHA in the situation they’re in, I’m just curious in terms of some of our partner agencies, what we’re hearing from that table and when we can expect any updates.

I know, obviously with the previous question, we will have this plan in terms of the outcomes a bit more fleshed out, but I’m just curious to hear from staff what we’re hearing from the workforce development table. Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, the workforce development table really focuses on strengthening the workforce in terms of training, supports.

We’re actually partnering with executive leaders now and board members to really look at gathering the feedback from the frontline workers so that organizations are understanding the lived experiences of their own frontline staff and really looking at how they can start to create, support some partnerships to better support their own workforce. That table has not been discussing some of the unique situations impacting other organizations. But at this point, their work continues. They have some trainings already scheduled in the books.

They’ve been helping inform some of these other plans that are going forward in terms of the encampment piece as well as the highly supportive housing plan. So at this point, we will capture the workforce as part of the evaluation framework is as we look at the impacts on the community, impacts on the workforce, and of course impacts on those in this vulnerable population. Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

Councilor McAllister, anything further? Yes, thank you and through the chair. I do think this is a table I have a keen interest in. I just think it informs a lot of our other plans, especially when we look at future proposals for the hubs.

I think if we’re not keeping a close eye in terms of capacity building for our partner agencies, that is a concern for me. So I just want to highlight it. It’s an area I have interested in in terms of ensuring that we have capacity and that we’re able to support that. So we can support our plans.

Thank you. Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the staff, as I received numerous calls from the businesses, the reference table, which is the second paragraph, business reference table. If you can clarify it for me and to where it says this table supported a review session on the community encampment response plan. So is this really just kind of the plan to review session and we’ll get a feedback or are they actually supporting it? That’s one question and second question.

I know last time we didn’t get an update on the business table at all. And this one, this is kind of very not detailed oriented. And I was wondering because there is a big concern for businesses locally, if there are any plans who are kind of give us a more detailed update from this table and third part, how the businesses could really communicate this table when if they have certain concerns? Thank you, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, the way you see here is the reflection of the business reference table, which is co-chaired by the London Chamber of Commerce and downtown London BIA. So Graham and Barb said as co-chairs of that table and their membership have open invites and often participate in strong numbers, as well as other BIAs participate. It’s not an exclusive group by any means.

If a business was interested in being part of the business reference table to provide guidance and feedback and advice on this work, they can do so by reaching out to HealthSummit@london.ca so you can direct them my way through a lot of the forwarding that happens as it comes from constituents. To answer your question about did they review and support it? Yes, we brought the encampment plan forward to SPPC and Council. In that encampment plan, it reflected that it had already been taken to those business tables, the business reference table met with both encampment co-chairs, a presentation was given on the details of the encampment strategy and of the encampment plan, discussions were had, questions were asked, and that business reference table gave their feedback and their support for the encampment plan, which then came forward to Council in June.

Councilor Pribble, thank you, no more questions. Councilor Hopkins. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you to staff for the update, very much appreciated.

It’s really good to see the additional 50 units for supportive housing going forward. My question is around the highly supportive housing table and we’re looking at amending that process. Can we expect or what are we looking at to do that and just a little bit more information? How we can improve it or what needs to be done there?

Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, when we look at the highly supportive housing table, we’re at a really nice point in time where the housing, the highly supportive housing plan that they had worked on so much has been endorsed by Council and given the green light that this is going to be our roadmap for highly supportive housing. They now turn their attention to working with our partners in municipal housing development, Mr.

Feldberg in particular and his team to look at the process that will help refine how we bring more highly supportive housing online between access to land, property, as well as an expression of interest process that can follow the city procurement process. So that table now shifts from design and some implementation to really scalability and then tied into our workforce development table as well as linking in with the evaluation framework so that we’re not moving uniquely on our own, but we’re moving lockstep with the rest of the system. Councillor Hopkins. Great to hear that.

Thank you for that. And just wanna make a comment about the two hubs, the success of this program. Just a comment really would like to see more hubs happening. I know we’re looking at doing more and really looking forward to seeing some applications come forward as well.

So thank you. Thank you for any other speakers before we call the vote. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair.

I wanted to go to the hubble implementation table section and I did see that. Civic administration is looking for a more refined and collaborative approach to bringing a streamlined expression of interest process. I just wanted to know where we are on that process and when should we expect that to be complete? So, and when, if you can answer, when we’d be expecting another hub coming through to this committee.

Mr. Dickens, would you like to respond to that, please? Through you, Chair, I don’t have an answer to the last question. I hope it’s soon.

We continue to work with other orders of government, of course, in terms of finding the operating funding that’s required to bring more hubs online. I think we’ve done a really good job as a community articulating the health benefits that providing this level of acute care can lead in our community that we are really stepping into a space to support vulnerable populations like they’ve never been supported before. And with that, we hope comes more traction so that we can bring more hubs online. In terms of the expression of interest process, again, working through Mr.

Feldberg and his team, they excel in this type of work. They have actually done a lot of some market testing, but it is a lot of surveying of the sector to look at really going deep on interest and capability in terms of being either a lead organization on a hub or being a support mechanism to the delivery of a hub service. They expect to close that system evaluation piece by the end of July. And then we are anticipating that the first week of September, we would be able to launch that EOI process for the hub.

So a bit of a commitment on Mr. Feldberg’s part and he’s not here, but that is the anticipated timeline. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair.

One last question. Thank you for that answer. I guess going back to from the comments on the workforce development table, I did see that the additional resource of the resource booklet with information of the different agencies, the times and their operation. I wanted to know if it’s a possibility that Council would be able to get that booklet as well, just for information purposes, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, I don’t imagine that would be a problem right now. It exists in a online format at Google Doc. It’s very operational and a bit of a working tool between police paramedics and the hubs and supporting agencies.

Because it’s in a Google Doc, it allows organizations to update it in real time. So if there was a sudden or unexpected change in programming or closure, it’s more like an alert system for those first responders to understand where if there’s any last minute changes, but we could produce that into a different format, provide it to Council. It may not serve necessarily the purpose you want it to, but it could be for information purposes. And perhaps it’s something we bring forward as part of a future committee report.

Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that answer. Yeah, I’ll probably maybe get in touch with you offline about that one.

Thank you for the answer. No further questions. Sorry, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I was just wondering through you to staff when we’re expecting to see another proposal for funding for the encampment strategy. Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, we expect that to be coming back in October.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens. Councillor Stevenson is, that’s good. Okay, I have no one else on the speakers list.

So I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on the consent item 2.2. Trustee votes, yes. Opposing the vote, the motion carries 12 to one. Thank you, colleagues.

Moving on, we had a change of order. So before we get to items for direction, our next item would actually be the film, London review, and next steps. You have the report in your consent package, and I do know that Mr. LaCocia and Mr.

Dodd are here as well. So I’m gonna look for a committee’s direction on item 2.1, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I wanna thank all involved for the work done on the film strategy to date. I remember serving on a term with Councillor Vanholst.

He had a lot of ideas that he came to the chamber with. This was one of them, one of the got supported by Council, and I think has been quite successful to date. And even through the data that you’ve shown has been able to be fostered and grown over time and continues a trajectory that is an upward momentum. And I appreciate that I’ve had the opportunity to be involved in some of the advocacy pieces about regional tax credits and those sorts of things to try to continue to foster the industry beyond the support that the municipality would give through the Economic Development Corporation.

My question on, so you worship, I’m sorry, I’m just gonna interrupt you. I’ll put it on the floor. You’re gonna put the staff recommendation on the floor? I will, and then I’m gonna ask a question.

Okay, that’s ‘cause that’s what I’m looking for, a motion first. So do we have a seconder for the staff recommendation? Seconded by Councillor Trussow. Okay, go ahead.

Perfect, good sharing. So where I was on this is, I appreciate that in its infancy still and still on an upward trajectory, there are a number of ways that we can continue to support this initiative. I like how we did it last time with a little bit of a runway to continue to create a proof of concept and to see where it’s going to grow to. So although I know the staff recommendation is to seek approval to fund through a 2025 budget update, the source of funding within that budget update, I think there would be some flexibility on.

And so it’s my desire when the budget is tabled and I’d like to ask staff this question, is there any concern with continuing to fund this through the Economic Development Reserve Fund given the economic activity associated with the evolution and growing of the film industry now that we’re actually starting to track in the most recent year both the jobs impact as well as the investment impact of film in London to continue to fund it through the Economic Development Reserve Fund, say through the continuation of this multi-year budget and then bring a business case in the next one, having all of that data metrics related more to the economic development piece in a more holistic way where then a more robust business case could be made for permanent funding. In other words, I don’t think there’s any restriction with the language now to do that. I just wanna know if staff have any feedback on whether they see any sort of concerns with that approach to this rather than integrated on a permanent basis at this point in time. Okay, so I saw some nodding from Mr.

Mathers. It’s also a budget related question. So Ms. Barbone, I’m not sure if one of you would like to go ahead of the other or if you both have some comments to offer, but as a budget related question, I’m gonna start with Ms.

Barbone and then see if Mr. Mathers has anything to add. Thank you through the chair. So I think that the question really comes down to whether you want to find the program permanently or not.

So as a general role, if you’re looking to fund this permanently through the introduction on an ongoing basis through the budget, then I would suggest a permanent source of financing. That being said, one of the things, and this is what we would do when we’re looking for a source of financing through the budget process is to look at how you could then do that. If the intent is based on the needs for the Economic Development Reserve Fund, certainly you could always reduce the funding to the Economic Development Reserve Fund and then put that money on a permanent basis to continue this, given the needs in the future if that would work. So those are things that we would look at through the budget process.

If Council were to endorse this. So I think really it stems on the intent of what Council is, is if you’re looking to do this on a permanent basis and looking for us to find a way to mitigate the tax levy, to fund that on an ongoing basis, we can certainly take that back and through the development of the budget look at options. So that’s a viable option to do that, but certainly if the intent is to be permanent and not to have further irrespective of the further review, then we would look for a permanent source is what our recommendation would be to you. And Mr.

Mathers, did you have some additional comment for that? Through the chair. So if the intent is just to extend this to the end of the multi-year budget period, then would suggest a change of this language to just extend it to the end of the multi-year budget period and not include the permanent funding aspect of this result. And that’s currently in the draft resolution.

Thank you, Mr. Mathers, Mayor Morgan. Yes, so I’m interested in what my colleagues think about this, I’ll tell you my opinion. I think I’d like to do that, not because I’m not willing to fund it permanently, but because I really, I think we’re developing an economic development strategy.

We now have in 2023, a couple of additional points of information on jobs creation and revenue from film and TV production. I think this is a project that is successful and needs to continue. As for a permanent forever incorporation into the tax levy, it would be nice to see kind of the trend on those jobs created in revenue lines to ensure that they’re stable and growing, or at least stable, ‘cause I think they’re quite good given the money that we’re putting into them right now. And so to fund it through the economic development reserve fund for the remainder of this multi-year budget and then bring forward the permanent business case at that time and make the necessary updates to the LEDC’s contract to do so.

And I want to be very clear, I’m not unwilling to fund it in the long term, I just think that given where we are in the strategy development and given the metrics that we have to date, and it would be nice to have a few more data points and moving forward to be able to make that decision. So your worship, based on what you said, are you looking to amend your motion now to capture that? Or the treasurer wants to say something, I’d like to hear a response and then I’m willing to make an amendment. Okay, and the clerk would need to hear from Mr.

Mathers again to capture what he was saying too, but Ms. Burbon. Thank you for the chair. So Mr.

Murray just drove her to my attention that this has already been funded through the Economic Development Reserve Fund for four years. The by-law states that at the end of four years, a permanent decision has to be made with respect to the funding. It’s only intended for short-term funding. So we would need in order to enable that a change to the Economic Development Reserve Fund by-law in order to affect that change if there isn’t a permanent funding for this program.

So before we go back to Mr. Mathers for any additional language, I’ll come back to you, your worship thinking. So a question through the treasurer. The other option to this is to, we have inflows into the Economic Development Reserve Fund, which would not be necessarily governed by the by-law.

And so you could reduce those and then fund permanently from that inflow source. It would be another option of which is an option we could change later, but we could just extend the contract at the end of the multi-year budget and do it that way without getting into concern about the by-law perhaps if I could ask that question through the chair. Ms. bubble.

Thank you through the chairs. So absolutely, that’s what I was trying to suggest early on is that the contribution to the reserve fund could simply be lessened by the amount of the permanent funding so that there is no tax implication. And so you’re reducing, it’s a net zero at the end of the day. And the Economic Development Reserve Fund instills in the same place if you had funded it versus not placing it on because it is tax levy funding that funds both.

So that’s what I was trying to suggest early on is that if there’s an intent to fund this, certainly through the budget process we could do so if the intent is to take, have that money come from the economic what otherwise would have been the Economic Development Reserve Fund. Mayor Morgan. So it’s my intent to then, I would like to do that and then trigger a more comprehensive, I don’t wanna say comprehensive, an additional review in advance of the next multi-year budget to see whether or not we adjust the economic development reserve fund or continue along that path of having the reduced contribution. But I think that it’s worthwhile to continue on this venture.

I’m not sure. I’d put it into an additional tax levy piece at this point. So I think that this is a way to go that I’m willing to move. So if that direction is something I need to provide now, I’d be happy to make an amendment to do so.

But I would attach the piece of an additional review of the film line in office in advance of the next multi-year budget as well so that we could adjust that decision. Should we choose to? Well, council, procedure and policy bylaws to require you to make an amendment on your first time speaking to an item. So you would have to add a new clause to offset the cost by the reduction to the reserve fund contributions and your review piece as well at this time.

I’m willing to make that. Okay, allow the clerk a moment to get that set. Councilor Trussa, are you still prepared a second? Yes.

Thank you. So we’ll just give a moment for the clerks to get the language set on this. Colleagues want to refresh their e-scribe, that item is now available for you to read in full. For the public’s sake, I’ll just read out that part B be amended to read as follows.

B that civic administration be directed to prepare a budget amendment for funding film London starting in 2025 until 2027 for consideration as part of the 2025 budget update process. And that a new part C be added to read as follows. See the costs be offset by the contribution to the economic development reserve fund. I’ll look for any further speakers.

Councilor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. So going through this, so this does bring our funding to 2027. So I do like that, it’s not permanent, but I understand the intent of the amendment here.

I just wanted to kind of just say like I am prepared to fund them or fund film London in full, moving forward ‘cause I have seen, you know, the great work that they’ve been doing. They’ve, Mr. Dodd has taken me on a couple of, I guess productions that we’ve seen, you know, the most recent one was motor heads over at the Blackfires Bridge. So I do want to give them a shout out on that because they are doing a great job.

But I am happy to see that this will take us forward. I do think that film London has got way more things to show us just to show how well of a job that they’re doing. I do also know that they do have a whole bunch of productions, I guess, in the works right now that will be coming to London soon. So I will support this as it is ‘cause it does give us the funding for film London.

I, like I said, I am prepared to give the permanent funding, but I do see, like I said, I do see the intent. So I will be supportive of this. And good job to LEDC and film London, so. Thank you, Councillor Ferriero.

And I think just as a point of clarification for colleagues as per Ms. Barbone’s comment, this is now essentially permanent funding. What it would do, though, is another business case in the 2027 multi-year budget would have to come forward. What that looks like then, film London may actually have an increased need.

They may have additional data to share with us. They may be doing so well that they don’t need any more funding ‘cause they’re raking in the revenue that way, but, and I see them both chuckling at me up there in the gallery, but this is simply reducing the contribution to the reserve fund. It is making it a permanent part of the budget at this time, subject to the 2027 multi-year budget being approved in the future. So just for everyone’s clarification, this does become a permanent addition to the budget.

It’s just offset by a reduced contribution to the reserve fund. Councillor McAllister. Thank you through the chair. Yeah, I’m happy to see that funding in place.

Happy to support the amendment. I will still look forward to seeing a budget case in 2027. I’ve seen a lot of good things the film London does. I’d honestly like to see it expand.

I think there’s great opportunity in terms of having more post-production in London, trying to partner with our post-secondary institutions. And I do think there’s a lot of economic opportunities in this area to grow. And so I’m happy to support this and see where things go in the future. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. And I’ve got Councillor Raman next just before. I go any further. The clerk just wanted me to note that the mayor had, in his language said that there would be a review and that is now reflected in the E-Scribe motion as well, just so that colleagues are aware.

Councillor Raman. Thank you. As we’re going through motion, sometimes the excitement of what’s in a report gets lost. And I want to say that when I read this, I was quite excited.

I do believe that what we’re doing here is we’re putting London on the map when it comes to film. And it goes hand in glove from my mind to what we’re doing with music. So I want to say thank you to LEDC and to those that are supporting the industry because I think it’s growing and it’s bringing excitement and vibrance to our city. And that’s exactly what we want.

So really pleased to see this, keep up the great work and hoping to be an extra Sunday. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor Raman, looking for any further speakers. Seeing none, then Councillor Raman as the vice chair.

And by the way, I’m going to take this opportunity to just share with everybody that Councillor Raman is now officially the vice chair of SPPC. Very happy to have her take on that role and share some of this workload with me. And I’m going to start by asking her to do that right now and take the chair just so that I can offer a comment. Thank you.

I have the chair recognizing Deputy Mayor this. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I remember when the temporary funding four years ago came forward and it was a close vote and I didn’t look it up when I was rereading the agenda. I think it was 9.6 or 8.7 that this passed by.

And there was a lot of consternation about, was this $300,000 a year going to be a good investment? I know I voted yes. I thought it was worth taking a chance on and I’ve seen the results. And I’m happy to have been proven in the right camp on that one, the money has already paid itself back in its return on investment many times over.

And I know that there’s a lot of great opportunities still to come that we’re really just getting started. I’m really happy to see the job creation numbers being reported now. That’s a helpful piece to have and look forward to getting a little more data on that moving forward. So very supportive of this.

I’m also very supportive of the mayor’s amendment to offset this by a reduction in the Economic Development Reserve Fund because I think this is economic development. And as we continue this forward, then there’s less need to put money away because we’re spending it in a way that’s very productive already. So very supportive of that. And I too look forward to being an extra one day.

Returning the chair to you with Mayor Morgan on the speaker’s list. Okay, I will go next. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer to Mayor Morgan. I’ll let you know you’ve used three minutes and 20 seconds of your time so far.

So you’ve got a little bit of time left. I won’t be that long. I want to thank Councillor Ramen for emphasizing the positive of this and to our friends in the gallery. And I know you were there with me.

It was a pretty cool experience to stand on the mound of Labat Park to eating a slice of pizza with Luke Wilson and Greg Ganyar talking about filming in our city. And for those who hasn’t seen the trailer yet for You Got to Believe, which is out, you can clearly identify Labat Park and the city’s skyline of downtown in the background of what will be a major Hollywood film, which is a pretty neat thing to be able to see your city in the trailer of a major motion picture. So for everything we’ve talked about about the work that’s being done and funding it and the impact on our city, it’s another thing to actually see your city in the background of a major Hollywood trailer, which is pretty cool. So thanks to the work that you and everybody who makes that and everything else associated with film London happen.

Thank you, Mayor Morion, any other speakers before I call the vote? I see none. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. I will advise colleagues that Councilor Palosa has now joined us online.

So welcome, Councilor Palosa. You’re just in time to vote on the film London item. Willting the vote, motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Okay, moving on.

Our next item is under items for direction. Sorry, we dealt with that as an amendment. So we have to vote on the main motion as amended before we move forward to the next item. So I will ask the clerk to open the vote on the main motion as amended with the same mover and seconder.

Willting the vote, the motion carries 13 to zero with one recuse. Thank you, colleagues. Now moving along, our first item for direction is item 4.1 delegation from the London Transit Commission for the 2023 annual report. And we have the general manager, Miss Pletchney with us and Vice Chair, Mr.

Collier with us this afternoon to bring that report for us. So welcome, Miss Pletchney and Mr. Collier. We’ll get you all set up there.

And then we will have five minutes for your presentation and then we’ll go to Q and A from council for you. So you let me know when you’re ready and then we’ll get started. Good to go, okay, take it away. Thank you.

We’re here today to provide the committee with an overview of our 2023 annual report as well as an update on some plans and initiatives for 2024 and future years. In 2023, the commission made the decision to extend the 2019 to 2022 business plan to cover 2023 also. And that was an effort to allow us to better align our business plans with the strategic plans of council as well as the multi-year budgets. So keeping that in mind that this is 2023 was an added year onto an existing business plan.

That extension also provided us with the an additional year to address some of the outstanding initiatives included in that business plan that were delayed as the result of the pandemic. As you’ll recall in 2023, London Transit was asked to establish an alternative manner of reporting progress towards the strategic objectives outlined in our plan. And as you’ll see in the plan that’s before you, we’ve utilized a color coded assessment with red indicating little to no progress on the initiative, orange indicating that work is underway, but not yet completed and green indicating that progress on the objective has met the expectations set out in the annual work plan. Each of the strategic outcomes and supporting initiatives are discussed in detail in the annual report before you.

I’ll just provide a quick summary overview with respect to those objectives. So in terms of the integrated affordable and valued mobility choice, that objective was assessed as red, primarily due to the fact that we had planned to implement all of the outstanding growth that had been left over through the pandemic in 2023 on both the conventional and specialized services. Unfortunately, as the result of resource issues, and in this case, it was an employee resource issues, it was vehicle resource issues, and our ability to get them as quickly as we would have liked, the conventional service had about 90% of those improvements put in place by the end of 2023. The specialized service did, we did manage to get all of those improvements in by the end of the year, but again, not as quickly as we would have liked.

So that’s reflected in that rating. In terms of demonstrated fiscal accountability, that was assessed as green, because notwithstanding significant price escalations that we experienced and items included, including fuel and bus prices, we were able to manage the budget within the commission’s resources. In terms of effective utilization of infrastructure, that was also assessed as green, noting that capital programs continued as planned for the most part. And in terms of an engaged, diverse, and respectful workplace, that was assessed as orange, primarily due again to delays in getting our various committees re-established post-pandemic.

We didn’t see the activity that we would have liked to see. While the pace and progress in 2023 was disappointing, many of those impediments have been resolved and programs are back on track, and I’m now going to turn it over to our vice chair to talk about LTC’s future focus and some initiatives that we’ve got ongoing for 2024. Thank you. So in late 2023, your commission approved working in conjunction with our friends at Dillon to undertake a review of our current conventional system network and specialized service parameters and to prepare a five year plan for both of those services consisted with the approved budgets.

These plans cover the period 2025 through 2029. In addition, Dillon provided assistance with the preparation of the 24 to 27 business plan, which has been finalized and approved by the commission, and this is what’s lining up to the multi-year budgets that you have. So focus over the next business plan horizon will be on improving the overall customer experience as it relates to transit use within London. Improvements in the conventional service will be focused on addressing crowding and schedule adherence issues on existing routes, as well as making the entire network more efficient.

The latter years of our service plans will look at the required frequency improvements and route restructuring to support the new rapid transit corridors that will be coming on stream as they launch. Specific to this year, 2024, our September service improvements will see increased frequencies on routes five and 10. So that’s the Byron Springbank route and the Wonderland route, increasing running time on route 19, as well as extended operating hours on route 20, which is the Cherry Hill to Fanshawe route that we have, as well as a modified routing on 17B, which is Oxford Street West. Just to let you know, Mr.

Collier, we got about 30 seconds. Thank you. Details on all those changes are available on our website. We’ve seen improvements in the specialized service, including service hour improvements on weekday evenings and weekends, which was driven by the three additional vehicles that we’re able to bring on.

And then we’ve, in addition, we’ve got implementation of our new scheduling system underway and enhanced customer experience, as it relates to managing trip bookings and navigating the service. Smart card readers on board, and that will allow for stored value payments using the card on our socialized vehicles. In addition to service-related focus, number of transformational projects we’ve got anticipated to move forward in 2024, a hybrid bus barn demolition, and getting that ready is still waiting for funding approval. So Mr.

Collier, I’m just gonna stop you there. We’re at five minutes. I’ll look to see if Council wants to prove an extension. We do move by Councilor Trussow and seconded by Councilor Frank.

So we’ll get you to just pause your thoughts there, and we’ll just get the clerk to open the vote for an additional five minutes. Mr. Trussow? Mr.

Trussow is indicating a vote of yes. We just get the mic so that the clerk can give us the results. And that motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues.

So I’m gonna reset the clock for you there, Mr. Collier, so that you can continue, sorry to interrupt your train of thought there, and I’ll apologize with forced standing committees this week. Normally I check with our boards to see if they need extra time, but it’s been a rather busy one. So I’ll let you take over again.

Okay, so where was I? We were talking about our hybrid facility. So we’re waiting for funding approval for that to proceed with the rebuild of that facility. And then once we get that, then we’ll be able to move forward with detailed design process for that facility, and that will get launched.

We also have our electric bus trial program. It’s well underway with the issuance of a joint RFP and contract reward. It’s expected to happen later in 2024. And this will be followed by retrofit work required for the Wonderland facility to allow the servicing of those new buses.

And the installation of the charge infrastructure that will go at that depot. And then finally, as we learned recently through the global pandemic, best laid plans often go awry. And we’re prepared to move forward on the most current information available. And the execution of these plans need to be nimble in order to allow for a response to unanticipated shifts, whether that’s surprise population changes or funding changes or MMP landings.

So we’ll be looking for that. So our business planning process allows for the review and adjustments to plans, giving consideration to any new data or circumstances that were not available at the time that we originally approved and prepared these plans. So this flexibility allows for adjustments to be made annually through our annual update process and that the city’s investment is being utilized in a manner that best addresses the needs of our services and our riders. And then closing, like to thank you for your indulgence.

And for the committee to allow us to share this update and we’d be most pleased to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Collier. And with that clocking in at about seven minutes, next year I’ll ask you if you need seven minutes for your presentation, or rather than five.

We will go to our members of council now for questions and comments. And I’ve got Councillor Layman and then Councillor Trussow. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms.

Plasney and Mr. Collier for coming today. Just a touch on Mr. Collier’s remarks.

I don’t envy you in forecasting for the next year, let alone four years. And I’ll come back to that in a second. I just wanted to say I’m glad to hear we’re finally getting underway with our electric buses. I know it was stalled, previous council approved it.

It’s been stalled now for a number of years during COVID and the challenges in the supply chain. So good to hear and exciting to hear that we’re getting underway there. The biggest challenge I think facing transit, and just rapid growth, this city, et cetera, not just here in London, but across North America, is the change brought on by COVID and the change in how people go to work. Remote work definitely has impacted for sure Toronto subway systems there.

And it’s a challenge for transit commissions to provide service with dramatic shifts in ridership. I’d like to know, where is our ridership now compared to pre-pandemic levels? And Ms. Pleshee or Mr.

Collier, which everyone of you would like to feel that one. Thank you through the chair. Our ridership is actually surpassed pre-pandemic levels. And certainly we will acknowledge that there was a shift resulting from the pandemic, but what we saw was more a shift in the manner in which people are using transit.

So even people who work from home, for example, if they were transit riders, may still be using transit, but maybe they’re running out at noon to do their groceries versus the typical, leave in the morning and come home at the end of the day. So we have seen a little bit of a shift in terms of the periods and the demands that we’ve seen there. And it’s spreading out a little bit more equally, which actually makes it easier for us to provide that service. But our overall ridership has surpassed pre-pandemic levels and it’s continuing to grow.

Councillor Lehman. Thank you chair. And is that due to population growth or is that just due to people getting back on the bus? Ms.

Pleshee. Through the chair, it’s probably a little bit of both. We’ve certainly seen a significant growth in the student populations at both Western and Fanshawe. Obviously, those populations rely on transit significantly.

So we see that increase in transit use come along with that, but also with population growth, it’s difficult for us to say exactly because we don’t know exactly who our riders are, but we believe it’s a little bit of both. Councillor Lehman. Thank you and through you chair. So we’re back to pre-pandemic, numbers are exceeding, but if I’m understanding correctly, it’s been a shift.

It’s not nine to five, nine o’clock rush hour from a downtown, downtown out. It’s throughout the day people taking smaller trips, various trips throughout the city. How does that impact you financially and operationally? Ms.

Pleshee. Through the chair. So those whole shifts were one of the reasons that we partnered with Dylan on the next five year plans because what they did was an in-depth analysis of our ridership on every route by time of day by stop to get us a better handle on exactly what’s going on. As I said earlier, managing peaks is actually more difficult than having a flat line service because if you think about scheduling employees when you have two peaks, that creates split shifts.

So we have a number of operators that come in in the morning and work for a few hours and then they’re off for three hours and then they come back. So if that levels out makes obviously for a much more attractive work schedule for operators, but it also makes it easier for us to schedule. So part of what Dylan did was look at all of that data and that’s what’s reflected in that five year plan is massaging some of those routes and the times of day, the frequencies that are operating at different times of day to better match what ridership demands we’re seeing across the system. Councillor Layman.

Thank you and through you, Chair. One more kind of question there. Yeah, I know those challenges because I remember my first term, I was getting a lot of complaints about people seeing the extended buses and they’re going, “Why are these buses empty?” And then there’s two of them. And then in conversations with you, I learned that, well, it’s for rush hour traffic and it’s actually cost more to bring them back to the shop than to bring them out again.

So there was that public misconception, I guess, of that being used. Yeah, I think, thank you very much for that. That was very helpful for me to hear that ‘cause I kind of wondered how transit was adjusting to the new traffic realities with remote work and the pandemic, you know, or thank you. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

Councillor Trustau. Thank you very much through the chair. First of all, thank you, thank you for your report. I have some very, very specific questions about the relationship between your infrastructure facilities and the concept of a transit village.

As you know, transit village is one of the area places under our London plan that allows a much higher level of development than anywhere except downtown. How does your agency follow these shifts where we’re seeing more development, especially along Oxford Avenue in the transit villages and we’re actually even trying to now talk about designating additional transit villages. How does that affect your long-term planning? Ms.

Plushney. Through the chair. So we’re certainly involved. I mean, I said on the Mobility Master Plans during committee, I mean, we’re very involved in all of those plans with the city.

We have that feedback. And I think Scott mentioned it earlier. If plans are subsequently developed that impact the five-year plan that we’ve got laid out, that’s why we have that annual process and that allows us to be flexible and adjust accordingly. But certainly, you know, part of our annual planning process is look at where population growth is occurring, look at whether or not things have happened differently than what we anticipated and obviously have discussions with city staff, you know, if they’re aware of things that maybe we’ve missed, and then we would make adjustments to those plans in that given year.

Councilor, thank you. Are there any current plans to construct or plan for a larger scale facility along the lines of what we have in Masonville right now in the Wonderland, Oxford area? Ms. Plushney.

Not at this time, but again, the mobility master plan is in the stages of being updated. And if we see high-frequency corridors that would connect somewhere in that area, it would probably make sense to have a facility there, then that would be something that we would look at going forward. Councilor. And similarly through the chair, are there any plans for an upgraded facility in the Richmond, Oxford area, along the lines of what’s in the Masonville area?

Ms. Plushney. Through the chair, again, I think we’re in a little bit of a holding pattern waiting to see what comes out of the mobility master plan before any concrete decisions with respect to on-street terminals and that type of infrastructure would be considered. Councilor Trussow.

Thank you, and through the chair again. So if I understand your responses, even if the city expands the number of transit, transit, maybe these transit corridors, any action would await the completion of the mobility master plan. Ms. Plushney.

I’m not sure if I understand the question, or maybe I’ve been confusing the issue. If the city were to designate something as a high-frequency transit corridor and come to the commission and say, we need you to improve the frequency on this corridor because we’ve designated it in this manner and we’re trying to attract development, that’s something that we would take back through our annual process and give consideration to. So I’m not sure I understood the question, sorry. No, you did, and you answered it.

And my last question through the chair is, has the city so approached you on one of these issues? Ms. Plushney. As I indicated, we certainly said on the steering committees, we work hand-in-hand with the city on all of those discussions, specifically no.

We’ve not had discussions about transit infrastructure at any of those areas that you mentioned to date. Councillor Trussell. Thank you very much, that answers my questions. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the both of you for being here with us this afternoon. My question was very similar to Councillor Trussell’s and you basically answered them, and I’m pleased to know that you’re on the mobility master plans steering committee. I think that’s really important, that you’re in tune to the challenges of how we develop and move around our city.

I spent a very short term on London at transit during the pandemic, and I must say you’ve gone a long way. At that time, it felt like a perfect storm, not having enough money, not having ridership, not having filters for buses, getting employees, and so on and so forth. So I’m really pleased to see the ridership going up. I’m really pleased to see the new business plan that you brought forward coinciding with our multi-year budget process too.

So thank you for doing that. I am looking forward to learning more as you go through the pilot project for electric buses, and I just would like to thank you for the new route in River Bend. So with that, those are my comments. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor McAllister.

I have you next. Thank you through the chair, and thank you for the presentation and your report. And I actually just want to start by saying, I appreciate the honesty in terms of especially identifying with your assessment and your strategic outcome, that the red in terms of the area where you saw the greatest challenges. It’s never an easy thing to do to acknowledge that.

So I really do appreciate that. I remember when we hear for the last update, I know there was a bit of a struggle in terms of trying to get the point across in terms of what we were hearing from residents with the commission was trying to deal with this while and recognizing there’s a lot of external factors that obviously are a play, right? But I do want to acknowledge that, and that you have a plan in place, obviously to address those things. And you did by the end of the year, see those improvements.

And I just, as a comment for the future, we heard it through the multi-year budget, it’s something that we hear a lot from our residents, but keeping an eye on the service growth, but also the paratransit being in front of mind for a lot of our residents. I know that’s important for the commission as well, but I just wanted to reiterate that here, something we hear about as well. And I just want to make sure, you know, when we come back next year that we’ve seen some improvements on those fronts. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McAllister, looking for other speakers, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Chair, and I would like to make a comment actually to colleagues and certainly LTC delegation and they would like to comment on that, please feel free. But last year, when we were sitting here, one of the big issues and we were addressing that we need to address the improvements in specialized service. And I just want to let you know that during the, since the last year, I’ve been attending and I know them by acronym, so I’m going to read it.

The City’s Accessibility Community Advisory Committee and also the LTC’s Accessible Public Transit Advisory Committee and the members that have been talking to and also through our meetings, they strongly believe that their voices are being heard and the actions are being taken more than ever before. Yes, are there certain things that they would like to be faster delivered? Absolutely, but we all know that whatever we do, we would like to be faster. But it has been positive, the feedback has been positive.

And as a both commissioner of the LTC and on behalf of the staff, I can very comfortably state we aren’t the right track. Thank you, thank you, Councillor Pribble. I’m not sure that I really heard a question in there. It was more of a comment, so I’m going to move on in the speaker’s list to Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you to Mr. Plushney and Mr. Collier for coming here and giving the presentation today and for the great work that you do.

I did kind of, I did get my interest sparked when I heard Councillor Trosso speaking about the transit village place types and I just wanted to kind of cycle back to that if you don’t mind, just with the integration component. So I do see that Ms. Plushney’s on the mobility master plan and the discussions there and just kind of looking forward for that kind of trickle in integration approach. When we have transit village place types come into committee to how do we kind of connect the actual transit portion of the transit village place type properly with the LTC and just with our future planning?

So would it be, which I’m just kind of trying to gauge on what is the best approach? Should we be plugging in the mobility master plan component into the transit village place type when it comes to committee? Or should we be kind of sending that information to the LTC so we can kind of integrate that into our work plans? Ms.

Plushney. Through the chair, so in addition to, as I indicated, myself serving on the mobility master plan, Katie Burns, our director of planning, also sits on the committees with planning that talks about place types as a transit input. She’s also on the working group for the mobility master plan. So those type of discussions are occurring.

I know Katie certainly brings updates to the commission with respect to how those discussions are progressing and the feedback that transit has provided. So that is happening at the staff level. So I’m not sure anything needs to change in terms of at the staff level. If you’re asking more specifically at the, like between the commission and council, is that what you’re looking for?

Or are you looking at the staff level? And I’m gonna go back to council for error. Can you provide a little more clarification? I’m just, I’m basically looking on what is like the best approach.

Like I just wanna ensure that when we start discussing our like densification of the transit village itself, and then bringing in the transit component just to make sure that we can plan for as long into the future and start as soon as we can. So that’s kind of what I was looking for, ‘cause I do know that we have some coming to the planning environment committee soon. So just how to ensure that we kind of capture all the bases is really what I was asking. But I do feel that the answer that Ms.

Polashni just gave kind of answers my question there. So I wouldn’t, unless you have anything to add, I wouldn’t ask, I wouldn’t push further on that. And that’s my only question. Thank you, councilor Ferra.

And I appreciate that you feel that that question’s been answered. I’m just gonna check in because this is related to planning and economic development and the master mobility plan to see if Mr. Mathers or Ms. Chair might have any comment to share as well about how transit village designations play into the master mobility plan and the information that they share with London Transit.

So I’m not sure which of you might want to respond, but I saw some nodding of both your heads while some comments were being offered. So I want to go to. Absolutely, through the chair. So I think we’re speaking about the opportunity for new transit villages.

There is an engagement process that started looking at some official plan and zoning changes related to a couple of different areas, one being centered around Oxford and Richmond. And that was where some of the questions were going. So with any of these processes or any kind of planning process, we have to engage with multiple areas. It’s not just planning doing that independently.

We need to work with the transit folks and also work with our folks in master mobility and a lot of other areas. So we circulate and we work with a substantial number of different organizations when we’re putting these together. So that will be its own public process and we’ll have an opportunity to speak to that in the future as well. Ms.

Chair might also have something to add as well. Well, let’s ask Ms. Chair if she’s got any additional information to share. Thank you, Mr.

Deputy Mayor. I think that between Ms. Palachni and Mr. May, there’s a covered a great deal of it.

The process between transit villages as a place type transit service and hubs and the mobility master plan for higher order or higher frequency transit is always iterative and integrated. And I think we’ve got some really good mechanisms in place, both on the steering committee of the MMP, the project team there, as well as on a staff-to-staff basis when we’re not working on our major updates. So certainly these are not things that happen in a vacuum from each other and we value that relationship with both our colleagues in planning as well as the LTC. Thank you, Ms.

Chair. And I’m looking to see if there’s any other speakers on this item. Seeing none, I’m just gonna ask Councillor Raman if she’ll take the chair. I just have a quick comment and a question.

Thank you. I have the chair recognizing Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So first, I wanna say that I appreciate this year’s annual update, I’m very happy to see the information in the report about the smart cards getting into the hands of Western students so that we’re accurately tracking their numbers and that they have been overestimated in the past while Fanshawe has been underestimated.

I can say from an East End perspective, I certainly hear that from Fanshawe students. So I’m glad to see that’s being reflected in the report. My question, and I have some others that I can follow up with offline on really more micro-level things. But of course, there’s always the issue of adequate funding and I know that there was considerable discussion back and forth during the budget process.

I know that the communication was actually identified as an area of improvement in this plan as well. But very specifically, and this is building on Councillor Raman’s earlier comment about population growth, which I think we all know is feeding at least part of the ridership growth. So I wonder if this might be a little bit of an unfair question. You might not be able to answer this right now.

And I don’t know whether Miss Barboon might have some thoughts to share as well. But where are we with London Transit Commission looking to address some of their ridership growth needs in terms of their service growth needs to be allocated through assessment growth versus a property tax levy increase? Thank you, I’ll go to Miss Polashny. Thank you.

So I can say that we have LTC and finance have had discussions with respect to how we might be able to meet the requirements set out for assessment growth and the type of metrics that we may need. So we are looking at that and that will be part of what we take to the commission in August for the 2025 budget. So if there is any opportunity for shifting some of that or in addition, what we asked Dylan to do when they created the five year plans was to identify separately any service to brand new areas because we know that much more closely meets the needs of assessment growth. So we have a kind of a separate bucket of service changes that you will in all likelihood see through assessment growth business cases over that five year period that are to brand new areas.

But we’re also looking to see if there’s some portion of those 18,000 hours that are directly, that we can directly tie to population growth and then meet the criteria for assessment growth. Thank you, I’ll go to Miss Provone just to see if she has anything she wants to add. Thank you for the chair. I think Miss Polashny covered most of it.

And we met and we kind of went through the policy to give them different options in terms of how they can structure collecting all their data and align their service plan so that an assessment growth case can be put together. So there’s a little bit of work that they’re in process of doing, but hopefully they’ll be able to collect that in the manner so that they can put forward a strong case. Thank you. I’ll go back to you Mayor Lister.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer and through you again to our guests and perhaps to Miss Provone might have comment on this as well. I appreciate hearing that because I think it’s really important and I know that ‘cause I was there when the announcement was made about the route starting. If I get the number wrong, I apologize. I think it’s the route 38 to the Innovation Park area that was brought online.

And I know that was a new service route, but it was, you found a way to make it work within your existing resources at the time. But that strikes me as an opportunity for assessment growth consideration as well because not only is our population growth happening in terms of raw population, but we’re also seeing economic growth in terms of new jobs and development of our industrial lands. You know, and I continue to think about maple leaf food and that route out there would be new, but it would be serving a purpose in terms of our economic growth as well as serving a population. So I don’t know if thought has been given to how assessment growth might be tied not just to new neighborhoods, but also to new industrial service areas where there are job needs.

And I don’t know if either you or Miss Provone, Miss Pelletian, you have a comment on that, but I hope that that’s something that’s being at least considered as part of the discussion because it is often new service provision to new areas where these new industrial jobs are being created. I’ll go to Miss Pelletian for any response or comment. Sure, so as Miss Provone indicated, we did have a discussion, we went through the criteria, you know, they indicated the type of metrics that we’re going to need to be able to provide, to justify that it’s meeting assessment growth. Another good example is we’ve seen with a significant influx of foreign students and nowhere for them to live that they’re moving further and further away from campus.

And that’s resulted in service demands way far away from campuses where we have, you know, we have transit services ending at eight o’clock at night and we’re hearing from students saying, I can’t get home from my classes. So even those type of things, you know, it is an increase in population that’s driving that kind of thing that needs to happen. So we do have some of that data, it’s just a matter of us, you know, being able to package it in a manner that is consistent with what, you know, what we’re looking for in terms of assessment growth. So we are working on that.

And like I said, we will be bringing something forward to the Commission for the August meeting. Any further questions, Councillor? Thank you, I’ll return the chair to you. With no one on the speaker’s list.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So with no one else on the speaker’s list, I’m gonna just look one more time to see Mayor Morgan. Yes, I just wanted to add a couple of comments. I appreciate what my colleagues have said, including your recent line of questions, Deputy Mayor.

I think there’s some exciting opportunities for us to work together on as we talk about the positive relationship that we can continue to build on and grow between the work that we’re doing in transit within the city and the Mass Mobility Plan, the integration of LTC and Rapid Transit, bringing online and the establishment of the Canada Public Transit Fund, which is a great permanent opportunity that I know you. So myself, through FCM, and I know Councillor Frank as well, and you through your work at CUDA and other transit agencies have been lobbying for quite some time and very good at the federal government to actually come through with that. I think one of the challenges we’ll face, and the reason why the assessment growth question becomes important is with the desire of the federal government to tie to upzoning along transit corridors and increase density and people moving in, providing capital dollars that the operating component, it’s great to have buses, but to be able to operate them to the capacity that the public needs along intensified transit corridors becomes a challenge that we have to face through the fares and municipal contributions on the operating side. So that is why I think the conversation about how we can gather metrics and drive, capture some of that assessment growth through the upzoning that we’re doing.

Like Councillor Trost, I was talking about, like this is all densification growth, intensification related to increased assessments that if we can track them properly, we can actually capture some of this operating dollars you need in a different way. It creates a lot less pressure on the tax levy budget, and we can use actually some of the new riders and users moving into an area can actually pay for that through their new and additional taxes, which is very helpful to both of us. So I know it sounds like we’re really obsessed with assessment growth, it’s because it is a very good solution for us to try to capture that new growth dollars and put them in a way into a service that needs them without the, what can become a combative series of trade offs for limited property tax resources, right? So I appreciate the work that you’re doing, I know that it is not something you’ve traditionally tracked the data, be able to do it perfectly, and I know you actually wanna do it properly, accurately, and right, and as is our treasurer and everybody else.

So that work remains incredibly important to council, and I value what you’ve said about it today, and I think as we unlock ongoing, the ability to ongoingly plan through the work of the Mass Mobility Plan, but the permanent transit dollars that are available federally, the operating question becomes even more important to how do we create sustainable operational growth for the transit commission to match those other investments that we now have the opportunity to capture. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. And again, that was more comment than questions, so we’re not looking for any response there from our colleagues from transit, and I have no one else on the speaker’s list. So all we need to do at this point, because this is an information report is we just need a motion to receive, moved by Councilor Cuddy, and seconded by Councilor Ferreira, and I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So moving along, thank you to Ms. Pleshny and Mr.

Collier for joining us today. Of course, you are welcome to stay and listen to the rest of the meeting, if you wish, but I suspect you both probably have other things in your afternoon that you wish to get accomplished, so we will thank you for your time, and as you will, you’re free to go. We won’t be asking you any more questions today. So moving on item 4.2, and I’m gonna take an opportunity just before we get this on the floor to make a clarification for colleagues.

So this is SPPC, it’s not Council. So the committee chairs or the working group chairs do not normally present their reports. However, Councilor Pleshny did ask me for an opportunity to preface this report before we move into motions and delegations and those items. So Councilor Pleshny, I see you with us on screen, and I’m going to turn it over to you to just provide an introduction.

And this is the first report of the strategic opportunities review working group. This is a new working group. So it seemed like an appropriate time to have a little bit of an overview from that working group chair. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I’ll do a little bit of a longer intro than normal, just as this was the first working group. This one was struck by the mayor and follows the terms of reference looking for opportunities, savings, collaborations for city services, including agency boards and commissions. I’ll note that Ms.

Hunt is the committee clerk assigned to us and Councilor Pribble is the vice chair of this committee. So thank you to both of them for the work they’ve already been doing. I’ll note that as well, there are two reports from this working group on the same agenda. And I’ll also note that the third and final meeting of this working group this year will be September 4th.

Those schedulers will go out once we have a meeting room secured. Realizing after that, we are into the mayor’s budget updates and staff will be busy with that. There is a work plan as you would have potentially already heard that we did have some delegations at SWORC that we did not accept. They would be here for consideration today as we didn’t have them speak.

The clerks did reach out to make sure that anyone who wants to still speak today had an easy way to be heard today. As you would know, Deputy Mayor Lewis chairs the governance working group. We have discussed amongst ourselves of running both working groups similarly going forward that if we request delegations, they will come and present. But anyone as experts, but anyone looking for delegations, we’ll put them to the proper standing committees realizing that’s committed to the whole and then everyone can have that information provided to us at the same time.

Also as this one pertains to the mayor’s budget, this one the mayor is on and can hear that feedback directly to himself for informed decision making. I’ll ask specifically that you’ll see the recommendations from committee or requests of our work plan that if there’s something in there that you know you have no appetite for even hearing a report back, that this would be the time to pull it out, make those comments and vote on it separate realizing the staff’s workloads already full and we’re looking to make progress. So if there’s a strong rule of council already not to go in a certain direction that this is the time to speak up and then we’ll just focus on the things that do have opportunities for us. I will leave my comments there, Mr.

Chair and hand it back to you. Thank you, Councilor. I’ll also note, I apologize for not being there today because my basement flooded with seven feet of water so I’m home dealing with mud still. So apologies for my appearance in not being there.

And we appreciate and I know we noted at planning and environment committee this week as well, Councilor Plosa and at the time I think you are literally bailing out your basement with buckets in hand. I hope you’ve made some progress on that since but I know that that is a tough situation to be in. So I know all of us understand your reason for joining us remotely today. I did have Councilor ramen and just so again, I’m gonna just take an opportunity to preface this so that everyone is aware of the direction and the order of things handling here.

Councilor ramen is going to put a motion on the floor. Then we will look for approval of the delegates for them to speak. We will entertain our delegates and then after the delegates have spoken we will come back to Council where we can then debate the motion that’s on the floor. Any amendments colleagues wish to make at that time.

And I do want to note, I know Councilor ramen will speak to this that the motion that she is putting on the floor is an alternate to what was passed at the Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group. So Councilor ramen, I will go to you now to introduce your motion. Thank you. So I would like to introduce an amendment, I want an amendment, I guess an alternate motion for consideration today and it is related to the letter that was part of this package for today as well.

So I’ll read the salient points that are a change from the original recommendation from the working group and that is in part A where it would now read the London Community Grants Annual Grassroots Innovation and Capital Grant stream for the 2025, 2026 and 2027 year be funded to a maximum level of 250,000 a year through the Community Investment Reserve Fund while the program is undergoing further review. This funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1 million and be in lieu of the current neighborhood decision-making program, the Civic Administration be directed to explore options to fund parks improvements or participatory decision-making model through the Get Involved site at the time the Park Improvement Project moves forward, funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund with a maximum of 25,000 per parks project and an annual total of 125,000 for 2025, 2026 and 2027. This funding is contingent on the Community Investment Reserve Fund having a minimum remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1 million and then there’s other subsequent parts that I know, I don’t know if you want me to go into the Gulf Amendment as well or? I think we should just highlight that now so that that’s clear to individuals as well.

Thank you and so that’s just a minor change from referencing private courses to a partnership relationship in place. So it’s just a minor change to help to direct that work. And with that, I’ll put that on the floor and hope to speak to it later on. Okay, and we’ll look for a seconder for that, Councillor Layman.

Okay, so that’s been moved and seconded. So that is now what’s on the floor, which is slightly different than what was on the SWORD report but was on the agenda in terms of the communication from Councillor ramen and myself. So now I’m gonna look for a motion to receive, to approve the delegation requests as listed in a change of order which would put Mr. Fleet first.

So moved by Councillor Trussau and Frank seconds, Councillor Frank seconds. And unless there is any discussion on that, we’ll look to open the vote. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues.

So we will now move to public delegations and Mr. Fleet, you are first. So you have five minutes when you start and please go ahead. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you to my colleagues and to you Mr. Chair for rejigging the schedule on my behalf. That’s very appreciated. I’m Andrew Fleet.

I’m the executive director and founder for Growing Chef’s Ontario. Since it’s rejig in 2016 have been very involved in the community grants program with the City of London. I’m in familiar with all of the streams. One of the things I haven’t seen in some of the discussions and the reports that I just wanna highlight today is the return on investment that the city gets for the dollars spent in these programs.

I’m gonna speak specifically to Growing Chef’s. We were the lucky recipient last year through the multi-year stream, which I realize is only part of the review that we’re talking about, but I think it’s relevant as they’re all packaged together. We received $33,000 to deliver the programs that we offer. Our programs, I’m very proud to say, come at a cost of approximately $65 per participant for children and families that cook with us or learn to.

Last year with that $33,000 we were able to deliver 86 unique programs to 2,558 unique individuals. Doing the quick math for you that is less than $13 per participant. Meaning we took that multi-year commitment. We leveraged it with other funds because the commitment of a multi-year funding from the City of London is incredibly valuable.

And we were able to deliver a return on investment five times greater than the actual dollar spent. This is how the whole program works. And when you start to take it apart, it affects how those dollars can be leveraged and it affects the return on the investment that the city gets. Should also just to go back in time, the programs and services and facilities that are funded through these grant streams, many of which were once upon a time city funded and managed programs.

And we’re offloaded or partnered with the nonprofit sector because of cost savings and efficiencies that were available. And I think it’s really important to be mindful of how these decisions will affect that balance moving forward. Particularly with these grant streams, some of the funding agencies like Big Brothers, Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club, the Neighborhood Resource Center, growing chefs. The programs, if not the majority of them, a good number of them are for children, they’re for families and they’re for the elderly.

And these programs make up a chunk of the commitment to achieving the outcomes of the priorities in the strategic plan. Something that this committee and counselors have committed to. So my question for you and what I have missed in the discussions in the reports is what is the plan to deliver these services to achieve these outcomes that we’ve all committed to if this funding isn’t there. And I do appreciate the, let’s say, faith in our sector to be able to make it work and make the dollar stretch further.

But the reality is that we’re facing the same challenges that you all are in figuring out how to deliver these programs and the whole system is at a breaking point. But I do wanna take a moment and say thank you to you because I am a passionate fiscal conservative. I am very, very proud of the return on investment that my organization can offer to the city and all of our funders for the programs and services that we offer. What I think is missing in all of this is a conversation on how we’re still going to stay true to these commitments we’ve made and come up with solutions together.

Because when there aren’t solutions as a part of these decisions, we’re not actually being fiscally responsible, we’re just being fiscal. I run a facility at Maitland and King Street and a second facility in the heart of all these village. And I drive through and operate out of the center point of a lot of the problems, particularly that we discussed in item 2.2. Those problems that we’re faced with every day and all of those immediate needs are directly tied to decisions like this that were made 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

And if we don’t understand the long-term implications of these funding cuts now, what are we doing and what are we passing on to future council members? I, for one, don’t care where the funding is sourced from. I care about our ability to deliver the programs and services to the community that we care about. And I would be first in line to sit down with the committee, with the report, givers with council, to discuss options and strategies for ensuring that we can still deliver those programs and services, that we can better utilize the commitment that we do get from the city to ensure that we don’t let anyone in this community be underserved.

Thank you very, very much. Thank you, Mr. Fleet. And under your five minutes and we appreciate that too.

And best of luck with your medical appointment this afternoon. I know that we have to let you go, but thank you for making that time. Next, we have a delegation from Maureen Cassidy, CEO, Pillar, Welcome Miss Cassidy, you have five minutes. Thank you, thank you, Mr.

Chair. And thanks to the committee members for hearing all of our delegations today. I’m representing Pillar Nonprofit Network and I’m speaking on behalf of the entire nonprofit sector and the communities that we serve. So I’m here today to ask you to choose not to cut the annual capital and innovation grant programs as well as the neighborhood decision-making program.

And I’ll speak to that one first. This is a program that was championed and piloted by our current mayor and it’s now in danger and it’s not the first time that it has been in danger. In the mayor’s previous career and going back to his history and community involvement, he believed deeply in the concept of democratic reform and participatory democracy. The mayor led the charge for local electoral reform, which led to London being the first and only Canadian city to embark on ranked choice voting.

Neighborhood decision-making is one way that you have to increase civic engagement, to allow young people to experience the electoral process and to perhaps set the stage to creating lifelong voters. Indeed, this program has been gaining in popularity. At a time when civic participation is alarmingly low, this council, the very representation of local democracy should be encouraging more of these kinds of programs, not fewer, for community grants. In this time, a critical challenge for our city now is the moment to strengthen your partnership with the nonprofit sector.

According to a study from BMO that was conducted on behalf of BMO by Ignite Strategies, the vast majority of Canadians, 81% believe that the services delivered by charities and nonprofits in Canada are essential to the well-being of the country and its citizens. 70% of Canadians say that charities have their trust. 60% agree that charities and nonprofits operate as efficiently as they can and do the most with the resources that they have, with only 6% disagreeing. I’ve sat at that table, and I understand the pressures that come at budget time.

I understand that you have just passed an 8.7% property tax increase, but to lay the burden of reductions at the feet of the community organizations who every day deliver demonstrable community benefit is simply not fair. To label the work done in the nonprofit sector as nice to have is a mischaracterization. For every negative story used as an example of funding misdirected, there are 10 fold examples we heard one just now from Mr. Fleet.

There are 10 fold examples of good and valuable community investment. Annual budgets for these programs total $626,000. I’m not even gonna go into some of the details of the budget items that were passed in the last month, multi-year budget, but they are dwarfed. They dwarf this minuscule investment in the nonprofit sector and in community benefit organizations.

Moreover, these cuts will not reduce the property tax bill for even a single lender. Non-profits and municipal governments are natural partners with common goals. Like you, we are here to deliver public benefit without profit as a motive. The city has a responsibility to provide services to the broader community beyond garbage pickup and snow removal.

And the city contracts out many of their services to both for-profit and nonprofit organizations. All of our most pressing concerns right now think poverty and homelessness response, childcare, senior care, youth programming. These are all being addressed by the nonprofit sector. The city has long been and should continue to be a natural partner to the sector in delivering these critical and essential services.

We in the nonprofit sector know very well the difficulties that Londoners are facing. Indeed, some agencies are reporting that former donors and volunteers are now seeking help for their own basic needs. Londoners are not in a position to make up any shortfall that will be caused by the city’s disinvestment. Donation rates have seen a year-over-year decline, with almost 25% of Canadians donating in 1997, down to around 12% in 2021.

Yet even as funding declines and donations go down, service demand continues to increase. In the social services sector alone, demand is outstripping the capacity of the sector to deliver by 47%. Now is the time to champion community infrastructure, innovation and engagement by strengthening your investment in assets for public benefit in new solutions, collaborations and opportunities for community ingenuity and involvement. A healthy nonprofit sector is indispensable to a well-run city.

Please, through your vote, show Londoners that you understand that simple truth. Thank you, Ms. Cassidy. Our next delegate is Richard Bloomfield.

And you have five minutes when you’re ready to start. Thank you, Committee. I don’t represent any organizations today, though I have spent time volunteering in the nonprofit sector, and I’m also here to speak against this motion. To begin with, I think fortunately, I don’t see a disagreement on this council that the nonprofit sector brings a great deal of value to this city by finding a variety of money sources outside of the city and magnifying that benefit as we’ve heard.

And this is particularly valuable during a time of provincial austerity, which continues to stretch the municipal budgets. So unless the city has capacity to bring all of these community service providers in-house as a consolidated, efficient, publicly owned entity, which seems fairly unlikely, then grants to public benefit nonprofits are, in part, how the city delivers these needed services. And given that only 10% of grant requests are funded, this hardly seems excessive. The argument so far by the movers seem to boil down to concern around efficiency of dollars used and the efficacy of the programs that receive the funding.

On the efficiency point that the proposal presented is seen as a cost saving to the taxpayer, which would, at most, save $2.2 million out of a $5.7 billion operating budget. That is not 0.1%. It’s actually 0.039%. But every nickel counts, we are told.

So one could ask, where are the other nickels? Or more importantly, why was this the first nickel under consideration? The point is, from a cost savings perspective, this is fairly irrelevant. And I truly trust, with the financial knowledge that’s on this council, that other cost saving measures could be found.

And the mayor’s proposal regarding engagement for service review with agencies and commissions, I— excuse me— I think is a good example of that. On efficacy, concerns have been erased around aligning funding with the broader strategic plan of the city and its various departments. Can the nonprofit sector be improved? Absolutely.

Is it a good thing to assess programs and make changes? As you have done recently, directing the equity office to work on the NDM process? Absolutely. However, there needs to be a really good reason to halt 100% of anything funded.

Could libraries LTC the police be run better? Of course. They acknowledge that readily, but the city does not halt all funding until perfection is achieved. Rather, improvements are directed with metrics, oversight, incentives.

Non-profits report extensively to the city for any granting stream, but there’s always room for improving what is reported and the frequency of eligibility, and so on. In other words, halting funding in the name of measuring efficacy is a false choice and would erode trust. We can do two things at once. On the question of whether the city should be supporting so-called one-off efforts, which seems to imply wasted spending or sunk costs, rather than an investment one time, which Andrew spoke very well to.

Any organization invests in capital to produce long-term returns. When the city invests in water infrastructure, we don’t see that as a one-time cost to the taxpayer. It’s something that allows the city to provide more and better service in the future. So this return on investment is important to keep in mind, and as many of the communications we’ll see today will speak to.

A small amount of funding allows for organizations to scale up and make bigger impact. So when you hear the language of one-off, please replace that with investment in assets. These are faceless organizations that are asking for more money for themselves. They’re citizens of London with visions to make it a better place to be.

Shortly after, I finished university. A few friends and I had the idea to grow food at a commercial scale within the city to make it accessible to everyone. We didn’t know community grants existed, but when we did find out, it was one of the many very important things that spurred us to keep going when it was difficult. Do we not want to encourage more young people starting their careers in London to see reason to believe their vision for a better community could come to life?

The optics, if this does pass, feels like if people weren’t watching for a couple of months that this council would find a way to silently get rid of a commitment to community funding. And honestly, that’s a weird message to send folks. I remain optimistic that that won’t be the case, and I ask this committee to reject the cuts to capital grants and the neighborhood decision-making funding and seek more strategically significant cuts or revenue generation elsewhere. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Bloomfield. Our next delegate is Brandon Samuels. Mr.

Samuels, just before you start, I just want to— and sorry to break your train of thought here if you’re preparing your thoughts. But there was a policy and process question around your delegation. So I just want to confirm, because although the request indicated chair of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Advisory Committee, this request is as a private citizen, the request to speak as a chair of an advisory committee has to go through the appropriate standing committee, which I know was sent to Civic Works. That Civic Works report has not gone to council for approval.

So today, you would be speaking as Brandon Samuels and not as chair of the advisory committee. And I just want to make sure that that’s your intent, because that’s the process with the advisory committee pieces. OK. Thank you.

My time starts now. When you’re ready. My name is Brandon Samuels. I was here today to present the report from the committee.

I’ve been advised I cannot do so. I would encourage you to look at the report that’s attached to your agenda. The advisory committee had prepared some questions for your consideration about this decision and also just about the process moving forward for engaging with working groups. We recognize that many Londoners who engage in environmental stewardship and climate action depend on funding from the city’s grants and neighborhood decision making.

Therefore, strongly and as a committee, as our discussions went, we recommended against pausing funding for these programs. I see that there is a submission to the agenda today proposing to instead reduce the amount by half. We did not, as an advisory committee, have an opportunity to review the secondary proposal. Our conversation last week leads me to believe there would be significant concerns.

Should we have that opportunity? However, I do support the proposal from Councillors Lewis and laymen to review the city’s grant streams. In fact, the advisory committee suggested a review of grants in feedback that we shared with council during the multi-year budget process. This review can go ahead, but there’s no reason it would require pausing or slashing funding indefinitely.

The decision to do so could have wide ranging effects on the community and the city’s ability to deliver services. These effects should be studied before changes are made. I’ve had an opportunity through the advisory committee to discuss grants and neighborhood decision making with staff, such as Mr. Stanford, Ms.

Martino, Ms. Pollack. When we asked questions, we were satisfied with the answers that staff provided. When the committee shared feedback about ways to improve delivery of the programs, staff expressed openness to take it back.

I’ve often heard it said that as members of council, you need to put your trust in the city’s staff to do the right thing. The staff have worked on numerous reports, such as the value for money audit, the equity and fairness review, and annual updates showing increasing uptake of these programs. For example, this year, the innovation in capital stream received 53 applications and funded 9.7% of the total amount requested. The grassroots stream received 32 applications and funded 9.1% of the amount requested.

Last year, neighborhood decision making received 326 ideas. 110 of those made it to the ballot after review, and 15 were implemented. 15 supported ideas out of 326 is less than 5%. So in other words, overall, 90% to 95% of Londoners and London-based groups who apply to these funding programs are being turned away.

In the past, when issues with these programs have been raised, staff studied them and made improvements. In my opinion, concerns about specific projects supported by city funding can be rectified through a process, like additional layers of screening. The vast majority of supported projects provide strong accountability and valuable services. As councilors, you are already very busy, and I question whether hands-on oversight of many small-scale community projects is a good use of your time.

I don’t think that Parks Department, as it stands, has the resources to take on responsibility for hosting a participatory program. And I don’t believe aligning the timing of participation around scheduled Parks improvements is going to work for most Londoners interested in improving what’s in their neighborhood. If Parks creates capacity to host a program, say within the master plan, wouldn’t that essentially be duplicating how NDM is currently offered? Wouldn’t that use up resources that Parks need for other parts of the master plan?

We don’t know. I understand the notion that in the absence of funding from the city, nonprofits and community groups can apply to funding from other sources. Based on my experiences in this sector, where organizations have the capacity to apply to other funding streams, they are already doing so. External funding is already in short supply.

If funding from the city goes away, most of it will not be replaced from a different source. You might think, well, the city isn’t responsible for covering the costs of nonprofits or backfilling for higher levels of government. I would ask you to consider, can the city meet its goals without the support of its nonprofit partners? Where would this leave you on implementing the strategic plan?

What happens to the equity and fairness piece that motivated program improvements last year? How are you going to meet our tree planting targets, implement the climate emergency action plan, create safe spaces for women and girls, and engage Londoners in community service? The impacts of what you are proposing to do should be studied before you pull the plug. 30 seconds.

I just wanna close by saying that as a property taxpayer myself, I appreciate the desire to reduce the large burden being put on many of your constituents. If you’re going to find savings, I think it is really important that ideas being brought forward are based on evidence and meaningful consultation with staff. Just like the multi-year budget, there needs to be clear, predictable process that brings people along instead of shutting voices out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Samuels. Our next delegate is Nicole Karsh from London Environmental Network. Thank you.

My name is Nicole Karsh, and I am the director of programs at the London Environmental Network. Our network comprises more than 40 community groups and nonprofits working in London’s environmental sector with a collective goal of seeing the city of London be more sustainable. In my personal life, I’ve been an incredibly active member of my community, dedicating years of my life to civic engagement, including currently serving on two city of London advisory committees. And while I am here today representing Len, I want to make it clear that I’m also a resident who has volunteered my time to make a difference in my community.

And regardless of which identity I speak from today, my message is the same. I strongly oppose the proposal to pause and/or reduce funding for the capital innovation grants and the neighborhood decision-making program. And for the sake of time, I’m just going to focus on the capital innovation grants and highlight three major concerns. First, undermining the impacts of local organizations that provide programs, services or facilities that support Londoners.

In 2023, Len ran six diverse programs, supported more than 30 community projects, and we connected with residents across the city in numerous ways. Non-profits have an in-depth understanding of local issues and their solutions. And we are uniquely positioned to move forward on strategic priorities that city council cannot move forward with on their own, either due to lack of expertise or time constraints. And while some have labeled nonprofit investments as nice to have, nonprofits are time and time again, leading the work that catalysts community development and powers individuals and promotes sustainable livelihoods.

Len would not exist without community grants. And if city council removes the grant programs and a key connection point to the nonprofit sector, how do you plan to replace our frontline work? Two, losing localized funding sources will lead to more uncertainty, competition, and accessibility issues. The nonprofit sector and its services, while in demand, have always been drastically underfunded.

Fewer localized funding sources mean that will be forced to turn to other non-local funding opportunities. And while these do have wider reaches, they’re not knowledgeable about London’s most pressing issues. They often favor or are biased towards applications received from their geographic location, or they simply fail to understand the necessity of non-local applications as they lack local contacts. Non-profits already struggle to maintain stable incomes to run our programs.

Money is a frequent conversation point amongst non-profits, and many organizations rely heavily on government grants to stay afloat. Annual grants, such as the Capital and Innovation Grant Program, provide non-profits with support for new project ideas that occur within four year budget cycles. Not all non-profits are aligned with the city budget cycle and fiscal year. And eliminating an annual 12-month funding opportunity, lacks understanding of how we work and is a major equity and accessibility issue.

Is the city prepared to step in and do the work when non-profits, particularly those with less resources, capacity and time than others, are not able to deliver on their missions. And lastly, evaluating the value and effectiveness of these programs can occur without pausing them. While wanting to evaluate the value and effectiveness of any program makes sense. The grant programs don’t need to be paused to do this.

Pausing the grant program suggests future efforts to permanently end them. Further, pausing them without offering a replacement to address the city’s priorities is irresponsible. As part of the selection process, all grant applications are assessed based on their alignment with the city’s strategic plan. If recipients must align with the strategic plan, wouldn’t successful applications have to be considered high priority, valuable and effective?

In 2023, the program provided funding for 11 innovation and two capital applications. Does the city actually believe that these recipients are not bringing value to London as a whole, despite their alignment with the city’s missions, values and goals? Len is supportive of an evaluation only of the application process itself in order to make it more accessible for organizations with less resources, capacity and time than others. Not an assessment of the merits of the program.

As program recipients have proven how in demand and necessary, this funding is to push forward the identified priorities of the city of London. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Karsh.

Our next delegate is Lina Bowden. Welcome, Ms. Bowden. You have five minutes when you’re ready to start.

Thank you. My name is Lina Bowden, and I am a citizen of London, as well as a taxpayer. And I’m a donor and volunteer with many of these organizations who receive your innovation and capital grants, as well as the neighborhood grants, which go to a whole bunch of associations all across the city. So my ask of you today is to not either reduce or remove this very important money that is needed by our community organizations.

As has already been said by Nicole and Richie, these organizations are really doing your work. They are your arms and legs to ensure that our community is a vibrant and resilient place. And so what I would like to also elaborate on is leverage. And Andrew spoke about leverage.

The one thing about nonprofits and these organizations that you’re considering removing monies from is that they leverage donor dollars, they leverage other grants, they leverage in-kind gifts and volunteer hours. And so for every dollar that you put out there into the community, in these organizations, you’re leveraging it at least four times. And so I think that’s an important point to be made. And it is a fractional percentage of your budget, but these dollars are large percentages of the budgets of these organizations.

And so I ask you, if these organizations are the arms and legs, then please don’t cut off a finger and reduce their opportunity to be able to contribute to our community. Thank you, Ms. Bowdoin, our next delegate is Leah Derek’s London Environmental Network. Thank you, hello council, my name is Leah Derek’s.

And I’m the interim executive director at the London Environmental Network. We are an umbrella organization that represents 42 environmental groups in London. And we also run our own programs to make London a more sustainable and resilient city. Our organization, as well as the following members, Thames Talbot Land Trust, Growing Chef’s Ontario, Urban Roots London, Nature London, London Chapter of the Council of Canadians, Middlesex London Food Policy Council, and Friends of Kalele Meadows ESA are strongly opposed to the proposal to pause or reduce funding for the capital, innovation, and neighborhood decision-making programs.

Although, as Nicole said, we would support a strategic review of these programs to better serve the city. I echo Nicole’s points that were shared from our letter. I will note that we received responses from only three councilors that we sent the letter to. And I will spend the rest of my time highlighting how these programs allowed land and its members to scale up our programming to support climate action and sustainable growth, which is one of London’s strategic priorities.

So a $50,000 innovation grant allowed us to launch our Green Economy London program back in 2019. This program supports local businesses to set and achieve sustainability targets. And five years later, we have connected with over 5,000 business leaders and secured an additional $40,000 to implement projects like solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, and waste diversion programs that have all achieved emission reductions across the city’s corporate sector. One of our members, Reimagine Co, a package-free grocery store and community space started because of a neighborhood decision-making grant.

I remember going to one of their very first zero waste workshops, and years later, we continue to promote their activities. Every year, there’s a growing group of environmentally-focused neighborhood decision-making projects submitted. This demonstrates a clear need for investment in environmental projects, particularly in underserved neighborhoods, even if they are one-off installations. Without the community grants, these programs would not have been possible.

However, I would like to make it really clear that the city did not fund these projects in their entirety. Len and other nonprofits in the city secure revenue from other sources as part of our fundraising strategies. This includes foundations, corporate partners, major donors, and even our own social enterprises, in addition to the funds from the city that we can leverage to make these projects happen. This is actually beneficial for the city because it brings in millions of dollars that organizations then spend in the local economy.

If counselors are looking for tax-payer savings, I remind you that these programs make up a very small percentage of the city’s budget, but they provide services and positive impacts to hundreds of thousands of lenders each year, and with that considered are very cost-effective for the city to be running or supporting. The value of community grants and neighborhood decision-making cannot be underestimated by city council. These programs are a way for the city and nonprofit sector to jointly progress on the city’s strategic priorities, filling in gaps or adapting to sudden changes that can happen within a four-year budget cycle. The city should be recognizing the value and increasing its investment in the nonprofit sector for the city’s own benefit.

This year’s innovation and capital program had 53 applications for a total of $4.1 million requested, and there was only 396,000 available to be allocated, which, as people have said, is just under 10% of the funding that was requested. These stats are also similar for the grassroots stream, which was just its first year of operating this year. Counselor Raman and Lewis’ proposal to reduce the annual funding amount to $250,000 for innovation and capital, and $125,000 for neighborhood decision-making is significantly less than the community need, and to source this from the Community Reserve Fund as conditional funding is not a sustainable approach to community development. When the city invests in its nonprofit community, powerful things can happen.

As you can see, the impacts of this one-time innovation grant that started our Green Economy London program continue today and continue to be a key part of advancing the city’s climate emergency action plan. And while the nonprofit sector doesn’t rely on the city’s grants alone, they are an important source of local funding that should not be discredited or discontinued. I urge you to recognize the value of the community grants and neighborhood decision-making programs and help us to create a more sustainable and resilient city for everyone. And I invite you to read my email with the open letter so we can have further conversations about this motion.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Derricks. Our next delegate would have been Andrew Fleet, but we had a change of order.

So Mr. Fleet has already spoken, and that moves us to our final delegation status, Kaitlyn Creighton and Alex Robinson, London Environmental Network. Welcome, and when you’re ready to begin, you have five minutes. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Kaitlyn Creighton, and I’m the Director of Sustainability at the London Environmental Network, along with the rest of my team. Sorry, Kaitlyn, I’m not gonna count that towards your time. We’re just having a little difficulty hearing. You, can you— Is that better, slightly?

Maybe tilt the mic up just a little bit. You’re a little bit taller, perhaps. Okay, how’s that? That’s a little bit better, yes.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so yeah, as I said, my name’s Kaitlyn Creighton. I am the Director of Sustainability at the London Environmental Network. And along with my team, I’m also standing alongside my colleague, Alex Robinson, who is the Green Economy London Program Coordinator.

And we wanted to speak to the Green Economy London program which received a one-time investment from the Innovation Grant, and its impact continues to this day. Alex and I are here representing LEND to strongly oppose the proposal to pause and/or reduce funding for the capital and innovation grants and neighborhood decision-making program. Green Economy London is a membership-based program that provides London’s small and medium-sized businesses with the tools and resources to set and achieve sustainability targets. In 2019, we received a $50,000 Innovation Grant that allowed us to start this program, which has since grown its membership to over 60 local businesses in London and has been recognized as the fastest-growing Green Economy hub in Canada.

This program is a clear example of how investment in nonprofits from the community grants catalyzes long-term sustainability and vitality of our community. The city’s initial $50,000 investment enabled a further $95,000 investment from external funders, including the London Community Foundation, Canada Summer Jobs, Eco Canada, and corporate sponsors to launch the program. We continue to fund Green Economy London through membership fees and external funders and corporate sponsors and partners, such as Libro Credit Union, Trojan Technologies, Convertus, Enbridge, London Hydro, and Meridian Credit Union, sustaining the program long after the city’s one-time Innovation Grant investment in 2019. Investing in nonprofits through grants like the Capital and Innovation Grant is mutually beneficial for the city as it supports strategic plans and priorities.

For example, climate action and sustainable growth are a key strategic priority for the city, and one way to reach this is the Climate Emergency Action Plan. Green Economy London directly aligns with six of the 10 steep target areas through our programming with the local business community. Area one, engaging, inspiring, and learning from people. Area three, transforming buildings and development.

Area four, transforming transportation and mobility. Area five, transforming consumption and waste as part of the circular economy. Area six, implementing natural and engineered climate solutions and carbon capture, and area 10, measuring, monitoring, and providing feedback. As Leah mentioned, since our programs inception, we’ve connected with over 5,000 business leaders about sustainability actions, provided meaningful work opportunities through eight full-time and co-op positions, and leveraged $40,000 to implement projects within London’s corporate sector, such as solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, and waste diversion programs that have achieved emission reductions across the city.

Some of the impacts of the Green Economy London program include funding opportunities, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, communication support to amplify environmental messaging, capacity building workshops and resources, greenhouse gas inventories to measure and attract impact, cost and energy savings, credibility and recognition for sustainability efforts, inspired and engaged employees and improved employee wellbeing. As demonstrated through Green Economy London, an innovation grant can provide long-term benefits to the city, specifically London’s economic and environmental sectors. As such, we strongly oppose the proposal to pause or reduce funding for the capital and innovation grants in the neighborhood decision-making program. Thank you.

Thank you, and that concludes our list of delegates. We also had communications which are in a to be received in the motion. So we now will move on to the motion that’s on the floor. Councilor ramen, you had introduced the motion, but you didn’t speak to it.

I’m gonna give you the first opportunity to speak to it if you’d like to now, or we can just start a speaker’s list. I’ll speak at the end. Okay, if you’d like to speak at the end, we will wait for that, and we will look for other speakers. Councilor McAllister.

I will go next, but Councilor Frank was actually first. Sorry, I looked right and saw your finger up. I didn’t realize you were pointing across the horseshoe. Councilor Frank.

Thank you, yes, and I just wanted to confirm that the motion that we’re talking about is number three in eScribe. The motion that we are talking about is actually motion number one, which is the one that is not from the strategic opportunities review working group itself, but the change as Councilor ramen put on the floor. Okay, perfect, thank you. Sorry, I was starting to get them confused.

So I am gonna speak to part of it, but I would like these to be broken out to vote separately A and B. And then I also do have another amendment as well, but I want to speak first to item B so specifically about the neighbor decision-making one. And I want to give some examples of neighbor decision. Sorry, Councilor.

I’m not counting this against your time. I don’t want to interrupt your train of thought, but can you indicate what parts you want broken out just so the clerk can start working on some language that breaks them out so that we’re prepared for votes? Absolutely, so under the motion one section where it says under I, then A, the London Community Grants, Annual Grassroots Innovation Capital Stream. So that separated from B in lieu of the neighbor decision-making one.

So those two A and B separate them. Okay, so we can call A one A and A one B separately for sure. Were there other ones that you want to deal with separately or do you want to, you’re good with those two? Good thing.

So get the clerk to start working on E-Scribe to pull those apart. Thank you. And we’ll start your time. Excellent, thanks.

Over, sorry to interrupt your train of thought. That’s okay. I’m starting to get confused, but this is good. We’re getting it on track.

So specifically, I wanted to give some examples of neighbor decision-making projects that have been successful, but ones that aren’t park enhancements. In 2018, a resident in word 11 named Eleanor submitted an idea to secure funding for Christmas stalls and they received funding just for the supplies and the stalls were actually made by the community for free volunteer labor. And since 2018, those Christmas market stalls have been viewed every year at our Christmas village, Christmas in the village. And they’ve raised over $36,000 for nonprofits fighting food insecurity and housing, because every year, whoever has a stall in one of those market stalls, they have to contribute a portion of their profits towards specific groups like Indwell and others.

It also drives shoppers into Wortley Village because they come down for the Christmas market, but then they go out to restaurants, they go shop in the village at the other local shops, which provides an economic value as well. And that was a community idea, and it continues to stay and it remains as a community effort to run this program and use as a fundraising opportunity. Another idea was in 2021 with the neighborhood porch concert series. If you were lucky like I was to go to some of those, they’re fabulous.

Again, that was community driven, is organized by the community, and in a huge way, leveraged a ton of volunteer time because it was a small financial investment from the city, but an incredible amount of work from the community and gave an opportunity for people to connect with their neighbors. I attended a few and seeing actually the activation and bringing people together was fabulous, and I think is another example of what we can do as a UNESCO city of music. Another idea was a pollinator garden in Oley’s Village in 2018 on private property, but across from the London Brewing Co-op. And it won because the residents submitted it, the community gathered around it, and then I ended up joining a working group after it was successful.

And we ended up having high school volunteers over multiple days prepare the space and plant the native plants. And we were able to teach the high schoolers about the importance of native species and in the importance of volunteering. So the neighborhood decision-making program to my point is not only about putting park improvements into the community, it’s about actually building the community. And the less money we put towards it and the more restrictions we put on it, I believe the less opportunity we provide to the community to build community.

And I think in my opinion, to take this opportunity away would further disengage the general public. We had a 25% voter turnout in the last municipal election, and the last thing I personally want to be doing as a counselor is disengaging with the community. And I personally feel like a reduction or a pause or further restrictions on this program signifies that I’m not interested in listening to the community’s ideas or supporting their neighborhood connections. And so this program has many benefits, not just the projects or the events that it funds, but the actual process of the engagement and the community that builds.

Having people come together, submit their creative ideas, speak to other people about their ideas, push them out to vote, and if successful, actually work on bringing their ideas to fruition, is all about building a stronger and more resilient community. So I won’t support this amendment because, first of all, shifts the focus just to being parks, and it also reduces the funding as well, both in my view I see as a reduction in people’s ability to build community. So I won’t be supporting part B. And then I do have an amendment for part A that I would like to add as well.

Okay, as I advise the mayor, your first time speaking is when you have to move amendments, so now would be the appropriate time to do that. Thank you, so I did circulate it to the clerk, but I’ll read it out and see if I have a seconder. As I was inspired by the work that we just did with film London, and sorry, over to Mr. Mathers, I didn’t run this by you because the sudden inspiration that I had from film London motion, but the motion that civic administration be directed to offset the cost of the capital and innovation grants by 250,000 a year by reduced contribution to the economic development reserve fund.

This funding is contingent on the economic development reserve fund having a remaining balance as of December 31st of each year of at least $1 million. Sorry, I mean, as an amendment, as an addition, I’m not trying to replace part A, I want it to be an addition to part A, as an addition. Okay, so you’re leaving part A, but amending it to draw an additional $250,000 from the economic development reserve fund. Okay, so we’ll see if there’s a seconder for that.

Councillor Ferrera, you’re seconding? Okay. So that has been moved and seconded. So now we will suspend the debate on the main motion and debate the amendment only.

So I will start a new speaker’s list for anyone on the amendment. And Councillor Frank, it’s your motion. So yes, if you’d like to speak to it, go ahead. Thank you very much.

So again, as I mentioned, very inspired by the discussion we had with film London and the solution we were able to come to with that. And I think given that we heard a lot from the non-profit sector about the economic return that they have, not just the community benefit, I think that the non-profit sector actually probably provides an even greater economic benefit to Londoners perhaps than film London, although I think they do a fabulous job. Non-profits, as we’ve heard, are able to leverage funding with donors and other levels of government, but sometimes they need somebody to say yes first. So for example, we heard a lot about Green Economy London, London, the city of London, through the innovation stream, the $50,000, that was the first person to say yes to that program.

We were sending out funding everywhere. We were asking for donors. We were trying to find provincial money. And we needed somebody else to say yes, ‘cause when you submit a grant application, it says do you have any other funding associated with this already committed?

‘Cause when you have that and you can say yes, funders are more willing to actually give you money, ‘cause I think, oh, somebody else already thinks this is a good idea. So having the innovation stream and the capital stream in London provides this opportunity for nonprofits to have a greater opportunity to leverage and bring in more funding from other areas. And I, again, we’ve heard, but they’re huge economic driver. 14% of jobs are in the nonprofit sector according to StatsCan, and 33% of nonprofits are reporting a lack of volunteers, leading to reduced programs and service delivery.

So as the nonprofit sector continues to face, reduce government funding. And as we heard a dwindling donor base, ‘cause people are struggling with affordability, we continue to see reductions in gaps in services. And nonprofits, as we’ve heard, step in to fill the shoes of government where we cannot. They provide housing, mental health services, climate action, community building, food security, business improvements, and much more.

And the city alone cannot solve these problems. And I know that we provide funding to the nonprofit sector through our community multi-year program, as well as through other contracts of service. But these one year capital and innovation grants are incredibly important to starting new projects and being able to actually have a physical facility for a lot of these programs to run out of. When I left the London Environmental Network, we had 11 staff and over a million dollar budget, with only about 15% of our budget coming from City Hall, meaning we are getting over $850,000 from federal, provincial, other funders, and other donors.

Being a huge way to bring in other funding into our community, hiring local Londoners to provide these programs and having them spend their money locally. So I appreciate the motion that was made by Councillor Ramen and Deputy Mayor, as well, to have funding coming from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. But I believe that this motion where I’m adding an additional 250,000, again, from reserve funds, so it’s taking out of the property tax base. I think that then we’ll get us back to where we need to be with the nonprofit sector, as well as demonstrate that we’ve seen nonprofits as an economic driver.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frank, looking for any further speakers. No one else on the speakers list? Oh, sorry, do you want the motion read out, Councillor Ferrera?

Thank you, Chair. No, I was just quickly communicating with the clerk asking to get the motion up. So the reason I seconded this is because as Councillor Frank indicated, this will be making everything whole in the Capital and Innovation Grants program. So I’m just reading it now.

It’s coming out of the Economic Development Reserve Fund. So yeah, I would be supporting that. No further comments than from what Councillor, the Councillor just spoke to. Looking for any further speakers?

Mayor Morgan, I just, I don’t know if the treasurer has this available. What are the current inflows into the Economic Development Reserve Fund on an annual basis? Well, let’s ask Ms. Barbara if she has that.

Thank you for the chair. Mr. Murray is just looking that up and I see he’s on screen. So he’ll be able to provide you with that information.

Mr. Murray, welcome to SPPC. Can you respond to the mayor’s question? Thank you and through to you, Mr.

Chair. Yes, I can. The 2024 contribution to the Economic Development Reserve Fund is approximately three and a half million dollars that increases to four and a half million dollars starting in 2025. The current balance, projected balance, as of the end of 2024 in that reserve fund is approximately 4.4 million dollars.

Okay, Mr. Murray, Mayor Morgan, that’s all. Okay, Councillor ramen, as Vice Chair, can I ask you to take the chair for a moment? Thank you, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I will be supporting this at this time. I think we need to have a stronger balance than one million in the Economic Development Reserve Fund. Often those projects that come through there are fairly significant.

The film office, one we heard earlier, was actually one of the smallest, I think I’ve ever seen come through. But at the same time, I say that because I actually do think at this time, and I mean, I will use a couple of examples of when we get to the main motion. But I think that we actually do need to be reducing the amount of money that we are granting out right now until the program is put under review. And I will speak to how this committee panel is not accountable to council, or even appointed by council, whatsoever, but I would say for me, there are a number of expenditures that have been highlighted in the report that went to the Strategic Opportunities and Working Review Group that were very questionable in terms of their ties to the priorities in the strategic plan.

And I’ve had an opportunity in a past career to participating grant writing. So I know that you can tie things to a strategic plan. I said all through the budget process and through the strategic plan process as well. We were putting too much in the strategic plan.

We were never going to be able to fund it all. So the idea that it’s in the strategic plan, that doesn’t mean we have to fund it. I’m prepared to continue some funding at a lower level through the Community Investment Reserve Fund, while the program is under review. But I’m not prepared to continue to do it at the full amount.

And I’m certainly not prepared. The Community Investment Reserve Fund is at least a fund that’s at the discretion of council. That’s the whole purpose of that fund. The Economic Development Reserve Fund is there to help the work of Mr.

Mather’s division of the LEDC and their initiatives and those sorts of things. And so I don’t see this as compatible with granting mechanisms. We’re not talking about purchase of service agreements. We’re not talking about city led initiatives like the film office was.

We’re talking about asks for grants. And when we hear about capital and innovation, I think it’s really important to recognize that the innovation grants are only available once, one time they’re not ongoing funding. We heard about the front line work. Front line work should be something that’s being done as an ongoing operational cost of an offer profit, a charity, a private sector business.

These are new. The innovation is funding new program ideas, expanded program ideas, not existing ones. So I don’t think that we can say that that’s impacting the front line work. And I don’t think that we should be using the Economic Development Reserve Fund to fund community grants.

Thank you, returning the chair to you with Councillor Trussa on the list. Councillor Trussa. Thank you, and through the chair, I’m not really sure how the amendment and the maker of the amendment and the seconder of the amendment might want to help me out here. But I’m just not sure how this amendment at this late date helps us with the problem that we have on the table.

I just think it takes away from the main point that has to be made today. And that is rejecting what came from this committee with very little thought and very little deliberation. I think that this is a working group and perhaps this could be referred to the working group, but I think it would be better to just refer this to the next budget process if there is a better way to fund these programs. And my position, by the way, is we should be increasing the funding for these programs, not keeping them the same and not reducing them.

We should be increasing them. I think we have to have a discussion about how we’re gonna do that. So for me, as much as I appreciate what you’re trying to do here, if I could understand it, I just can’t support this without more information. So help me out if you can, otherwise I’ll be voting no.

Thank you, Councillor Trussow. I will go to Councillor Frank for an opportunity to respond ‘cause it was a direct question to the mover. So I will go to Councillor Frank. Yes, happy to.

Yeah, generally I oppose the original entire motion, but given that the Councillor Raman and the Deputy Mayor have made an amendment to try and cover half of the funding from the community investment reserve fund for the capital and innovation programs, I was seeking a way to fund the other half so that it restores it back to the current value of $500,000. I would not have brought forward this motion if the other amendment had not been on the table and I would have rejected the original motion from So Organist’s entirety. So that is why this motion came forward as a way to try and find full funding for the next three years for this very important granting fund. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

Councillor Trussow, anything further? No. Councillor Ferrera and then Councillor Hopkins. I thank you, Chair.

Just further to what Councillor Frank said, I’m in the same boat, the same category. I’m just trying to keep this funding on the table as any way that we can. And I guess I would just add to that that I see these grants, nonprofits often use these dollars to leverage for further dollars for other levels of government too. So the impact does increase.

So it’s an approach that I definitely seconded with Councillor Frank ‘cause I’m trying to keep the funding on the table. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair.

And I too am trying to find an understanding on not only the amendment, but also on the motion that’s in front of us. And I do apologize, Mr. Chair. I was a little confused as to what motion we were speaking to since we have a number of them on the screen.

So we are looking at motion number three, which has been moved by Councillor ramen. I just wanna confirm that first of all, if that’s correct. So that is in fact, not correct. We are looking at motion one, which is moved by Councillor ramen.

Motion three is the original motion from the strategic review group. Motion one is the alternate motion that Councillor ramen put forward. Thank you for that clarification. And now we have an amendment to that.

I understand and I too am looking for clarification. So maybe a question through you to staff will be as much as I appreciate all these, this amendment and looking ways to sort of keep some money available. Is this all coming from one time funding? Is the question through you to staff?

Ms. Barbong. Thank you for the chair. So as I understand it, with the clarity that the council provided, that the original motion removes the or the part A, removes the amount and puts it through a 250 through a one time funding source, being the community investment reserve fund.

This additional amendment part B takes the remainder, actually adds $4,000, but puts another, the 250 back. So that the 2,500,000 in total is funded from half from the community investment reserve fund and then half through the change to have it funded by the economic development reserve fund. I will note that the amount from the economic development reserve fund would be a permanent budget source because we’re flipping sources from an existing tax levy amount to fund that 250 based on that amendment. Unless there’s another direction of council, but that would then permanently fund it through a new revised source and still remove the full amount off the tax levy.

If that’s clear for everyone. One Ms. Bergone, I just wanna make sure that the language that Councilor Rahman has provided is actually clear to you as well because it speaks to, as you indicated, one time funding from the community investment reserve fund, but it speaks to that one time funding each year of the remaining multi-year budget cycle pending the review of the program. So it’s one time but it carries through to 2027 according to the language.

So I just, can you just confirm that that’s your understanding of the intent? Yes, thank you through the chairs. So for the part A, that’s very clear for the three years with a temporary source for three years. This revised part, amendment would be permanent in my opinion because you’re flipping sources.

Councillor Hopkins. That is why I will support this amendment then it’s the permanency of the funding. So I am gonna support the amendment. I’m not exactly sure how I’m going to go proceed with this motion because I am finding the fact that I am not at all interested in cutting out funding to the community grant program and the neighborhood decision making program.

This to me is feels like I’m trying to bargain my way here to get something and I am not interested in getting a little bit. I do think I am in complete agreement if you wanna review this program, go ahead and do it with done it in the past, but I just feel that I’m not sure if the public even understands what we’re doing here and I will support the amendment because it’s permanent and we’ll see where we go from there. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

So similar questions kind of running through my head, but I do think what Councillor Frank has proposed and what Councillor ramen and Deputy Mayor Lewis are trying to achieve is taking it off of the tax levy, right? So I will support this because from my understanding, we’ve achieved that goal. My caveat with this is that I will support it ‘cause it does restore that funding and it takes it off the tax levy, but I too wanted to see it fully funded, but my stance on this is I will support it, but I want both to make it through. If this fails, then I would not support the other one because for me, I want to maintain that funding.

So I understand where everyone’s coming from with this, but I think it’s going to come down to the votes in terms of where that money is allocated. So I’m going to see how the votes pan out, but I will support this because I think it actually achieves what we’re all trying to achieve, but I think we have differing opinions on how much we want to fund it. I personally want to fund all of it and if I can find alternative sources that are not on the tax base, then I can go this route. Thank you, looking for further speakers.

I see none in chambers and none online, so I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment only. This is part five in E-Scribe, yes. Opposing the vote, motion fails five to nine. Thank you, colleagues.

So now we are back to debate on the main motion. Mr. McAllister, sorry, actually, I did have Councillor McAllister. I’m going to go back to my main motion speakers list now.

So I have Councillor McAllister next. Thank you and through the chair, to my point that I just made, I will not be supporting the reduction because I do believe we have to maintain the funding as it is. Speaking personally, in terms of the ward I represent, I see so much value in terms of what nonprofits bring to my community. I think the impact is there.

The return of the investment in the community is pretty much indescribable. Honestly, I don’t have the words to accurately describe how important maintaining these organizations are. The services that are provided are so important and I cannot out the needs from organizations that do this good work. And I won’t do it.

I will strongly oppose this because I see the value. I have so many organizations and I can just name a few that I see on a regular basis doing this good work. In terms of the food security that was referenced earlier, I have a lot of those organizations doing that work, providing basic needs to people in our city to pretty much keep them alive. And not just that, but the community building aspect, especially when I look at my neighborhood resource centers and what they do on a regular basis through programming, being there in the community to provide the services that really keep them alive.

Like again, I’m gonna go back to the, for me, the basic services that are provided by these organizations are the backbone of the city. And I will not break that. And I want us to maintain these funding sources because they are so important. Further speakers, Councillor Ferrera, I’ve got you next and then Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, Chair. So we’re discussing the entirety of the motion also. We’re back on the main motion, yes. Okay, all right.

Well, with the Capital and Innovation Grants Program, I already kind of spoke, tried to move a motion with Councillor Frank, but you know, I see it as serving as a catalyst for further investment. Like I said before, with respect to the neighborhood decision making program, like for both programs, I do, I would support a review. I am with you on that, but just cutting the funding, I am not, I don’t wanna see that. And simply because, you know, going to the neighborhood decision making side, that intention is for promoting civic engagement and increasing civic engagement.

And I know it’s been spoken to already, but we have seen our turnout in the last municipal election and I would like to do whatever we can to just increase that civic engagement. I don’t want Londoners to feel disenfranchised. So that’s why you would see me moving in this direction. I see it’s, you know, more options to engage from the community with civic life is a good way to go.

It helps us, you know, do the work that we’re doing. And we’ve seen people in the gallery also speak to, you know, they’re helping us do our work. They’re helping us achieve our strategic objectives. So with that, you know, with that in mind, that’s why I wouldn’t be supporting just the motion as it is written right now.

I would also say, I guess going to, I think it’s section CV with respect to the snow plowing on sidewalks, that’s part of this motion as well. Yeah, so I do want to speak to that. Yeah, so all of the work plan items were all moved in one motion. So, and sorry, I’m going to stop your time ‘cause this doesn’t count towards your time.

Certainly any of those can be pulled to be voted on separately as well, or amended, and then discussion would happen on an amendment. Although ideally, if there’s something, as Councilor Palosa said, that if you’re just not interested in, just ideally, we would just pull it to vote on separately, although we’re in Council’s hands. But yes, you can speak to those too, that’s not out of order. Okay, thank you.

Well, I guess with respect to pulling or separating everything, I would request to separate, I guess everything, if that’s a possibility, just to go through it, ‘cause we do have a pretty condensed motion, or everything is kind of condensed in there. But just speaking to that on the snow plowing for sidewalks, like I won’t be supporting that, just because I see it as a cost neutral aspect towards Londoners, like we’re not gonna be hitting Londoners in the wallet with this one, but we’re gonna be hitting Londoners with their backs on this one. So even though we will see a very small decrease on the property tax rate increase, and we’ll see that on paper, Londoners are still gonna pay for that, they’re just gonna pay for that with their labor. So I’m not gonna be supporting that as it is right now, either, so I do ask if we can separate everything, and I will find the areas where we can look into the review aspect, ‘cause I do believe that some of this motion specifically speaks to review of some of these programs.

So I will go through it like that and parse through it, but if we can separate that, thank you. Okay, Councillor, just before I move on to the speaker’s list, you indicated separate everything. So you want every clause of this pulled separately? Like, I guess, clauses with like clauses together, whereas they’re relating to the same parts, I would say keep together, but really for the parts, if there are parts in this motion that just specifically speak to the review of the capital grant streams, and the neighborhood decision-making program, I would vote in favor of the review portion, but if they’re not separate, and I just, I will go through it again, and I can get back to you on that, but if they’re not separate, then I would be voting against that, ‘cause I don’t wanna be voting against the cutting of the funding.

So we’ve already had a request for A1A and A1B to be dealt with separately. A3 is the review, so it’s already in a separate clause. Sorry, A2 is the review, so that’s already in a separate clause. Three is receipt of the delegations, or the delegations being referred from the working group.

Then you get into part, the prime part B, where you’re talking about the direction for the board’s agencies and commissions to undergo the service review and the triple E reserve. Then you have prime part C, which is the work plan, and then a number of clauses to the items that are in the work plan. So you spoke specifically to the snow plowing residential sidewalks, which is CV, but I would respectfully suggest if you want a particular item removed from the work plan, just call that one separately, where we are going to be spending an hour voting on every single clause individually. And I don’t think that’s your intent.

I think that there might be a couple of things in the work plan you disagree with, but I would suggest that you wanna just pull. So in this case, C clause V would be the snow plowing one. I would suggest if there are other particular ones from the work plan, just identify those. It’s going to be very, very lengthy and complicated for the clerks to separate out every single clause in this motion.

Thank you for that chair. So yeah, let’s pull C part V or clause V for now. I will go through it again. If I have anything else, I’ll let you know.

Thank you, I appreciate that. So the clerks have that noted. So when we get to that portion, we would call C clause V separately. I have Councillor Hopkins next on the speaker’s list.

Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair and on the main motion. And I don’t know if my numbering is a little different than what you’re referring to, but I am going to try to make your life a little bit simple.

So I’d like to speak on the main motion and I would like to move from BII, which is the delegation requests that we’re referring to this meeting all the way down BCII, IV, all the way down, I would like that to vote on that separately. So a lot of the C refers to the working group looking for reports back on a number of snow removal, yes, on sidewalks and looking at SBBC to engage with KPMG for the delivery of a service review. Everything from there down, I am okay with keeping that separate to the motion that I will not be supporting, which is A, A and B and I’d like to speak to why I won’t be supporting that, which is reducing the community grant and the neighborhood decision-making grant program. For me, this is a successful program.

It is something that we as a city deliver supports the delivery of the services that we provide to the community. To me, it’s that simple. I recall the old days when we had people from the community up in the gallery speaking to please support my organization and we decided to do a different program, move it away from us, have staff and work on a different way of doing it. And yes, we’ve had many conversations in the past that we need to review it, it has been reviewed, but my point is it is successful.

Why would we not support a successful program that supports community engagement, that supports their organizations for additional grant and funding? There’s many, many reasons why I am just very disappointed that we’re even having this conversation to save a little bit of money. To me, the benefits that the community provides, and I wanna thank everyone for being here with us this afternoon, making us listen to you, helping us understand what you do in our community, but I will not be supporting any reduction to any of the funding. I do not think, and as much as I appreciate the counselors that brought this forward, looking for reductions, looking for different ways, it’s innovative, but to me, this is not the way to go forward, so I won’t be supporting it.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I’m gonna look for any other speakers. I noted that Councillor ramen had asked to request to go last, so I still have her as we move through our speakers list here. So I’ve got Mayor Morgan, and then after Mayor Morgan, I will ask Vice Chair ramen to take the chair, and I’ll speak.

So Mayor Morgan, your five minutes, please. Yes, and I don’t do this often, but I may ask for an extension, ‘cause I’m gonna provide some extended comments on this because it’s a very large motion. There’s a lot of things that have been said, and first off, this stems back to the budget process. And so I wanna be clear, because people keep saying things that are not actually true.

So in the legislation, the governor of Ontario has said that the head of council shall, the word is shall, in accordance with the regulations, prepare a proposed budget for the municipality, and provide that proposed budget to council for their consideration. So there is no option here for me to say, council go and do your own budget. If I swore an oath of office to uphold the regulations for actually federally and municipally, then it is my obligation to present a budget to this council. The only way I can actually not do that is to fail, just outright ignore the Ontario laws.

February 1st ticks around, and then council says, well, someone’s got to pass a budget, so the responsibility would fall to council. So it is my intent to follow, as I did in the oath of office, the regulations, which is where this becomes important, because I think we have a lot of debates at this council about things that aren’t actually on the floor. And that’s kind of unfortunate, because it’s very confusing for the public. It’s very confusing for those who report on the meetings.

If you look at what we’re actually talking about, particularly in the parts that councilors have the most contention on, it is that civic administration be directed to bring forward a budget amendment to the 2025 annual budget update for the mayor’s consideration to reflect the following. In other words, all we are doing at this point is deciding whether or not staff will provide some information to me in preparation for the municipal budget process that we will all go through. We’re not making a decision on any sort of grant today. We’re not making a decision on any sort of program today.

We’re simply deciding whether or not this is going to be something that is an option to put into the annual budget update, or an option for council to consider and have the information within a business case provide. And so let me tell you what happens in this case. So should this be approved, that does not necessarily mean it’s exactly what’s going to go into the annual budget update. What it means is there’s information there.

The annual budget update will be tabled. And if I don’t put something in that council isn’t happy with, or they think I put something in that they really don’t want in, the process is there to make amendments to that budget with a majority of council to make changes, put more things in, take more things out. So for me, it’s a very, very awkward situation because people know how I feel about neighborhood decision-making. But I also struck a committee asking colleagues to go and try to find some options for savings.

And so to potentially use my vote today to say I’m not even going to allow a business case to be prepared because if I don’t put it in, councilors would then have the information to override me and put it into the budget or take it out of the budget or whatever they want to do is a very difficult situation to be in because it was talked about in the gallery that I do actually respect democracy quite a bit here. Like this is something that I fundamentally believe in. And what I hear from my colleagues is they actually want some options on the table to debate in the budget process to reduce the tax rate. You might not like these options, but some of them want those options available within the process to make decisions on, whether I put them in the table budget or not.

And so I think the way that I lean on this is that I leaned to err on the side of allowing colleagues to have business cases that allow them to make decisions in the budget process, to allow us to come together on a budget that yes, I have to table that we will all work on together and make amendments to and updates to and to make sure that that information is available for them to make those decisions. So that means yes, we can say we’re cutting a program today or we’re not cutting a program today, but we’re not. Like the answer is we’re not. Getting a business case available to colleagues, including myself in the preparation of the annual budget update, which we will make decisions on later.

And I err on the side of letting colleagues have the information that they want to make those decisions later, which is when they’ll be made, not today. Everything is the same today up until we pass the annual budget update and council approves it. Now on the working group, it has always been the intent of working groups. You worship before you go down this train of thought.

We’re at four minutes and 27 seconds. Did you wanna seek a time extension now? Yes. Okay, so do we have a mover?

Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Pribble. You worship how long were you looking for? Five, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Pribble, you’re okay with moving up to five. Okay, so we’ll ask Clerk to open the vote on that.

I’m hosting the vote motion carries 14 to zero. You worship, so now you have 533. Okay, I greatly appreciate that colleagues. So on the working group, working groups were intended to allow for brainstorming of council colleagues outside of council chambers, where you’re in a less formal setting, where you can have more dialogue, you can bring ideas forward.

And I certainly understand the public’s angst in not having been able to delegate to the working group, but it was never the intent of working groups to every time someone pitched an idea, to have 12 to 15 people wanting to come and say, don’t even talk about it at the working group. Don’t even bring it to SPPC. This is a great spot for delegation. Everybody who delegated today had great thoughts, great input, great points to inform the decision-making at this point.

Now I would say some of those points are probably most relevant in the budget process when we actually make the decision. But you know, good for them to be shared today, but this is a great point at which a working group has done some work. Council colleagues have had the ability to brainstorm, to have some ideas, whether you like them or not, to actually have a place where these things can be discussed rather than winging them out on the council floor in the budget process at the last minute, to bring them forward for all of us to approve whether or not we move forward at this point on, and then go to the next phase in the process. So I think I should probably provide some clarity through some adjustments to the terms of reference to make it very clear, ‘cause I think one of the frustrations that the public probably has is, they’re not sure where to give their input, and we should make that very clear and transparent to them, and colleagues should know that too.

So that’s my vision of the working groups and why they’re different from standing committees and how they’ve always functioned up until this most recent point. Now, so I made some comments on what I would describe as the most disagreed part of the motions today, but I wanna make some comments on the other piece. First off, I appreciate colleagues’ support at the committee on the piece that I boarded on actually providing some ability for boards and commissions to be trained to service review. I think our program here has been fundamentally beneficial to the municipality.

I think we’ve found tons of savings, and I think if we’re going to be true partners with boards and commissions, particularly for those who may not have the funding to train their staff in that way, to have the opportunity for this to move forward in a way where we can actually provide that training to boards and commissions and give them the tools to go and dig into their own budgets in different ways, I think is only a benefit to us taxpayers, those who receive the benefits from the programs and the boards and commissions. The one piece in this that I will be very cautious about, but I don’t mind moving forward at this point, is the direction to consider potential options with respect to the surplus deficit policy. And I will tell you, annually, we meet with Moody’s credit rating agency, and we maintain a AAA credit rating. I can tell you the way that we manage our debt, including the way that we have policies that automatically allow us to manage our debt, is very important to our credit rating.

So be very cautious, very cautious in what adjustments you make to this when it comes forward. It is important for us to have policy tools to drive down or avoid municipal debt if we want to continue to have cheap access to debt as a municipality. So I think a review is always fine, but just be cautious about if you’re going to make substantive changes to these policies that there are other implications and other considerations that we have to make with respect to the financial health of the corporation. With that, I want to thank the committee members for the work that they’ve done.

I think this is not easy work, and there’s lots of ideas on here that I think are from a variety of perspectives. They may not all move forward. They are not all for this year, but they’re things that we can create some runway on and start to consider down the road. And I greatly value the work that the colleagues on the working group have done to brainstorm, bring their ideas forward, move them to this point, and then set forth the path.

The other thing I would say is, as we think about this, I think there’s a workload here for staff that is manageable. We have to be cautious about how much work we pile on our staff to do this background work. There is something truly that we don’t need them to look into now or can look into later. We should think about the time frame on that, and we should listen carefully to them, but I’m happy with the work that the working group has done.

I again echo that caution about, let’s just be very clear about the decision points we’re making at this time, in this moment, and where the actual decision points and actual debate are on some of these things. So I appreciate your extended time today, colleagues, and thanks for letting me share my thoughts. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna turn the chair over to the vice chair.

Thank you, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So I’m gonna try and get through as many things here as quickly as I can. And I’m gonna start with neighborhood decision-making very quickly and why I support reducing the amount for now and focusing it on parks improvements.

And this comes back to, I don’t believe it is our role to backfill the funding shortfalls of other levels of government, and neighborhood decision-making is a great example where we are actually backfilling what is maybe a parallel or maybe a slightly lower level of government in terms of the times of our district school board, for example. A large number of neighborhood decision-making projects that have been approved are about putting things in school yards that the school board won’t pay for. Those are not publicly accessible spaces for the general public. In fact, if you go to many school yards, the parking lot is chained as soon as the school administration leaves at the end of the day, and there are all kinds of no-trust passing signs, no use after school hours signs up on properties.

So without purchase the service agreements or reciprocal agreements with school boards for specific school sites, I don’t believe we should be backfilling the school boards through neighborhood decision-making. I think that our park spaces benefit the most. But even there, I have some concerns about how we are using neighborhood decision-making or how community groups, well-organized ones, are using neighborhood decision-making to leapfrog identified items in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. And I’m going to point to one that was approved in my ward in the last neighborhood decision-making process, which was a water bottle filling station in Kiwanis Park.

Well, staff are working right now on a Kiwanis Park, some amenity improvements that are needed and required, and that would have been considered through that anyway. So the fact that we are now dedicating a neighborhood decision-making fund to that, rather than the Parks and Recreation, the new reserve fund that we have to address this matter is a concern for me. So I think that that is the reason why, for me, I want the participatory part of this to be focused on public spaces, not private or held by other levels of government spaces. There’s been a couple of faith communities receiving the M money by their very nature, respectfully, faith communities exclude a number of other communities, including a community which I’m a part of, the LGBTQ community does not feel welcome at every faith-based community.

So to say that it’s open for people to use is true for some people, but not for all. Now, I wanna move into the community grants ‘cause I know I’m gonna run out of time here. I heard a lot about this is critical work that they’re providing. The Innovation and Capital Grant is not operating dollars.

It is actually requesting them to find new ways to spend our public dollars, to come up with new programs, to expand things that they want to do, not their ongoing day-to-day operations. And if you think that this is aligning perfectly with our strategic plan, if you don’t think that there’s any problems with this program that need to be reviewed, I wanna highlight a couple for you, and I don’t mean any disrespect to the individuals involved, but when we are spending over $40,000 with the YMCA to fund a new gym floor, when we have our own recreation facilities owned by the city of London, or even by our boards and commissions like the library that have capital repairs that need to be funded, but we’re funding the YMCA instead, which has a very powerful fundraising arm, as well as very expensive membership fees. I think that that highlights that there’s a problem with how this program is being administered, and the fact that, and people may take offense to this, but the fact that this is being decided by a secret committee of individuals on a panel, which council never gets access to the names of, let alone the points, the only part of the municipal budget, where there’s no oversight like that, that’s a significant problem for me. I also look at things like, and I know Mr.

Henderson’s here, but with all due respect to the Chamber of Commerce to get $40,000 plus to partner with Noki Quay, the Chamber is a membership driven organization of private business, they can pay for this themselves. So why are we using public dollars to subsidize this? Again, another example from the innovation and side of the things, $67,000 to the South Sudanese youth dance and music program. One time, it doesn’t continue, ‘cause the funding’s done, it’s an innovation grant, from a strategic plan, prioritization level.

That to me is not a priority of this city. I think there’s been some great work done with the grants. I think the Urban Roots Project, for example, has been wonderful. I think some of the multi-year stream grants that reforest London has had, London Abuse Women’s Center have been wonderful as well, but that doesn’t mean everyone is, and that’s why I think we need to reduce the funding in the short term, until we reassess the program.

I am gonna ask for a two minute time extension. Okay, thank you. The deputy mayor has asked for a two minute extension. I see hands up in support.

I’ll take the motion from Councillor Ferreira and Councillor Cuddy, and I’ll look to do a vote in eScribe for that. I can’t see it on my screen as well when I’m chairing. So, okay, that’s great. We’ll open that one, it’s ready.

It’s open. I think the vote motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, Deputy Mayor, I will restart your time for two minutes, go ahead. Thank you.

So, when we talk about fulfilling the city’s strategic plan, there’s a difference between a purchase of service agreement with a not-for-profit, like we have, for example, with the London Arts Council, to do the work that we’re asking them to do, then there is with a grant system where people are just bringing forward ideas and tying them to the strat plan the best they can. So, there is a very clear difference there, and it’s those purchase of service agreements that are driving frontline, not capital and innovation grants. Finally, I want to talk about the fact that people are saying, well, this isn’t much of the budget. Frankly, the London Community Grants Program, the innovation and capital stream, pretty much is equivalent to covering the cost of the rent evictions by-law operationalization.

We hear lots of ideas. We heard it at CAPS this week to expand the dearness home. We heard the rent eviction by-law public participation and the desire for that. Those things come with cost, too.

And there comes a point where you have to decide what is a priority. And for me, frankly, in a budget process, spending $500,000 to support the operationalization of a rent eviction by-law to protect the most vulnerable in terms of rental units is far more valuable to our community than granting programs for a dance program, for a private organization with large membership fees to replace its gym floor or a private business membership driven organization to do an equity outreach piece that they could have hired no key way to do with their own funding. So there are problems with this program. When this review is done, I expect to see transparency that these things, the metrics, the programming, the committees who are reviewing these, if it’s not going to be council itself, are done in a very transparent way, not behind closed doors.

That’s why I’m looking for a report back in the budget process to consider this. Well done, under two minutes. I will hand you back the chair with no one out with Councillor Trostle and Councillor McAllister on speaking of this list. Sorry, I’m just going back to the main motion here for a moment, or the main speakers list.

So Councillor McAllister, I just wanna remind you, you have used some time. Councillor Trostle, you have not, so I’m gonna go to you, Councillor Trostle first, then I’ll go to Councillor McAllister. Thank you very much, Chair, thank you. This has just gotten so complicated with all of the amendments and counter amendments.

I wanna go back to some basics here. And I raised some of these points. I’m not a member of the working group, I attended the working group, and I asked Steph some questions, and I’m not sure that those were on the record ‘cause I don’t think that was being recorded. So if I may ask Steph a question or two about the neighborhood decision-making process and the grants, I would like to start by saying, if we want to asking through the chair, if we want to make a change in terms of what particular proposals can get on the neighborhood ballot, that is something that can be done administratively through the staff, correct?

And that in fact happens. You look at proposals and you say, this doesn’t meet the criteria, it’s not gonna go on the ballot. Is that correct? Ms.

Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, last year prior to the 2023 neighborhood decision-making program, we brought the revised policy after our fairness and equity review of the neighborhood decision-making program to council. So you’re correct, at that time, we provided the changes, the enhancements we were making. We tightened some of the guidelines at the time, so if you wanted to make changes to that program, we would seek council direction to make changes to the program that you had approved in 2023.

Thank you, and I would submit that we could make those changes through what you just said without having to suspend the funding for the program. So I would submit that I’m gonna be voting against this, and there might be some changes that we need with respect to the neighborhood decision-making process, but I think that those can be handled without trying to cut the program. There’s a very positive aspect to this program that brings people into participation. I wanna spend most of my time though, if I haven’t gone through half of it yet, talking about the grants.

I feel that the grants are just so successful, so successful, so essential, and so important to the civic framework in this city. So conducive to what we’re trying to accomplish through the strategic plan, and the suggestion has been made that there’s no accountability. So I wanna go back to the questions that I asked at the committee, and that is number one, could you briefly describe the application and review process, which happens before a proposal is actually given funding. How are these juried, how are they evaluated?

And we’ll go to Ms. Smith, and since you kind of asked Councilor, you have not used half your time yet, you’re at two minutes and 20 seconds. Ms. Smith.

Thank you, and through the chair, in August of 2023, we came back with a revised city of London community grants policy. At that time, we had done an in-depth review. We enhanced the program and changed the program as directed by Council to add a grassroots stream, so that your annual stream now, instead of innovation and capital, is grassroots innovation and capital. At that time, we changed some of, based on the review, changed some of the policies, and of that, a part of that policy is including the evaluation criteria that aligns with our ARA equity tool, aligns with the priorities of the strategic plan, and at the same time, the policy also includes the makeup of the community panel, the decisions they make, the criteria they use, the waiting they use to make them, and it also then helps us align that with the application program and the application that we then have all the potential applicants fill out.

Once and if approved, they are then, that application then forms the basis of their grant agreement, and they report out whether depending on the amount of money, quarterly, biannually, or annually, on outcomes and finances, specifically the finances that the municipality funds them. Okay, thank you, now this grant agreement, this grant agreement goes into more detail about what the expectations and deliverables are, and simply saying, here’s money, go use it, have a great time. I mean, there are requirements in this contract, correct? Ms.

Smith. Thank you, and through the chairs, part of our application process, and when we created the City of Learning Community Grants program, modernizing it back in 2015 and 2016, we created a database of outcomes, expected results and metrics. We refine those and align them with Council’s strategic plan. So actually, there’s not the leeway for organizations to create their own outcomes metrics.

They use those as part of the application process. They are chosen from a list that the municipality, that civic administration have created, and then they report on those. We review them quarterly, bi-annually or annually. We do not fund an allotment, whether that’s a quarter or a bi-annual allotment, until we sign off on those outcomes, and we sign off that they’ve allocated the funds, as they intended to use them that signed in the grant agreement.

That grant agreement template was created and approved by Council several years ago. Thank you, Councillor. My next question is, are there other areas of municipal life here, where we’re constantly having RFPs, we’re asking for proposals to come in, where we’re often entering into consulting agreements with non-staff members to make certain reports to us on a variety of things. How are those evaluated?

If we ask a consultant to do a report, does it necessarily come to City Council, or is that something that is often done internally through staff? Well, actually, I’m gonna go to Ms. Barbone on this. That’s a question with regard to RFPs and budgets.

So, I’m hoping I can answer your question through the chair fairly generally, in terms of our procurement process. If we’re looking for a service, we would put out very clearly what it is that we do, if there’s a need, that would tie to budget, then we would have procurement, and we would go out with that identified need to seek further proposals to deliver that service. I’m not sure if that answers your question in a general capacity or if you had something more specific. Does the City Council, through the chair, does the City Council necessarily get a full detailed report of everything that was done by the contractor?

Ms. Barbone. So, through the chair, with respect to the procurement report. So, we have our annual procurement reports that we report out on all of the procurements that are not approved directly by Council.

So, there’s two appendices that list specifically where, through delegated authority, civic administration has done that. So, anything that requires Council approval will go direct that Council would vote on directly. Any of the other procurements that are greater, in accordance with the policy that require Council approval, so that would be based on the thresholds, would automatically come forward. Anything that is done through a delegated authority, specifically with respect to delegated authority for procurement is then listed in those appendices.

So, Council would see everything that it requires, the lower dollar procurements, those Council would not necessarily see because they are delegated through the policy. And what generally is the cutoff point between what Council would see and what Council would not see? Ms. Barbone.

Thank you, through the chair. So, anything greater than $50,000 as a standard rule is required through an RFP process that would go out. So, those would be, anything below that would fall through the lower dollar procurement up to $15,000, and then there’s some special pieces in between tenders. All of the other pieces is where the delegated authority would come in, there would be larger, and then there’s a consulting piece that up to, at that $100,000 civic administration would be able to do, but we also report that out on the report.

So, the majority of anything larger than $50,000 to $100, is what Council would regularly see. Councillor Trassel. So, I think the point I’ve been trying to make is, there’s nothing unusual about the fact, the fact that the City Council does not actually review each and every one of these applications, and in fact, that’s what we used to do. It took up a lot of Council time, and we decided to go over to another program.

Now, the other point that’s been made is that, these groups are asking for a handout, and that’s been said, it’s been said on the floor of the, well, it’s been said, and I really wanna take issue with that, because I don’t think that any of the nonprofits that we’re dealing with, and you can make comments about the importance of Sudanese dance, or different programs that the Chamber, or other groups may be running, but these programs have all gone through a rigorous jury process, selection process, and they’re all subject to very, very stringent reporting requirements. And I think it’s, I just don’t think it’s fair to characterize the nonprofit sector, especially as we recognize them in the strategic plan, as coming to City Council asking for handouts. They are acting on behalf of residents of the City, who are looking for a hand up, who are looking for their lives being better, who are looking for programs that often fall through the cracks that we cannot produce through the normal budget process. So when I hear the claim being made that the nonprofit sector should not be funded with public dollars, because it’s a— Councilor, if you’re gonna wrap up, you can wrap up, if not, you’re gonna need a time extension, we’re sorry, and I didn’t give you your 30 second notice, but it— I’m gonna ask for two minutes, because there were so many other things on this list.

I wanna say something about snow removal. Okay, both Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble indicated that they would move that. So we’ve got a motion for an additional two minutes. We’ll ask the clerk to open the vote.

Voting the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Councillor Truss, I’m gonna start a new two minute timer for you, go ahead. Okay, I really appreciate the interest that this is generated in the community, but I think it’s also been divisive. And I think the question that this Council should be asking through standing committees and through working groups is how can we improve our processes and to try to make major cuts to what people have come to expect through the budget process mid-way really needs a greater level of justification than what we’ve seen.

So I’m gonna be voting no, which is no surprise because I’ve spoken publicly about this. I just wanna briefly say, I am inclined to, I’m very inclined to want to oppose the extension of alcohol sales for the reasons that we’ve heard from the health unit. And I absolutely am adamantly opposed to mid-budget time, mid-budget without putting this through the budget process, putting the additional burden on residents to clear the snow. I mean, I just think that that is going to create a lot of real bad feelings.

And I also think it’s gonna create some potential liability questions. I won’t say any more about that ‘cause I don’t wanna get dragged into a closed session today. But I just think these are things we need to think about. So in closing, in closing, I am adamantly opposed to what came forward from the working group.

I really think the working group should be more of a working group and have more of a discussion and maybe ask staff questions because I’m thinking back to the meeting and I feel that some of the questions that I ask staff that I also asked today were relevant to the issue that was on the table. And finally, I think we need to show more regard and more respect for our volunteers and for the people who are in the nonprofit sector ‘cause they are such an important part of our civic framework. So Councillor, you’re at your time. Perfect.

Councillor McAllister, according to my main motion speaker’s list, you had previously used up 220. So you’ve got about 240 left, go ahead. Okay, and thank you through the chair. Before I get into my comments, I just want to have a few other items pulled as Councillor Ferrett indicated on C.

I’d like to vote on CII separately, IV, VI. Oh, sorry, Councillor, can you repeat those please? Okay, so this is CII, which is the one about municipal Gulf, the IV, which is sale of alcohol, and VI, which is the surplus deficit policy. At this point, most of C is pulled.

I think that is now going to be most of C. And again, just before I go back to you, Councillor, I think I just want to take the opportunity to underline again what the mayor said before. This is not about budget decisions that we are making today. This is reports back for consideration in the budget process.

Councillor McAllister, I did not count your request for a poll against your time at all. If you’d like to go ahead with your comments. Thank you, and to be honest, I think the polling of these kind of speaks to the closing comments I wanted to make. I think in terms of what the mayor said for this working group, I just, I didn’t really agree with it from the beginning.

The more I see it operating, not particularly a fan, I applaud the Councillors for doing this work, but I personally, and to Councillor Troso’s point, I think it’s going to create a lot of division. I think we have a budget process, we have an annual update process. I don’t love through the strong mayor powers, what we have to deal with now. I think it creates a lot of confusion in the community, and I think that’s why you saw the pushback.

In my responses to the community, I did try to do my best to inform them as to how the process does go forward in terms of all of these things would go before the mayor, the mayor makes a decision. But the issue with that is as items come up, and yes, the public’s not necessarily aware of the process, but these are clearly nerves in the community that have been struck. People want at the time when things come up to be able to speak to their representatives as to how they feel, and that’s what I’m trying to do in terms of what we’re talking about today. I’m trying to convey to my residents where I stand on things, and because we have these items coming before us, yes, they get referred to the end of the year.

People want to know where we stand on these things, and that’s what I’m trying to do through this process is express where I stand, and I will be doing that with these votes. I understand that some counselors want these things and the information, but I think it’s gonna create a lot more work, I think it’s gonna create division in the community, and personally, I think we need to look at this working group, and whether it needs to be a thing to be perfectly honest, I think we really need to consider maybe even moving this closer to the annual update, because I just think we’re gonna keep coming back to this, I think anything that gets referred from this group, we’re gonna end up exactly where we are today, and have these kind of discussions, and I don’t think it’s gonna serve us in the long run. I think there’s a time and a place to have these buzzed discussions, and we’re creating more problems, and I think they’re worth right now. Thank you, counselor.

I have no one else on the speakers list, but we now have a number of votes to get through. I have counselor Frank back on the list. Councilor Frank, you used three minutes and 16 seconds previously, so you’ve got a little under two minutes left. Perfect, thank you, I’ll take less than that.

I just wanted to indicate, I will be voting against the IV, so licensing sale in city facilities, given the information provided by the health unit, as well as the elimination of snow planning on sidewalks, given the issues that Councilor Trosso highlights, he’ll be voting against both of those, and I also just wanted to point out that the Chamber didn’t actually receive any capital or innovation grant funding. They actually were helping out of their own pockets as a pro boner advisor to Noki Kwe, and they found the funding from Libro Credit Union to assist with the program with Noki Kwe, so they didn’t get any money, they didn’t use any city money for that. I just wanted to make sure that was highlighted for the record. Thank you, counselor.

So my speakers list is exhausted. I’m gonna check with the counselors who are online. Councilor Raman has asked as the mover to speak last, so I’m gonna respect that. Once we go to Councilor Raman, I’m gonna end the speakers list and call the vote.

So Councilor Preble, you are next. Thank you. I will completely support the motion that’s in front of us. And the reason why I’m going, by the way, thank you everyone who showed up, and thank you for all the work that you’ve been doing, and it has nothing to do in your respect of reflecting the work that has been done by our nonprofits, and they do alleviate certain pressures and work for our community.

The reason why I’m gonna do it is that I think that we need to, and if I were to use that word culture, there might be too strong, but our really vision, drive for success for half a million of Londoners. If I look at the three top things that are being spoken to, certainly by my constituents, it’s safety security, it’s homelessness, and it’s affordability. We are right now 8.7 this year with 8.7 next year. We have 64% of our income comes from appropriate taxes.

8% comes from other revenues. All of us in this building, in our community, have to leverage to the maximums. I’m gonna tell you two examples that happened recently. LTC three day, we were gonna do it from the reserve fund.

We found a partner to do it. Our own program, Songlines, City of London, was supposed to be 100% funded by the city. We found a partner of it. And we really have to start being more driven to the bottom line, maximize our revenues, and control our expenses.

I really don’t want to divide our community. I don’t believe it will, because guess what? We are delivering the best possible results for half a million of Londoners. Currently, we have people who are, and again, I’m going to kind of the homeless side.

I’m talking about elderly, who are struggling to stay in their homes that they worked all their life very hard for. And they are forced, not because of their reasons medical that they can take care of their homes. They are, because 8.7% this year, and right now, on the books, 8.7 next year. I can see how 8.7 is sustainable for next year.

I hope we will decrease it. Currently, yes, we have this in front of us. But I told you, yes, the ones that you are up here, I hope, honestly, I hope you are the last ones that the other ones will understand it. But I hope this is not the last one that’s in front of us.

We really have to start looking at, even though these are small numbers, and I heard it before earlier today, that these numbers don’t come, or they are going to be a huge savings to our budget. But you are, we have to start somewhere. And yes, it was, it’s starting with this. I truly hope there will be other ones.

And in addition, we do have additional expenses that we will have to the three topics, which already mentioned, which is the homelessness safety security and affordability. And I believe that there will be certain decisions that we might have to make that actually is going to cost us more than that. Surplus deficit policy, I do want to change it. I want to change it to that it’s not what was done by the previous council.

We very well might be, after the advice we get from our staff, we might be agreeing to it, and we are going to go with it. But I want us to make the decision. We are the new council. I don’t want us to say, oh, it was a decision of the previous council.

So that’s why I want us to be in our hands. Every year is different. And it’s not that we are going to make the decision out of having sufficient information, but we do need that. But as I said, one thing is, and I certainly hope the decisions we make here is not going to divide half a million of Londoners, because that’s not what the purpose is about.

We got to look what are the priorities of the Londoners that voted for us strategically. And yes, now we are in very difficult times. Affordability, homelessness, it’s huge issues. There are huge issues.

I’ll be, if we were in a different situation, I’ll be the first one to put up, let’s spend more money for this, because it’s going to bring additional values and awards to our community. We are not in that situation. We really are not, therefore, and the other points that are in there— 20 seconds, Councillor. The other points that are listed there, again, it is for us to come back and get additional information.

Additional information, so we make it, we can make the best possible decision for half a million of Londoners. I’ll finish what I started with. Whatever is in front of us, I will, even if it’s separated, I will support all of it, because it is in the best interest and high priorities of the community. Thank you.

Hey, I am looking for any further speakers before I go to Councillor ramen and close the speakers list. I’m going to check online. I don’t see anyone online wishing to speak to this, so Councillor ramen, would you like to wrap up this debate before we go to votes? Yes, and thank you for the opportunity to do so, and thank you for my colleagues for their patience so that I can speak at the end.

I wanted to hear the fulsome debate on this item before providing my comments. First, I wanted to say that when this committee was first formed, I put my hand up and I said I wanted to be a part of it, and I said I wanted to play leadership role in this committee. And the reason was, because as I read the terms of reference, and I saw that we were talking about enhancing efficiencies and effectiveness and service, and I saw that there was the discussion around potential divester opportunities that I knew that we would be having very difficult discussions as a group of members of council in a committee in a working group that had the opportunity to be idea-generative, but also to exclude things that perhaps aren’t possible or would take perhaps too much time to review or have other considerations to them. So, I do think that the process of a working group, it’s important that we understand it, that we understand it as we move forward, and so any clarity that can be added to the terms of reference, I think would be helpful to be able to help the community to better understand what we’re doing, but also to help us guide our work, because none of us want to be sitting in that committee, and I know we’ve already spent, I think, five hours in total so far in that working group with more to come, none of us want to be sitting there, if at the end of the day, those decisions that we’re making are not going to be part of the budget discussions.

So, I want to be clear about my intention, if the majority of council decides to support something that has come out of that working group, and it’s not in the mayor’s budget, I will be bringing in as an amendment, and if that’s the extra step that has to be taken, I’m not sure why we’re in a working group, ‘cause at that point, I should just be giving my suggestions to the mayor, and the mayor should be deciding, why am I spending five hours in a committee, if at the end of the day, everything that we’re deciding here is then going to go back again for another turn or decision. So, I do think we need to have further conversation about that, because that’s not where I would like to see my time spent. If I’m going to give my time and other members of the committee are going to be here giving our time, I would like clarity from the mayor that those items are going to go directly into the budget discussion, instead of having to be brought forward as an amendment. So, I will go to, I don’t know if you want me to ask that as a question, or if you want to have that for another discussion later on.

Well, you did ask it of the mayor. So, I will pause, and I will allow the mayor an opportunity to respond. Now, if he wishes to do so, that’s up to him. Sure, so, I’ll table the budget.

The advantage of having council ask for business cases, and why I will support getting a business case today, is that if council doesn’t like what I put in the budget, they have that business case to make changes to it. So, I’m not going to presume one way or the other, what’s actually going to land in the budget. I engage with staff, I engage with residents, I listen to members of council, they have their meetings, they forward that information on to me, working groups do information, there’s lots of inputs into it, but ultimately at the end of the day, the budget is determined by both what is tabled, and the amendments made, of which, if colleagues recall last time, I vetoed none of them, because we worked on it together. Councilor Roman.

Thank you, and I appreciate that answer, and I understand that, ultimately, in the last budget, there wasn’t, that you didn’t use a veto, but the fact that that’s still a possibility, I think is the challenge for me, and I, you know, with the amount of time and effort we’re putting into these conversations as members of council, the amount of emotional labor that our nonprofit sector has put into these discussions today, the amount of follow through that the community has to do in these discussions, I do think for us to rehash it again, because it didn’t come into the budget through the mayor’s budget, but is coming through an amendment, I think needs to be fleshed out further, and I know this is all new to us, and I’m not criticizing the mayor for his decision making on this, I’m saying I just would like more clarity personally, but to the motion itself, I do think that the point of this committee was again to establish those clear performance metrics and those evaluation criteria’s in the programs that we have access to, so when I saw this motion come forward from, or sorry, this idea come forward from councilors, I did take a deeper look into the program myself just to get a better understanding of it, and I do think that there is an evaluation that is needed here, and that is what I’ve heard quite consistently from those around the room so far, is that evaluation is needed for our neighborhood decision making and for this stream of the grants program. So my intention here with the letter, and thank you to Deputy Mayor Lewis for his signature and discussion on this, was to maintain some funding while that evaluation is being done, but again, take it off the tax levy, so that’s what’s in front of us today. I understand the concerns of the nonprofit sector, I’m very appreciative for the dialogue that has happened. At this point, I’m trying to strike a balance with some of the perhaps other funding that may come through the Community Investment Reserve Fund, and ensuring that we have access to that fund for other things.

There are a number of competing priorities, there are a number of things that may come to us, and I want to ensure that we have the capacity and ability to fund those as well. So this is an opportunity, in my opinion, to do both things, to be able to take it off the tax levy, but continue with some funding, and also to have money available, should we need it for other things within the Community Investment Reserve Fund. And I’ll hold on that. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councillor Roman, and that was three seconds left, so your timing was perfect there. So we’ve had a number of requests to pull things apart. I want to just colleagues, please refresh your e-scribe if you haven’t done so in a little while. The order that we will be voting on things in order to respect everything that has been pulled apart is we will start with motion number three in e-scribe, then motion four, then we will move to motion nine, and all of the subsequent motions after that nine through 16.

So that’s the order of voting to address everybody’s desire to have these pulled apart appropriately. So we’re gonna have quite a number of votes here. I will give you not necessarily the exact language. I will highlight the motion number and the high level description of it as the vote is being opened.

So let’s start with the first vote, and if there’s questions along the way, process-wise, or if you’re not sure what we’re voting on, please let me know, and we’ll pause to answer that for you, but we’re gonna start with motion number three. This is part AIA, and this is with respect to the London Community Grants and the Budget Business Case to reduce the Community Grants to 250,000 and fund it through the Community Investment Reserve instead of through the tax base. So that is vote number one, which is number three in e-scribe, and I’m gonna ask the clerk to open vote number three in e-scribe now. Using the vote, the motion passes nine to five.

Okay, now we’re gonna move on to motion number four in e-scribe. That is part B of the main motion. That is the motion in respect to the neighborhood decision-making program and the reduction to 125,000 for the remainder of the multi-year budget cycle there. And so that’s what we’re voting on here in motion number four.

And I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on motion four now. Using the vote, the motion fails seven on a tie, seven to seven. Okay, moving on to motion number nine. This is a more comprehensive.

I voted incorrectly on that one. Can I call for a re-vote? Yes, you can. So we have a request to re-open the vote on motion four so that Councillor Stevenson can reflect her vote properly.

We do need a motion for that. So I’ll look for a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. I apologize. Sorry, Councillor Stevenson.

Sorry, I’m in error both ways. I’m right the way I voted. So I’ll just leave it. Okay, so that’s fine the way it is.

Motion three, the third motion we’re voting on is motion number nine in e-scribe. This one’s a little bit longer ‘cause it’s got a few parts that didn’t need to be pulled apart. That is the review of the community grants and neighborhood decision-making. It is also the receipt of the delegation requests and it is the direction to civic administration with regard to KPMG and the service review for the city’s boards, agencies and commissions with the cost funded from the triple E reserve.

So I’ll ask the clerk to open that vote now. Voting the vote in the motion carries 11 to three. Our next vote is motion 10 in e-scribe. That is part C-I of the overall motion, which is the direction to report back with respect to the London Police Services Reserve Fund and opportunities to consider potential changes to the associated bylaw with that.

We’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Voting the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, the next motion is motion 11 in e-scribe. That is the direction to report back on potential partnerships for municipal golf.

Last clerk to open the vote on that now. Voting the vote, the motion carries 11 to three. Our next vote is motion 12. This is the component of the main motion that was with respect to naming rates of municipal venues.

And we will ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Voting the vote, the motion carries 13 to one. Our next vote is motion 13 in e-scribe. This is the work plan direction to report back on the potential to license city facilities for the sale of alcohol as a revenue stream, including a list of potential facilities.

And I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Voting the vote, the motion carries nine to five. Our next vote is motion 14. This is the clause from the main motion that direct civic administration to report back on the potential to eliminate snow plowing on residential class streets and passing a bylaw requiring property owners to clear the sidewalk along their property.

And I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Voting the vote, the motion fails six to eight. Motion 15 is our next vote. This is the direction to report back with potential options for council’s consideration on the surplus deficit policy.

I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that now. Sir Stevenson, vote yes. Voting the vote, the motion carries 11 to three. And the next motion is the last motion on this agenda item.

This is motion 16. And that is the balance of the motion be approved. And it is the clause with receipt from of the delegations today, as well as the communications. And I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that now.

Sir Frank, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero. Thank you colleagues. That concludes item 4.2 under items for direction.

We have two items left for direction, 4.3, which is the second report of the strategic opportunities review working group. And the single source award for year round arcade mission strategy. And then 4.5 requests from Councilor Hopkins with regard to working group meetings. So we have three items left on our agenda.

Councilor Ferrera. Thank you chair. I recognize that we have some people in the gallery waiting for this, but I did want to know if we could take 10 to 15 minute recess. I would move 15, 15 minutes.

Okay, so we have a mover in Councilor Ferrera and a seconder in Councilor Trussell for a 15 minute recess. We will ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to zero.

Thank you colleagues. It’s 4.4.5. We will resume promptly at 5 p.m. Please be back to the folks in the gallery.

I know you’re waiting. Most of you I think are here for the arcade item. We will get to that when we return. We have been in our seats for about four hours now.

So we’re going to just take a quick break so that people can visit the restroom, grab a quick drink and return so we can resume debate. Councillors who are online, can you just turn on your cameras and confirm you’re still with us please? We’re about to resume. I see Councillors Van Mirbergen and Palosa.

Mr. Chair, I just need to take my leave. I got some insurance issues going on for the flood. Okay, Councillor Palosa.

We wish you the luck of getting that done, hopefully as painlessly as possible. I know you supported me through the fire. So I support you through the flood in terms of getting through this. I hope your process is smoother than mine.

It doesn’t seem to be, but thank you. So we do have quorum and we are going to resume our meeting. It is actually 502. So the rest of council will join us as they return.

Our next item on the agenda is 4.3. This is the second report of the strategic opportunities and review working group coming out of the meeting from earlier this week. This was put on the agenda. Everyone has that in their E-Scribe.

Councillor ramen. Thanks, I’ll look to move it. Okay, that’s been moved. Do we have a seconder for that?

Councillor Pribble and we’ll look for any discussion. Yes, this is to receive. While we are approving the actions from the group and just in brief, I’m sorry now, I’ve got the wrong item up in E-Scribe. So we are looking at the proposals that Councillor Frank had shared with respect to the potential for the city having its own tree nursery as well as the local district energy system and that London Hydro that this be referred to London Hydro for their review and feedback and come back to the strategic opportunities working group at a future meeting.

Clerk’s just have to fix a technical matter with respect to what’s in E-Scribe. Councillor Frank, I’m going to go to you for comments. Well, that’s being worked on. Thank you, yes, this is kind of further to that, I assume.

So the annual work plan included a bunch of things that we just voted on the previous one, including the snow removal staff, which we did not choose to pursue. So I’m just wondering how we’d work that out in this voting round. That’s what the clerks are sorting out right now. That was very quick.

I thought you were going to talk to us about the tree nursery project, but if you’d like to use up some time while the clerks get that worked out. I don’t wanna jinx it. Fair enough. So just so colleagues are clear and the clerks fixing this in E-Scribe now, at the second Strategic Opportunities Review Working Group, there was a change in a reporting timeline for the sidewalk snow plowing, but that was defeated in our previous item.

So that’s simply gonna be removed because there’s no longer a report back at all. The pieces that we do need to still receive will be the communication from the London Middlesex Health Unit. And the clerk has advised that the annual work plan as amended be received should still be in there, but it reflects, it will reflect the changes that were just made in the previous vote. And so the clerk will just fix the amended work plan and will reflect the votes we just heard.

So looking for any discussion on the second report. Sir Trussa. I’m sorry, I’m so confused because we did some of these things before. Would this be the time to debate the alcohol sales or has that already been done?

No, that’s been done. All we’re doing here is receiving the communication from the health unit on it. But we, so we dealt with that in 4.1, or sorry, 4.2, now we’re into 4.3. It’s still reflected because it’s in the work plan, but it’s the vote has been passed.

Thank you. Okay, so I’m seeing no speakers to this. So we will get the clerk to open the vote. Councillor Ferrera, closing the vote.

Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you colleagues. Moving on item 4.4 is the next item on our agenda. And this is the single source award for year round arcade mission strategy.

Before we get started, I will go to you in just a moment, Councillor Stevenson. I’ll just, I’m gonna advise the public and members of the committee on how we’re gonna move forward with this. Similar to the last item, sorry, the second last item, Councillor Stevenson advised me prior to the committee meeting that she has an alternate motion that she’d like to put on the floor, because we wanna have a motion to frame the discussion. I’m gonna go to Councillor Stevenson to move her alternate motion.

That way, we will then open up the public delegations. That way the delegates know that there are actually, there’s an alternate or the original staff recommendation, and that will allow them an opportunity to comment on both the potential alternative or the staff recommendation that’s in the report. And I think that’s just in the interest of fairness to the delegates, that way they get an opportunity to comment on both. So I will go now to Councillor Stevenson to introduce her alternate motion.

Then we will receive the delegates. Then we can debate both the alternate motion, and if that passes, then that will dispense with the item, and if it doesn’t, then we would return to the main motion, but it does provide two options for comment from our delegates. Councillor Stevenson. Perfect, thank you.

So I would like to put forward this alternate motion, and it is very similar to the one that we passed in May for a two month extension that passed 15 to zero. It says that the civic administration be directed to extend one time funding in the amount of 687,000 to Arc Aid Street Mission Inc. For an additional 61 days until September 30th, 2024, to be funded through the Community Investment Reserve Fund, and for staff to engage with the OE-VBIA, local residents and Arc Aid Street Mission Inc. to review the year-round stable response services proposal.

And so the reason I’m bringing this forward is to give an opportunity now that we understand that this longer term proposal is going to be on the main street of the BIAA. There’s an opportunity to tap into what the needs are of the BIAA, and some of the local residents who’ve been there for decades, who have been through a lot, and who have a lot to add, who could help improve this proposal in a way that it serves everybody. I think there’s a way forward where we don’t, we can, we’re able to help people without hurting some of the local residents who live there. So this, I believe, is a really great opportunity.

And I just wanted to meet a couple of sentences from an email I got from one of these longtime residents. So, Councillor, first we need to have a seconder, and then I’d ask you to hold your rationale and your comments until after we’ve reached, just as we did with the prior item, to hold those comments until we get the delegates speaking first, and then share those rationales with us after we’ve heard from the delegates. Okay, may I just say that in my, in that, the intention of this motion is not for a public engagement session, but to have a small working group to work to solutions proactively. Okay, and I understand Councillor Layman had said he would second, and Councillor Layman, I’m just confirming that’s still the case.

Yes, okay, so you did provide language, so that is available in eScribe and staff have it as well, I believe, and that is motion three in eScribe, so that has been moved and seconded and is on the floor. Now that we have both an alternate and a staff recommended motion, I’m gonna look for a motion to approve the delegation request that we had, and those are from Ms. Campbell from Arcade Street Mission, as well as from Mr. Morrison, the general manager, old East Village BIA, moved by Councillor Stevenson and seconded by Councillor Cuddy, and we’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that.

Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you, colleagues. So we’re gonna start the delegations now. I know both Ms.

Campbell and Mr. Morrison are with us, so Ms. Campbell, if you would like to, by all means, come to the microphone, and you, I know you’ve been through this before, I know you have five minutes, we have your delegation list, I will try not to interrupt your train of thought, but give you a wave, and if I don’t catch your eye, I’ll let you know that you’ve got about 30 seconds left when that time comes. Thank you.

And you can start when you’re ready. Well, thank you, and I’m very pleased to be with you this evening to talk about this proposal that’s in front of you and the recommendation of civic administration. First of all, this was the direction of council when we did the winter response originally in 2023-24, that we not have short-term responses, that we look to year-round planning. We have done that work, and thank you for directing it back to civic administration, I think that we’ve landed on something that can very much support the community.

I also wanna say thank you to so many supporters that sent in communications, and we have with us some people in the gallery. I think I wanna recognize community partners, such as CMHA, St. Joe’s, our staff, management team, our board of directors, community members who are invested in the programs and services and are part of the co-design of those programs and services. And my parents, I’m really pleased that they’re here, they live part-time in Belgium, and it’s very nice that they’re here as well.

There’s also many joining us online, and I just wanna speak to the importance of community and support. That’s really what this is all about in the end anyway. You have the facts in front of you, you’ve seen the proposal, you know what the options are. What I wanna talk about is the fact that we need to be consistent in our approach, and think about what is the impact of the work we do.

This proposal is meant to expand the capacity in our community from what has been historically about 300 shelter beds. This addition is a representation of almost 25% more indoor resting space for people experiencing homelessness against a backdrop of an increase of 10 times the number of people who are experiencing homelessness in our community. It’s also about increasing the capacity in our sector around trained staff and people having permanent jobs where they can go to work, expect that paycheck, get their benefits, and have stabilized lives themselves. It’s about diversity and diversion from emergency services and much higher cost services and bringing people in.

It’s about having the capacity to care from more Londoners and show community support. It’s also about compassion. The people who are seeing on the streets of London are changing, and I think that the metrics will show this as the data comes in across the whole of community. Most recently, just this past week, we had a young woman who was 20 years old that had been trafficked.

She didn’t have a cell phone, had a diagnosis of autism. Within 48 hours, she was at the front doors of Arcade Street Mission because that is the open door in our community. That’s the door people know to go to. And so she was there, and our staff intercepted and was able to reunite her with family within 48 hours.

This is important work, and it’s not just about chronic homelessness or just about those who are regularly outside or just about the people who have medical needs. It’s a wide variety of people, and we need open doors and open services. We can try to find people and connect them out in encampments. We can try and find them other places, but if there isn’t a place to bring people to, provide those basic needs, and actually offer the service.

It’s not just a referral, it’s actually come and stay. We will be with you till we find the solution together. That’s an important differentiation from saying it’s a shelter bed. It’s a place you can go and that’s the end of the story.

No, it’s more than that. It’s an ongoing rotational door. If it’s not successful today, try again tomorrow. If you’re not in a place to connect today, let’s do it again tomorrow.

This is really, really important. There aren’t these kinds of opportunities for people. And one of the saddest things is if we don’t have this service continuously, or when we find ourselves closing our doors, which we do from time to time, you know, if change over in the morning and at night, there’s no order for people to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. When we close, it’s closed.

The service is closed in London, Ontario. And so we’re here, so pleased to support our colleagues and friends who do similar work in different ways, meeting needs together to build the capacity in our community, because at the end of the day, it actually is about community. It’s about neighborhoods and human beings finding their way to home. I’m so pleased to share that we’ve been able to connect about 10 people per month to home through these services.

And I hope that through this proposal, you can see that the stabilized services will deliver the things that I’ve talked about today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

Our next delegate on this item is Mr. Morrison from the Old East Village BIA. Welcome back, Mr. Morrison.

I know you’re not a stranger to presenting in front of us either. So the same as I indicated to Ms. Campbell, should you be approaching your five minutes? I will give you a wave to let you know if I don’t think I’ve caught your eye, then I will give you a verbal indication as well, but you have five minutes when you’re ready to start.

Great, thank you. And I appreciate the opportunity to present in front of you today. I do have to let you know that Sarah and I kind of started our day at 6.30 this morning with a great conversation. And Sarah and I have many conversations and I really appreciate the relationship and rapport that we are developing.

Good afternoon, and as most of you know, my name is Kevin Morrison and I’m the general manager for the Old East Village Business Improvement Area, also known as the BIA. The Old East Village Business District is where business and property owners collaborate to improve, promote, and develop our commercial district. And our advocacy benefits include increased foot traffic, enhanced property values, improved safety and cleanliness, and a stronger sense of community. Our BIA plays a crucial role in revitalizing and sustaining a vibrant commercial district in the city of London.

Municipal councils across Ontario assist us with essential leadership and a commitment to those very districts, including this council. Last week, I invited each council member to visit with me on a one-on-one basis. And I want to thank those that have already confirmed that and those that have visited with me, and those that will be doing so in the next couple of weeks. To those of you that haven’t reached out yet, I do look forward to hearing from you.

With the limited time that we have here today, it would be impossible for me to cover all the successes and the progress that we’re doing in the Old East Village, however, in order to be more than willing to share that at another time. We have many positive developments in the Old East Village, but we also face daily struggles, especially with the crisis on the streets of our neighbourhood. And before you today is a staff recommendation and for an additional $1.8 million in funding, short-term funding, and then followed by an annual funding of $4.3 million for continued services by Arcade. And as a general manager, as I’ve mentioned of the BIA, we continue to develop an ongoing working relationship with Sarah Campbell and the Arcade Mission.

And Arcade now understands a lot of our struggles as we continue to learn and begin to understand a lot of their many struggles as well. Many of our BIA members, in fact, you should know, along with numerous Old East Village residents, support their services through donations and gifts in kind, we only wish sometimes or many times that the services Arcade and other social agencies provide were not on the main corridor of a business district. For us to conquer the current situation on our streets in Old East Village, we all need to come together, work together, and remove the silos that inhibit our potential successes. Our biggest frustrations as a BIA is a continuous roadblocks and obstacles in revitalizing our business district, including many of the departments right here in the city of London.

I do want to thank your new administrator, Sandra, for the time that she takes out of her busy schedule to meet with us, and I really do appreciate your efforts, and I look forward to positive changes ahead. Many of our businesses feel ignored and neglected by the city, and especially regarding the services and funding provided elsewhere with a perception that little support for those who contribute significantly to the community are being recognized. Council did grant our BIA $500,000 at the end of last year to provide direct support to our business and property owners, and this contribution was actually very much appreciated. However, this funding you need to note is not or was not intended to cover the daily expenses of cleaning up human excretement and feces within our district.

Our budget now sits at $55,000 this year for that service alone, and you should know that at our expense, our clean crew is cleaning up city property because your staff will not clean biohazard materials. Banting House is a national historic site, and the first impression that visitors have when parking at the municipal parking lot number two is not flattering. The recent implementation of the encampment strategy has known as shown some results, but we continue to be concerned about the gaps. Coordinated response bylaw officers of foot patrol are not available around the clock, and nights and weekends are challenging with street activity in Old East Village.

Violence, crime, and drug trafficking continue to escalate in our area, and enforcement appears to be nonexistent at many times. Our courts are so backlog, we’re told that prosecutors refuse to prosecute, and we share those frustrations with our local law enforcement. I’ve come to learn just the last couple of days that apparently the London police foot patrol has downsized their manpower hours. And at a time that we’re experiencing right now, we just don’t know how things are going to move forward in a positive fashion.

And Sarah and I have talked about this as well. The staff report today also says that it aligns to the city of London’s strategic plan, and yet our Old East Village questions whether we are a safe, vibrant, healthy neighborhood with safe access to public spaces, services, and supports. Art aid is a much needed service. Mr.

Morrison? - Yes. Sorry, I thought I caught your eye. I realize I did not, so, oh, I did.

If we can just get you to wrap up quickly. Oh, I will. I’ve just got like one deep breath to go. (laughing) Maybe one shallow breath.

(laughing) Thank you. Art aid is a much needed service, but we also need a comprehensive approach to improve mental health and addiction services, social supports and policies addressing root causes. We must work together. I mean, we, I mean all of us work together and become vocal with other levels of government to share this responsibility.

And again, I thank you and my breath is out. Thank you, Mr. Morrison. We appreciate both delegates coming to speak to us today.

Just before we get into debate on the motion that’s on the floor, I will remind colleagues that because this is not quite the same as the last motion in that this is with regard to a sole source, potential sole source service provision that we are engaging from the municipality. This is a result of a previous direction from Council on an earlier submission back in May. So if Councilors need to ask questions that are directed at the service provider, as opposed to our staff, Ms. Campbell is available and we will allow her to respond to those questions.

But we do have Mr. Dickens and Mr. Cooper here to respond to questions from a staff perspective as well. So just want to be clear with people where they can direct their questions.

And I will start, so Councilor Stevenson, I’ve started a speakers list. I’ve got yourself and Councilor Layman to start. So I know you wanted to provide some rationale. I just wanted to see if you want to go now or if you want to let some other speak first or if you’re prepared to jump in on your amendment or your call to motion.

I’m prepared to just jump in with the rationale and then I’ll save my time for later. But I did want to share a few sentences from an email that I got from a resident who, as I said, there’s many who’ve lived there for decades who have a lot of experience with social services and the impact in the area that I think would be really valuable at the table because what has happened so far is we went and said, hey, our kids doing great work, have them talk to staff and come back with a more fulsome strategy and they have but all these village BIA and the residents were not part of that process. So I’m looking to do a two month extension to get their input into it to ensure that it really is a whole of community proposal that comes out of this. So he said, we have to stop pretending that the only interest on our neighborhood main street that is worthy of consideration by council is that of the service providers and that the interests of business operators and local residents looking to access the main street for shopping or culture or walking is always and necessarily subservient.

I’m confident that there is a way forward, a way that could provide a blueprint for how to protect the interests of everyone accessing the public realm across the city but it won’t happen without open and honest communication and this communication won’t happen without the city getting the neighborhoods and the service providers to sit across from one other, acknowledge the challenges and opportunities that exist on both sides of the table and at least attempt to come up with some solutions and I know the oldest village BIA and the Arc have been working over the last few months on some things and there’s some things that still need to be worked through that I would like to see them come together. So what I envision is seeing a very small working group of Kevin and Sarah and a couple of local residents to really address some of the issues proactively so that this more long-term proposal is something that we show that can work for everybody and not be helping some of the expense of others. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Layman, I have you next. Thank you, Chair.

As was mentioned by Ms. Campbell, homelessness is a very serious issue in our city. Everyone around in this room is aware of that and I’ve been aware of it for many years. The way the city decided to address this very complex issue was to bring in the community of the whole 25 plus organizations and groups to sit down and come up with a plan that everyone could agree to on how we, how London is going to address the situation that we’re in and I was proud of that.

That good work that was done by staff and all those organizations that were involved to come up with a very unique situation or solution, potential solution that was a London zone and that I thought could be replicated in other communities. That was a year and a half, I think, of many, many consultations and agreements and found a solution and we are fortunate enough to find a benefactor to support 25 million which has been leveraged, I believe, many millions more and that was a direction that we were going to go down. A very well thought out plan silos was mentioned from our speakers and no silos. That’s consider all aspects of that different groups bring to find a solution and I particularly liked it because it dealt with very high acuity in individuals that are suffering from mental health and addiction.

To get them the supports that they need to get the triage of situation they’re in and then find a way to move along in the housing solution. Arcade does good work, I’m not saying this is a bad idea but it’s a swerve in the road for me. This came about because we had a winter response that morphed into, well, let’s extend it to May and let’s extend it to now and now we’re being asked to extend it to December 31st and a couple of years of extension on that at a considerable cost of four plus million dollars. I think what Councillor Stevenson’s motion provides and this is why I’m supporting it.

It provides a couple of months to look at this change of direction. I’ll have time to chat with staff and say, is this the way we are going now from the hubs? Where are we in the hubs movement? Let’s talk about that.

It also gives us time to find out how are we gonna fund this ‘cause I don’t wanna see us come against the December 31st time period and go, well, guess what? We were hoping some funding from other sources and that’s not arriving. So we’re gonna vote on that or we’re gonna shut the doors in December 31st in the middle of winter. We can’t get there.

I need some of these answers before we get to that point. I think delaying it and funding the operation until October gives all of us time to delve into it a bit more both in a strategic level and both on a funding level. So that’s why I’m gonna be, that’s why I seconded the motion and we’ll be supporting it. Thank you, Councillor Layman.

I have Councillor Ferreira next on the speaker’s list. Thank you, Chair. So I guess to the motion itself like as Councillor Layman has pointed out, we’ve heard, I guess, we need to build the capacity in the community. We need to be coordinated while we do that and we need to be consistent in that approach, things that I’ve heard and that coordination to remove silos needs to be consistent with the work that we’re doing as well.

So I do see that we, for like within the health and homelessness summits, we do have the business reference table that has the BIA’s on that. So there is that coordination piece already from how I see it. I’m worried about the potential of losing coordination if we start bringing in, I guess, consultation with the old East Village BIA when we already have coordination with the Health and Homelessness Summits. So I just wanted to, I guess, speaking on the amendment itself, I do see the coordination already that is already occurring right now.

So I guess maybe I’ll just go to staff and just ask. At what point was the Health and Homelessness discussions involved in this with respect to coordination? Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Chair. This proposal was received by members of council. This is where the genesis of this came from. And it led to the motion to extend the services for a 60 day period.

And then staff were directed to go and work with the ARC to refine that proposal that was received, do some right sizing and come back to council. And that is what we’ve done. Elements of this proposal and the appendix that’s been attached, while it has gone to the strategy and accountability table, it’s done so briefly. And it is, there are elements of this that would be connected into other partnerships with other community partners.

As the appendix indicates, the proposal looks at how it can align eventually to the hub system. How do we get to that hub model? It looks at partnerships with healthcare to take what is available now, make it work and continue to dive into the work to align with all the values and principles and the vision of hubs and highly supportive housing down the road. So the strategy and accountability table has received the first version of that concept with the ARC and their healthcare partner.

This piece here preempted that and came to council before it came to strategy and accountability table. What we’re doing is a civic administration is fulfilling our duty based on council direction to work with the ARC on their proposal and report back. They, at the same time, are also trying to go through the whole community system response process with their healthcare partners to make this work in a longer term, how do we get to the hub model? You see components of the hub model in this proposal.

There are other components including location aspects and elements and space requirements that would be further developed as time goes on. What the ARC is doing, rightfully so, is recognizing as we talk about the workforce earlier this evening, they are being quite proactive in the fact that they have folks that are currently working and providing these services and trying to be proactive not to lose that workforce. Councilor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for that answer.

So I don’t want to see any services be removed. So I obviously want to see everything that we got continue, but I also do want to see that coordination piece, like I do see in the communication that we got on the report that we are looking to have this operate in the interim with the extension from up till the end of the year and then the potential for two years after that. But it also does make note on it being tied in with as we start seeing the whole of community response up and operational, then it’s just something to hold us over, which I do like to see. I guess I might be overlapping here from, I guess, this amendment and the original motion that we will be seeing, but I guess my question would be, at what point do we know that the operation side and the whole of community system response with respect to hubs and supportive housing is at the point of operation where we wouldn’t need this interim support going forward.

Like what metrics are we looking at there? Like are we looking at for a certain level of hubs operating with a certain number of spaces in the hubs? Or are we looking for a certain number of supportive housing? Or are we looking for a mix of the two?

I just wanted to know what the health and homelessness summits discussion would be on that if they had a chance to look at that part yet. Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper?

Through you, Chair, I believe I’ve followed the line of questioning and so if I’m off base, please let me know, happy to correct. But so when we look at everything in totality, this council has endorsed stabilizing the base system, the sector, the existing shelter providers and other organizations that provide direct service in our community. This council has endorsed the stabilizing of that sector for a two year period. We have also looked at bringing two hubs already online.

We continue to advocate to other orders of government. We continue to seek out funding from other orders of government to be able to bring more hubs online. There are community partners, including as you see in this proposal and others that have not come forward to us yet, but we know that they are having discussions and forming partnerships to look at formulating their own hubs, proposals and submissions. What’s limiting that is any ability for us to provide funding.

And so it’s really hard as civic administration to be able to answer the question of when’s the next hub coming and when are you gonna get them? When we have nothing to offer the community in terms of putting in the work to open a hub. There’s no funding to operate. So they are doing it off the side of their desk.

They’re putting effort into preparing to be ready for a hub in the event that funding should come. As far as the highest port of housing, we’ve indicated we have ambitious goals to bring 600 highly supportive housing units online. We’re currently at about 150 that are in the pipeline or already open and operating. And we will look to onboard more hubs as we get more signals or we are able to access more funding and bring more of those hubs online.

So between the hubs, the highest port of housing, providing people’s basic needs to sustain them while they’re living unsheltered until they can get into those spaces, sustaining the broader, large system already. There are a number of things that are happening. There is no drop-dead date on when do you no longer need to add more beds. The more and the faster we can bring more housing online, that’s why Mr.

May, there’s this area, has just recently brought a report to CAHPS to talk about how we can tap into housing accelerator fund. We are looking to pull every lever we can to help those in our community to lift themselves up. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, thank you Chair for that.

And thanks Mr. Dickens for that answer. I guess maybe I didn’t frame the question, but I like, you know, I do know that probably the conversation needs to continue. But, and if the answer is not, if we don’t have the specific answer at the moment, that’s fine, but I’m inquiring on at what level do, like even though I know and Mr.

Dickens has said it a couple of times, we don’t know when the hubs are coming or what, you know, just because of all the different intricacies that are involved in there, but we are working on it, which I appreciate. But the question is, is at what level, like what number of hubs once they’re already operating and how many, and what number of supportive housing once they’re already operating, do we say, okay, this system is now operational to the extent where we have the capacity there that we are seeing an impact. And then we can start, like, I guess, potentially winding down. And I don’t want to see the arc services get wind down.

I just want to know, because the report does imply, you know, extending the funding for two years, and then once we start getting that operational capacity, and it does, you know, I’m just trying to see what level are we looking for on the whole of community system response side. Are we going to be satisfied where we know that we don’t need to be talking about interim measures to hold us over to get us there? Hopefully that was clear. I’m going to go to Councilor Raman on a point of order.

Thank you, and I wanted to wait till Councilor Ferrer just finished. I’m struggling, ‘cause I think we’re actually talking about the main motion or the original motion and not the amended motion or the alternative motion that’s in front of us. And I’m just wondering if we might be able to just tie our conversation back to the alternative or wait until we enter into debate perhaps later on on the rest of it. So I’m going to concur with Councilor Raman.

I think we’re straying back into the main motion while we put the alternate on the floor so that our delegates could have an opportunity to respond to both. We have a motion that’s very specific. So Councilor, if we can move away from the staff recommendation and focus on the motion right now because depending on the outcome of this, there may or may not be further discussion on the staff recommendation. I don’t want to presume either way, but what we got on the floor currently is not the longer term piece that was referenced in the staff report.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilor. I do agree with you on that. I did, I guess I prefaced everything that you might see some overlap.

So I apologize. I’m going to pull that question back and then I will ask it when we get to the main motion or I’ll just maybe point to that question when we get there. But I just want to see the coordination piece. So even with respect to this amendment itself, I would like to see that coordination piece is really kind of what I’m speaking to on this one.

So I’ll leave it there for now, but I agree. So thank you for the point of order. Okay, so I’m going to determine that point of order has been dealt with. And so we’re not going to go to Mr.

Dickens and Mr. Cooper to respond to that at this time. But I guess now they have a heads up that they may or may not need to answer it later. And I’m going to go to Councilor, I’ve got a speakers list.

So I’ve got Councilor Pribble and then Councilor Callister and then Councilor Trussow. So Councilor Pribble, you are next, sir. Thank you and I have two questions. I have more questions about two questions right now for the amendment for the staff and one for Ms.

Campbell. And for the staff on the executive summary, it states the intention of the proposal is to eliminate the need for a yearly winter response program and to fill service gaps in community until the whole of community system response hubs are operational. Can please explain it to me this part because the hubs as far as we know was sold. So Councilor Pribble, I’m going to bring us back to the motion that’s on the floor right now is the alternate motion for the two month extension.

So if we can focus on that please, ‘cause you’re, again, as Councilor Ferreira was going back into the staff recommendation and the report and that is not currently on the floor. Okay, one question to Ms. Campbell through the chair and that is how these two months funding would affect kind of the long-term costs. And that is in order.

So we will go to Ms. Campbell with the impact on the overall costs with regard to a short-term versus the longer-term, Ms. Campbell. Thank you for the question and through the chair.

It does have an impact in many ways to have continued short-term funding. So a lot of the cost savings that are planned and what I’m reflecting in the budget is having a trained and ready-to-go staff team. I’ve already actually, when we extended this two months, have had quite a high turnover. We’re actually short-staffed right now and so we’ll be able to fall within our budget because I don’t have enough staff to fill all the roles and then I have to have those onboarding costs again.

It’s very expensive to have short-term funding, lose staff, bring on new staff, train them and all of those components. Moreover though, the service levels are the other thing I wanna point out that when we have short-term funding, the community at large goes through some shifts. So when we ended the winter response at the end of May and then had to move, pivot services, decrease, figure out the best way to spend those funds in order to deliver the highest volume of service, we actually had a drop in service level and even the way that we move people through that system impacted our service outcomes. And so these short-term pivots that we have to make and the elements that it takes to operationalize those things has a high cost.

Further to that, I think that the cost to the community at large. So when we do talk about our neighbors and the work that we wanna do together, I actually think the longevity of the service actually increases the buy-in of community to work with us towards improving that service, right? So knowing that that’s gonna exist the next day and the next day gives us the opportunity to say, how do we do this iteratively over time? Not only do we solve the problem, but then we report back on that solution and then we continue to build that solution.

So I don’t think that the two have to necessarily be linked, the timeline of the funding and the necessity to work with our partners. I think we should work with our partners regardless. We could take that as direction, but certainly the funding should not be short-term because of the impacts on people. Council Perbal.

Thank you for the answer, no more questions. Just one more question, sorry, through the chair to the staff. Are we aware or do we have an application going through currently to the higher level of government, either provincial or federal, that potentially we might see a result or response within next two months? Mr.

Dickens. If I could do the chair a response to what? Sorry, just in terms of funding for the HUB system? I think the councilor was asking if there’s any requests for funding into either senior level of government that we may hear back on in the next two months.

Mr. Perbal, Mr. Dickens, I’ll leave your mic. I’ll just add one more, whatever the peer minister said is accurate.

That I’ll add, that could apply to this potential proposal or similar proposal, thank you. Ms. Dator-Spier. Thank you, through the chair.

We continue to advocate to all levels of government for our supports for housing and homelessness in this community and specifically to the community of the whole response and the HUB’s piece. We have had many discussions with our administrative staff at the ministry level at different ministries and also continue to see interest in the work that’s been done here. Do we have a current commitment to funding? No, but I guess our activities are ongoing.

We have the opportunity in, hopefully, in August when we had to the AMO conference to have that discussion at that point in time too, but we are sharing information about the work that we’re doing here with the hope that our model and the services that we provide are seen as something that they can fund at the provincial level. Councilor Perbal is, are you satisfied? Thank you, I’m sorry, I was the answer and I’m just gonna make a comment. So based on this answer, there is really no guarantee or no high guarantee that anything would be coming within the next two months.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Perbal. I have Councilor McAllister next. Thank you and through the chair.

Well, I do appreciate in terms of what the Council is trying to do in terms of bringing the BIA in. I mean, I have this conversation with my BIA quite frequently as well. And that’s why earlier when we had these conversations, I encouraged my BIA to join those working groups. The thing that I hear consistently from our community partners is the sector stability.

And so for me, what the original motion was, and I’m not weighing into that territory ‘cause I do have comments on that, but that is kind of the general sentiment that I hear. And the issue I have for the short-term contracts is as Ms. Campbell stated is, it puts us in this rotation of just churning people out and I don’t think that that serves the people we’re trying to help in terms of the staffing requirements. I brought this up earlier.

Mr. Dickens spoke to it as well in terms of the workforce development. I view something like this as a place where a lot of these things have to evolve in terms of, yes, it’s not a hub, but in many ways it’s kind of a training place for the hubs. Maybe they’ll get there, who knows, but I don’t think the stopping and starting is helping us.

And so for me, I am not in favor of the amendment. I just think it’s a continuation of what we’ve been doing. We know where that’s going to lead and I feel like we’ll just have the same conversation and we talk about this every time that we’re just going to have, but back to where we started. So I wanna try something else, not only to support this ‘cause I wanna see what we can do in terms of evolving it.

So I’m a no on the amendment. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. Councilor Trustile, I have you next. Thank you, I just wanna make the brief comment that I’m not gonna be supporting this amendment for many of the reasons that we just said.

We need the stability and I’ll speak to the aspects of the puts on the table from staff when we get to that. But I think we should vote this down and get on to the discussion. We have to have this discussion. Every time we have a request for interim funding for a month or two, we have the same discussion and the response is always the same.

We need the stability of being able to fill out our staffing model and it’s just, we just can’t take that away from this agency and we don’t want them spinning wheels. This is just gonna be going on for forever. So let’s get on to the main discussion here. Maybe we can add something to it, but I’m gonna be voting no on this amendment.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussau. I have Councillor Raman and then Councillor Cudi next. Councillor Raman.

Thank you and through you, Chair. I just needed a couple of things clarified on the motion that’s been put as an alternative in front of us. The first is the source of funding. It says community investment reserve fund.

I’m just wondering if the Councillor, mover and seconder may be able to share why the move from the fund that was recommended, the operating fund that had already been approved from February, why that was then changed to community investment reserve just wanted interest. Sure, so instead of the operating contingency fund, why the community investment reserve fund, Councillor Stevenson, can you respond to that question? I’m open to either. I used the funding source of the last two month extension.

So it was the same wording as in the May motion. Councillor Raman. Thank you. Okay, that’s good to know.

And then I had a question for Ms. Campbell if possible. My question has to do with, I’m sorry, I’m trying to straddle between the report and what’s in front of us. So right now the funds that are requested that are in front of us are 687,000.

I’m not sure if you had the chance to do the math on this one. Does that take you to September 30th with the funding? Scandal. Thank you and through the chair that, I was just texting about that to civic administration because we are as tight on the budget as we possibly can be.

In fact, we have contributed as much in kind as we can as well as our fund raised components to the year round strategy. And so this would not meet that target to the amount that we would need from the city of London to operate fully as described in civic administration’s report to you. We’d have to find some, I don’t know, cost savings or maybe reduce service levels for to maintain the ratios. So there’d have to be something done.

This would not be enough, thank you. Councilor Roman. Thank you and just to follow up so and through you chair. So would that be mean less beds?

Ms. Campbell. Yes and through the chair for the same amount of money for the current agreement that we’re in with the city, we are providing 20 beds through city funded portion and the remainder through donated portion. So through our boards donation component, we were able to allocate those funds.

I just would have to look at how much runway do I have to continue that, to get to 30 beds, which is what we’re providing currently. Councilor. Thank you, could you give us a percentage idea of how much of that is donated dollars in terms of if it’s 360,000 a month that you typically need to fund your monthly programs. And right now we’re funding, we’re paying, ooh, this is interesting math, okay.

So we’re paying for 20 of those beds from the city fund and then you’re absorbing 10 right now on fundraising dollars. What does that look like? I don’t have the percentage, oh, through the chair, soaring. That’s okay.

And I assume that you were trying to look to see and we’re doing some math on the fly here. So by all means, Ms. Campbell, go ahead. Thank you and through the chair.

I’m referencing an email chain that was going on during this meeting, actually, with civic administration folks who are helping us with some numbers. When we look at the overall budget for the proposal that’s in front of you, which would include the two months, the blended rate is 76% coming from city funds and 24% being in kind contributions from arcade. That’s for everything. It’s broken out by services somewhat, but that’s for everything.

Councilor. And thank you and through you. Does that mean that you can sustain that if this were to go through on the 76, 24% split? So thank you for that question.

I’m gonna ask Ms. Campbell to just hold and I’ll come back to you to re-ask it, only because we are at 557. So we need a motion to continue past 6 p.m. Before we can continue on this item.

And I see movers by Councilor Raman and Councilor Cuddy, who’s next on the speakers list, I’ll put you as the seconder so that you don’t lose your spot on the speakers list. And we’ll get the clerk to get that in, he scribe and open the vote to notwithstanding our council policies and procedures extend past 6 p.m. Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you.

So Councilor Raman, I’m not gonna double count your time. Can you just re-ask the question and then we’ll go to Ms. Campbell for the answer. Sure, based on the motion that’s in front of us, can you maintain your service level and split within the 76, 24 in kind split, 76% and 24%?

Ms. Campbell. Thank you and through the chair. I believe that we can.

And this is largely due to the fact that commiserate to the growth in our services over the last number of years. We’ve also grown our fund raising by 300%. Councilor Raman. Thank you.

So I understand where the councilor’s going with wanting to have more discussion with the community on what’s in front of us in terms of the longer term proposal. But I’m not convinced that that is just a two month discussion. And so I do think that if longer term funding was applied that that discussion could happen. So I’m not supportive of it for that reason at this point.

However, when it comes to the multi-year budget component that I want to have another discussion on. Thank you, Councilor Raman. I have Councilor Cuddy next. Thank you, Chair and through you.

I’d like to thank Councillors Stevenson and Lehman for bringing this motion forward. I’ll be supporting it. I’d also like to thank Ms. Campbell, Mr.

McGrath, your team Ms. Campbell for the fine work you do. You always deliver, always impressed by you. Mr.

Morrison, thank you for the work you’re doing. I ride my bike through Old East Village often. You may have seen me when I’m out in my ward and I’m just impressed by the fine work that you do. And I’m fully supportive of this, thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Cuddy, any other speakers? Councilor Stevenson, did you, I’m just gonna see if there’s anybody who hasn’t spoken yet and then I’ll come back to you. So, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair. I was gonna say anything that I, since I’m not gonna be voting on the amendment, even though I appreciate the word Councillor’s desire to have more of a dialogue and I’m more than happy to support that direction. I think that’s important. That short-term funding, I think, Rike needs to understand a little bit more how to go forward.

And I do appreciate Councillor Raman’s comments around the budget process. I think we do need to maybe look at how this all works, but if anything, we need a longer period of time, even to create these relationships and conversations and dialogue with the community as well. So, I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins.

Councillor Raman, can I ask the vice chair to take the chair so that I can offer some thoughts? Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. So, I see, I understand both sides of this.

I really do. I’m concerned though, and one of the pieces that matters to me is the staffing retention ability. And I just know that it’s easier for somebody to commit to the job if they know they’re employed for five months versus two months. And through you, it came up with respect to the main, or the report recommendation as well.

But I think it’s equally applicable to even a two month. And so through you, I’m wondering if Ms. Campbell can tell us what does the wind down of services? And it doesn’t matter whether it’s the longer one or this one.

What does a wind down of services look like? What is the runway for you on that? When you have to tell staff, I’m sorry, we’re not gonna be able to keep you on, or we just don’t know. So, we’re gonna have to lay you off, whatever.

Even with your vendors, you know, people who are making food donations and that kind of thing. What does a wind down look like for arcade, either in the short or the long term? Thank you, I vote on Ms. Campbell.

Thank you, and through the chair, wind down does have significant costs, including our agreements on things like rent locations, dealing with the various folks who we, you know, have contracts with. So there’s contract costs. There’s obviously the cost of staffing. There’s the legal implications.

And anyone who’s ever had lots of employees, you know, our legal bills have actually been quite a bit higher since we’ve done short term hiring for a winter response. We hire quickly, you know, usually the adages hire slow fire fast. We hire fast and it can cause a lot of struggle when, you know, you don’t know, you aren’t vetting as thoroughly as you might want to. And so it’s very serious.

We have right now an incredible staff team. I’d like to just give a quick shout out to those staff who have given tirelessly to this work. It is a 24/7 operation. Weekends and nights are tough to fill.

And you know, these folks show up day in, day out, and they’re given of themselves. The costs associated with wind down when I’m doing the winter response planning as a ballpark figure, you know, when I do like the rough estimate every time I consider a location, I do 10% because I got to find a place for all the stuff. I’ve got to consider the wind down costs of exiting people. I have to think about how we support those folks.

I have to think about what we’re doing to make sure that people know. The timeline, just to give an example, we did a two month extension with you with you last time I was in front of you. And we gave people a three month contract. So I had to plan for that.

And that’s significant planning. And that’s a big commitment on the part of our board to say we believe in the work you’re doing and we believe in the value to our community. And I think it’s incredibly important to recognize that for the same amount of value as was allocated when provincial funds were available and federal funds were available for the short term winter response, 3.9 million, for just slightly more than that, this is an offer of 12 months a year service. That is massive savings tied to an improvement of stability of the workforce, stability of our contracts and actually going for higher economies of scale and improving our fundraising.

All of those elements are accounted for in this plan. Thank you, back to you to be made of this. Thank you. So this is a struggle.

I will say that I appreciate hearing from both delegates because I appreciate the fact that you are in constant communication and talking to one another and that both Arc and the OEV are trying to be growing in the same direction and making an impact together, even though the day-to-day needs for both organizations may sometimes be in conflict with each other, I appreciate that spirit of cooperation. I also co-signed the letter a couple months back to offer the extension. I guess in hindsight now I wish we’d extended it for three or four months, so we had a little bit longer runway, but we didn’t, and so here we are, and we have to make a decision. So with that hindsight lesson in mind, I’m more inclined to not support the two months and go for the longer period of time to the end of the year.

My challenge with that, and I appreciate Councillor Pribble’s question too, is that we set up an expectation that the business case in the budget will come forward and will approve it, and that’s half a percent on our property taxes. And we just had a long discussion about trying to find savings. And that’s always in my mind when I’m making these decisions. People may be unhappy with the decisions on the previous items, but that creates room to do some of this.

I think what the longer runway does is give us an opportunity to continue to work with the Arc, with our staff, to maybe fine tune this a little more. You know, there’s a lot of day spaces in here. Maybe there’s an opportunity, if there’s a little bit smaller number of day spaces, that the year round cost can be brought down a little bit more. I don’t know, but that’s the reason why I support the longer runway versus the shorter runway, because I think we need to have time to have that conversation.

I think that the federal and the provincial governments need to hear really clearly that come December 31st, there are so many beds in jeopardy of disappearing from our community, because they frankly have not stepped up to respond appropriately to the homelessness crisis in our country and in our province. And the municipality can only backfill that so much for so long. We’re pulling from one time source as a funding right now, but we are going to on December 31st, have an issue where we need something ongoing. And I don’t know what that looks like.

So for me right now, I think I appreciate where the council is coming from, and I really appreciate the conversation that the community engagement needs to continue before we get to that annual budget update piece, ‘cause that is really important. But I think right now two months to me is too short of runway. I’m gonna continue to listen. I know Councillor Stevenson is still on the speakers list.

I will listen to her again as well, but I think the lesson of the last extension of only two months says to me, we need a little bit longer runway than that again, to get to something that we can be perhaps more supportive of as a whole, of council as a community, and certainly in the old East Village neighborhood where there’s obviously concerns in many different components of this. So that’s my thoughts and my conversation there, Madam Presiding Officer. I’ll note if you don’t return the chair that Councillor Stevenson is next on the list, if you do return the chair, then I’ll go to her. Thank you, I’ll return the chair, you 15 seconds, if you choose to use it after, over to Councillor Stevenson, for you.

I will go to Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you, I have a bit to say on this, and so I’d appreciate extra time if I need it. I supported the two month extension for June, July, and I said at the time that I felt it was the wrong funding, the wrong location, and it was at the detriment of my ward. And I supported it because there’s such dire need out there, and the arc does such great work.

And it was worth the two months to see what could be done, what could come forward, that would utilize the staff that would really help people. But what has happened is a solution has been prepared, of which the oldest village BIA and the oldest village residents have not been part of, and there isn’t an acknowledgement of the complete instability of their lives. And so I was hoping that this amend this alternate motion would get a 15 to zero support by this council so that the arc would know that again, this council is looking to move forward. They do see that this is needed.

I put right in the motion that it’s the year-round stable response services, even though it’s on the main street of my business district, because of the great need and because of the great work. And so I was really hoping that council would do a 15-zero so that there would be that belief that a long-term solution is coming, but that the residents and the businesses would be given the respect of having a look at this plan and an opportunity to provide their valued experience and gifts and talents into this to make this something that would serve all of Londoners. That business district matters. The people who live in the low-income housing there, their lives matter.

Their access to small businesses to be able to go for an evening walk. I pulled up the other day and the busload of children that came out of that bus. I knew there were children, but I had no idea there was that many. Right there, they live there, all those families and to not allow them a seat at this table.

For this long-term strategy, I said I would support it at the detriment of my ward for two months. Now you’re asking it to be potentially at the detriment of all of those other lives until March of 2027. And I agree they’ll be alone. It needs a lot of time.

I think they’ll be always ongoing dialogue to make things work and to tweak things. But I really think that it’s very, very important that before this council supports this. Sorry, we got about 30 seconds left. So if you wanted to ask for an extension, maybe now is the time.

So you got about 30 seconds. Yeah, I mean, you guys have heard my heart over this last year. And I’m not coming here opposing it. I’m coming with a solution.

And I’m asking you to support it. I’m asking you to give the opportunity to let a few residents and businesses have a look at this and make it better. And make it something that we can support and not something that we’re fighting over for the next two years. I’m asking for that.

I don’t see why two months is feasible when it’s asked on the other side and it’s not reasonable when it’s on this side. I’m not asking for public participation. I’m asking for roll up the sleeves, deal with the issues. It’s possible to make this a win-win win.

Let’s do that. And I’m really counting on my colleagues here to give this an opportunity. Thank you, Councilor. I have Councilor, actually that was the end of my speakers list for now.

And Councilor Pribble has asked to be on a second time. So we’ll go to Councilor Pribble. You only used a minute of your time before. So the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair. And I actually have, sorry, I had this question prepared for the main motion, but now after the comments of my colleague, if you don’t mind, I would like through the chair, ask again, question from our Kate who is able to answer it. And it has to do, how do you work with businesses? How have you been?

And how have you been working with the residents? Thank you. So that is in order because that’s not specific to the report motion that’s relevant to both. So Ms.

Campbell. Thank you. And through the chair, as with the winter response, it was actually a long discussion at that time that we have community engagement and we do multiple efforts to that end. We have an outreach team that has a card and phone number that people can reach between seven a.m.

and two a.m. We do walks throughout the neighborhood throughout that time, including supporting people who are in distress, but also our neighbors and friends. And you heard from the BIA that our neighbors do know that we are there to support them. We go into all of the businesses and make sure that we’re known, drop off our card, make sure that they have a way to reach out to us.

And we also try our best to support those local businesses, both through our staff and our volunteers over 600 that come into all these village on a monthly basis. So we do our best to be good neighbors. The challenges are real. I hear them.

And I do believe that it’s a full community response. We are part of that community. Policing is part of that community. So city services are part of that community that needs to respond to the challenges that we face in all these village.

Councilor Pribble, thank you, no more questions. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, we— I would like two minutes if I can. Okay, so we have a request for an additional two minutes for Councillor Stevenson. We’ve by Councillor Pribble and seconded by Councillor Hopkins and we will open the vote on that.

Housing vote, motion carries 13 to zero. Councillor Stevenson, go ahead, you have two minutes. Thank you, colleagues. I did just wanna bring things, you know, we all care so much about what’s happening out there and our hearts collectively break over the need that’s out there.

But I do wanna say that we have in our strat plan goals that we’re also committed to, increasing the residential and commercial occupancy, increased safety in the core area, that London’s core area, downtown Midtown and OEV is a vibrant neighborhood and attractive destination. We wanna help small and going business entrepreneurs and nonprofits, which I have a lot of right there. We, increasing our shelter service by a third wasn’t on inter-strap plan. And it actually goes against what we said in the whole community response.

And when we closed the lending care’s 15 resting spaces that were 24/7, and I asked, how are we doing this? Like with all the great need there, I was told, no, this is the direction that we’re moving in, not even an explanation needed. And now here we’re going in this direction. And I’m saying, even though we have such dire problems in that area, I believe that these are the talented people, Sarah and Kevin and a couple of old East Village people that will be able to find a way that works for everybody.

That’s what that gentleman said in the email, right? That he believes there is a way, even though they’ve seen the devastation there. Why not give them that opportunity? Yes, Sarah and Kevin and them, they’re great at crisis management and they deal with the daily crises that happen.

But I’m talking about this long-term plan that Council is planning to spend their property tax dollars on. You’re gonna be using their property tax dollars to fund this, at least let them have a say in coming up with something that works for them. Thank you, Councilor, looking for any other speakers. I’m no one else on the speakers list.

So I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the motion as presented by Councilor Stevenson. Willing the vote, motion fails for tonight. Okay, so that brings us to the item. And I’m gonna see if anyone wants to move the original recommendation from the report.

Let’s move by Councilor McAllister and seconded by Councilor Trussow. Now on the new motion that’s on the floor, we will look for speakers. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you.

Would this be the time to move an amendment? This would absolutely be the time to move an amendment. Sorry, I’m just pulling up language just a moment. Okay, thank you.

I’m looking to add a part F to the motion and the part F would be that the mayor be requested to advocate to the provincial and federal government to offset the costs that could be incurred related to the award to the year round our aid mission community response strategy in the 2025 budget year and beyond. And the clerk has that language. Thank you and I’m also wondering, having seen what Councilor Stevenson was asking to do in the iteration of her motion, I’d like to try to amend an add-of-heart G to include the language around civic administration engaging in discussion with or helping to facilitate a discussion further between our aid mission, the old East Village BIA and local residents as we consider this year round proposal. Okay, so you wanna take the language around the engagement from Councilor Stevenson’s and create a new clause G with regard to the engagement so the clerk can get that done as well.

It was just one second on that and Councilor Pribble has indicated he would second both of those amendments. So the clerk wants to know if both of those components can go in a single new clause or whether you need separate, you’re okay with that. Councilor Pribble has a seconder, you’re okay with that being all-in-one clause, okay. So we’ll add a new clause that directs both the mayor’s advocacy with the senior levels of government and civic administration engagement with the BIA residents and arcade to review the year round stable response services proposal.

Now I’ll look for debate on the amendment that’s just the amendment right now, not the main motion as amended. So the amendments are specific to the mayor’s engagement and the civic administration engagement with the service provider, the BIA and the community. And now those are on the floor. Councilor Raman, did you wanna speak to your rationale first?

Yes, and thank you through the chair. My rationale, and I know we’ve heard this just in the bit of conversation we’ve had so far, is that we can’t fund this alone and we have to be seeking funding at the provincial and federal level to be able to offset these additional costs. Yesterday night, I reviewed the Association of Municipalities of Ontario’s report, most recently about our homelessness crisis and the encampment report that they had there. One of the key components of the outreach that they are doing is to the province of Ontario to say, look, we need more emergency shelter beds in our cities.

And so one of the big concerns I have with the proposal that’s in front of us right now is if we take this on as the municipal government, are we in essence, allowing the province and the federal government to not come to the table? And I know that that sounds like, well, that shouldn’t matter because it needs to be funded, but at the same time, we have to consider which level of government has to have the responsibility and what share. And so for me, this direction asks the mayor to be that voice and to continue the advocacy work. If we’re looking at adding additional spaces through Arcade Mission that we’re saying are of a temporary nature, we need to be able to, I think in some way, determine whether or not this is something the province would consider funding or does it fall outside of some funding guideline as well?

And I think it’s also important for us to understand whether or not Arcade is actually doing this themselves. If they’ve went to the province, I know you’ve been engaged in discussions with your local MPPs and MPs, but are they saying that there’s a willingness for them to take this forward and make this their priority as well? And is that something you’re also asking for? Or are the dollars solely at this table?

And I think that that, I’m hoping the answer is you went to them as high orders of government and you’ve asked them for a specific dollar amount. So I’m hoping we can have a bit of that dialogue as well if I might ask those questions through you. Certainly, and I think that those are in order. So I think we’ll go to Ms.

Campbell to offer her thoughts and then I’ll just advise folks that I’ve got Mayor Morgan on the speaker’s list next. Ms. Campbell. Thank you and through the chair.

We are active in all forms of advocacy to the provincial and federal levels of government. Certainly anytime I have a media opportunity, I’m pointing to them as, you know, an important player in making this possible. That being said, I’ve been very mindful of my agreement with the whole of community response to not be speaking out of turn for funding for my specific project, that me on my own, you know, please fund the arc for this thing. And this sort of speaks back to some of the concerns that other councillors were mentioning about how does this fit with the broader whole of community response?

This is not meant to be counter to or other than, no, this should be an alignment with. And in fact, if you go through the proposal that was submitted, we actually talk about a system of beds that acts in a similar way to what a hub should ultimately look like. But until we have those spaces, doing those functions in separate places, the assessment of people, the front door services, the one or two night stays as people need resting space and then the longer term stays towards permanent housing. And so I’m not wanting to go out separate from the community.

And so the direction to have the mayor or civic administration give me the right language on how to advocate in alignment to what we as a community are doing is critical. I am taking meetings on the regular basis with our MPPs and our MP, our board rights letters, our community. We have, like I said, a large number of people who can help us to advocate. We want desperately to be in alignment to the longer term strategy for the community and to make sure that our voices hurt in that way towards those ends.

These proposals and the dollars that we hope will come through a multi-year plan will allow us to pivot services ourselves into that hubs and highly supportive housing plan. Knowing we can deliver service to high volumes of people through the current mechanism, which is temporary and emergent in terms of its service delivery model, should allow us the time and space to move into that longer term plan. We hope that that will speak volumes to those other levels of government that when we are asking, when we’re seeking for funds, it is in alignment with that. Also through our healthcare partner, we’re looking at some strategies through their funding sources that support the community that we’re caring for as well.

Councillor Ramen, you’re satisfied for now. Okay, I have Mayor Morgan next on the list. Sure, so I welcome the direction. In fact, it was something that I thought about when I first saw the proposals that there needs to be an advocacy piece associated with it.

So I commend Councillor Ramen and the seconder for adding it into the motion. I actually don’t think it confuses our funding asks because there’s widespread knowledge that systems need to evolve and transform over time, but there is a need now particularly related to extreme weather responses or colder warm weather responses. Given this strategy is linked to basically making our cold weather response not necessary, it actually aligns with advocacy that is already out there. AMO was identified, but both the big city mayors provincially and federally are at the federal level aligned on the encampment funds that the federal government has said were allocated and asking them to flow those in time for the winter.

So we don’t want six months of program design, six months of application, but a very rapid design of a program. The mayor see that sort of encampment funding as taking people out of encampments through the winter months and actually putting them in space that can keep them safe temporarily through those months. And so I don’t see this set of alignment with that sort of federal advocacy. At the provincial level, the Ontario vaccine mayors, which have basically said we’ve been pitching a lot of solutions for quite some time and we’re now looking for the province for guidance on are you following some of the solutions that the mayors are pitching?

Do you have a different plan? AMO is a great time to have that high level engagement with all municipalities across the board on this. So we’re coordinating with AMO representatives as well as the big city mayors in that renewed advocacy. And you actually see the Ontario big city mayor start to do some actual paid media over the next little while on the seriousness of the situation within our cities.

In fact, I filmed with the mayor of Burlington here in London at our Thompson Road, supportive housing facility yesterday. And so we will be actually highlighted in some of that advocacy for the need, the solutions that are being pitched and that there’s actually an incredible need for more money. I do recognize that the province through the homelessness prevention program has increased funding, including funding to London. But what we know is the need has been far greater than the increase in funding.

And so there is still a gap that we are seeing and municipal dollars are struggling to even try to fill that gap. Certainly, I don’t think we should be in the space long term, but every municipalities in the space short term right now and everyone is struggling with the same challenges we have with upward pressure on property taxes, feeling like you’re funding things that really aren’t in your area of expertise and struggling to figure that out. So we are not alone in this advocacy effort. And so I think this motion in this addition to the main motion is highly appropriate and aligns with activities that are going on and will come to a more significant engagement during the AMO conference.

And I mean, Councillor Hopkins would, I see her nodding because she knows AMO’s position on this. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I have Councillor Ferrer next. Thank you, Chair.

Looking at the motion, I do appreciate it coming. And part F, I was just kind of like, you know, asking the mayor to go out to our government partners and seeing if we can get some extra funding to offset some costs. I would suggest, however, and this would be a reason why I’m just kind of on the fence with this motion is and we should probably be including other agencies as well. We do have other agencies that seem funding cuts.

They’re saying the same thing, you know, we can’t kind of wind down and wind up services. It’s not efficient, it just doesn’t work very well for the operation itself. So I would like to see other agencies include, included in that aspect right there. We should, you know, while we’re there, if while we’re speaking about arcade and getting extra funds to offset the costs, maybe we should also include other agencies as well that we’ve seen funding get cuts.

So I’ll cycle back to that in a second. Going to part G, you know, we’re looking at the local residents in the area and I would point out that, you know, the ARC does have operation happening on my side of Adelaide as well. In my ward, they’re doing a great job. By the way, I have said that several times, but I’m just wondering on the intent of that part of the motion part G local residents, what does that mean residents on my side of the ward as well?

And I would still point to, I’m worried about just kind of the dilution of planning and the dilution of strategy, because again, I don’t see it being tied in with the whole of community response portion of it, ‘cause we do have those discussions happening on the whole of community response. We do have very explicit ties, and I don’t want to overlap into the main motion. I know we’re on the amendment, but we do, just pointing at it, we do have the ties there with, you know, once we ramp up the services, where do we fall? So I would like to see that included on that part of the amendment as well.

So I’m going to cycle back to part F. I do want to make an amendment to this amendment, if that’s possible, to add the other agencies and boards. I don’t want to specifically name any local, or any, sorry, I don’t want to name any agencies because I know that I’m probably going to miss some, and I don’t want to be just putting in the different agencies that are off the top of my head in there. But I would suggest that if we could, if we’re going to the provincial and federal government stops at those costs, we do include in that conversation, in that advocacy from the mayor, if he’s willing, to include other agencies as well.

That has seen funding cuts just to, you know, increase the capacity holistically, more holistically. So I would move, I know I didn’t give you very good language, but I would move that to include other agencies. Bear with me for just a second. Councillor Ferrera, I am respectfully going to rule that out of order, and I want to explain why.

The amendment is related to the main motion. The main motion is related to a sole source contract award, not for other agencies. And so it is not consistent with the main motion, or the amendment which is related to the main motion. So it would be out of order to entertain, it would be out of order to entertain amendments that would start to add other agencies in on a sole source contract award.

Even though you’re talking about an advocacy piece in an amendment, it is still tied to a sole source award. So that’s why I’m ruling it out of order. Mayor Morgan, you had a point of order. The direction is your advocacy.

So if you want to speak briefly to your advocacy role in this, that may address something with Councillor Ferrera’s line of thought here, I’ll allow you. Yes, I take it through the chair to Councillor Ferrera. I hear what you’re saying. I actually don’t think it’s necessary for the advocacy effort.

From even the arcade proposal, we know it does not fulfill the whole need. It’s a good example for me to use an advocacy. It does not mean that I would stop at that exact dollar amount. We’ll be advocating for the need in our city, which is even beyond this proposal.

But having a motion specifically tied to this, gives me something very clear that, look it, Council is actually funding this proposal in this way with municipal dollars. This is an example of the type of need we have here as the wider need. Like it’s a wider advocacy effort. But so I don’t think it’s necessary.

And I think that I hope that gives you some comfort to know that it’s not just about one organization. And this is a collaborative effort, although I can make my own examples, like the strength of our advocacy on this space directly is through the organizations and the opportunities like AMO, not an individual meeting with a minister or two. Those happen, but the strength is in numbers on these things. Okay, so appreciate that additional response to the Councilor with regard to the advocacy efforts, which was tied to his amendment, which is not in order, but I’m gonna go back to Councilor Ferreira now.

You have not used all of your time yet, so I’ll allow you to continue, if you wish to continue. Thank you, Chair. I just a little bit, ‘cause I guess I’m gonna be speaking to the main motion when we get there too. All right, so I understand like with respect to like the single source procurement and the procedure, that’s why you would roll that out of order.

But I guess the actual advocacy hopefully does include just the broad general issue that we’re looking for and general funds that we can use for this work. So if that’s what I’m here and then I’ll be okay with that one. So I’ll go back to G. So I will support F with that response in mind, going back to G, because again, like I’m just worried about the siloing that this may result in too, because you will have discussions on what the approach is here with the groups here, and you will have a second discussion going on under the health and homelessness summits themselves.

I’m worried about that. So I wouldn’t be supporting that portion of it. Thank you, Councillor Ferreira, looking for further speakers. Oh, sorry, Councillor Hopkins, I did have you next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate just following up on the Mayor’s comments, representing the City of London on the email board. I really do think this is a great advocacy piece in terms of us as a municipality, having the responsibility and no money to deal with the problems that we see as we prepare for the AMO conference in August.

I think that voice has to be louder. It’s not only the advocacy piece, it’s not only the City of London, regardless if you’re a bigger, small municipality, we all see the challenges and the burdens to the municipality. Putting money into it, we need to put money into it, but we also need to have the province understand that we cannot do this alone. I also wanna just add another piece to that.

We can also show the money that we are spending in investing and the positive effects that are coming out of it. We do have a plan here. We are supportive. We are starting to see some results.

It’s not all about please give us money. It’s also showing what we have accomplished here in the City and it’s a great opportunity to showcase our plan and really looking forward to doing that at the AMO conference and encourage the Mayor at OBCM to continue his advocacy there as well. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Trussow. This is a serious question, okay?

It’s a serious question. Do we need direct civic administration to engage with the old East BIA, local residents and arcade mission? Don’t we do that anyway? I’m gonna just add anything or is it redundant?

‘Cause I see it as redundant. So Councillor, I’d like to know what this adds to what civic administration is already doing. Because I just think at some point, we’ve made the point and do we really need to add G? What is it add?

So I’m going to go to Councillor ramen because it’s her motion. It’s not civic administration’s motion. And so Councillor ramen, I’m gonna allow you an opportunity to respond. Yeah, thank you and through you.

So in an effort to be collaborative and supportive of my colleague who and actually to the old East Village BIA, to Kevin as well, or Mr. Morrison, I do think that it’s helpful to show that we’re open to dialogue and that dialogue has not taken place on the proposal itself, yet with residents and with the local community and the old East BIA. And so to facilitate that conversation by ways of civic administration direction, I think could be helpful. And so that’s why it’s here.

And oh, I just wanted to make a point to Councillor Ferrer as well. I did not mean to in any way limit the amount of local residents or which local residents. So please feel free to expand, thank you. Okay, so before we start getting into amendments on amendments on expanding, it just says local residents.

It doesn’t define a geographic area. So I’m gonna take local residents as being whomever wishes to engage in the engagement process as it’s developed. I’m also going to take an opportunity just as chair to emphasize that the language in G says be directed to engage with the old East Village BIA, local residents and arcade street mission to review the year round stable response services proposal. And I’m reading that out because I think it’s relevant to the question Councillor Trostau just asked as well.

When we vote today, similar to what we did earlier with the strategic opportunities review reports, we are approving funding to carry on through to December 31st. We are not approving the year round $4.3 million service plan today. We are approving the creation of a business case for the budget process. We are, that does not guarantee that the full amount or any of the amount is funded.

And so this direction to engage may further tweak what proposal comes forward. So that’s why I didn’t, from the chair’s perspective, Councillor, that’s why I didn’t indicate that it was redundant from that perspective. So I just wanted to share that comment and I’ll go back to you to see if that helps. That really helps, that really helps.

And that’s fine. Thank you for that. And I’ve got, sorry, moving back and forth here now. I’ve got Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Ferrera.

Both of you have, Councillor Stevenson, you actually haven’t spoken to the main motion yet. So you have your full time allotment and I’ll go back to Councillor, sorry, on the amendment. The hour grows late in my brain. You haven’t spoken on the amendment yet, Councillor Stevenson.

So I’ll go to you on that. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that last bit on the amendment where it says the year round stable response services. That’s the name of the contract for the 1.8 million, so. So I think what I’m hearing is a question through to staff, would the same name be applicable to the budget business case?

Or are we gonna, is that what you’re asking? No, I was just correcting what was said to me. That’s why it’s worded in there. It’s around this contract.

It is what’s in this contract, but we are only approving part of the contract today, which is the continuation to the December 31st. So the contract still has to develop a proposal for the budget business case. And I’m just gonna go to Mr. Dickens or and/or Mr.

Cooper, whichever one of you wants to answer. Am I interpreting that correctly from a civic administration perspective? During your chair, that’s correct. What we are proposing is the continuation of services through the multi-year budget process, which is the end of December, anticipated to be complete.

And then we would be coming back through that process if directed with a business case. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, does that help? Okay, so I’m now back to Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair, I won’t be too long.

Just cycling back to part G. So the way it’s crafted, I will not be supporting that motion. And that’s simply because, you know, this is to review the year-round stable responsive services. And I would assume, and I know that I, there is gonna be a lot of discussion there that have probably already been had on the health and homelessness summits.

A lot of expertise there. I’m worried about duplication of work. And so because I don’t have that component in there, specifically and also because this is very explicitly tied on the main motion when we get there with the report with that whole of community system response, I would think that you should have somewhere in the language here that the health and homelessness summits should be involved in that discussion. So the way that motion is right now, I would not be supporting it.

So I would ask if we can separate that out for voting. So we will have that separated for voting. Any other discussion on the amendment? So I don’t see any other speakers on the amendment.

So I’m going to go to the clerk to open the vote. Once that’s ready, we will vote on part F first of the amendment. And then we will vote on part G of the amendment. Part F is the mayor be requested to advocate.

Part G is civic administration be directed to engage. So when the clerk is ready, we’ll get that vote open. Housing the vote, the motion carries 13 to zero. And now we will open the clause G of the amendment.

That’s the civic administration be directed to engage with. Housing the vote, motion carries 12 to one. Thank you colleagues. We now are going to have a main motion as amended on the floor, looking for any discussion debate on the main motion as amended now, okay?

Councilor Stevenson would like to put forward another amendment. Thank you and I would and I forwarded them to the clerk. It says that part B be amended and reads as follows. B.I.

that arcade street mission inks budget for the 1.8 million single source award be distributed to council and attached to the council agenda. And B.I.I. that civic administration be directed to engage with arcade street mission ink to relocate the front door services off Dundas Street as part of the budget amendment preparation for the 2025 budget update process for funding in 2025 and future years. And that’s something that Sarah and I have discussed and she’s worked with me on the wording for that.

And I do have a seconder. Okay, let’s the seconder and councilor Pribble. So we’ve got to move her in a seconder. Let me give me just a moment.

Okay, so just so that colleagues are clear in part B of the main motion as amended, there is the clause the civic administration be directed to reallocate the 1.8 million of previously proved one time funding from the operating budget contingency reserve fund the year round stable response services for an initial period of August 1st to December 31st. Councilor Stevenson is moving an amendment to add a part I and a part II to clause B. The first is that the budget B attached to the council agenda. And then the second is that there’s an engagement to relocate front door services off of Dundas Street as part of the budget amendment preparation.

I know you indicated you’ve discussed this with Ms. Campbell and I did see her nodding in the gallery. I don’t know if, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful. I don’t know if you’ve engaged with staff on this, but relocating a front door services would likely be a change to their budget proposal for the fall.

So I’ll come back to you to speak to this now, but perhaps if we can also find out where it’s changing to some extent, the intent of the motion, not entirely. So I’m not seeing it as out of order, but I’m just looking if you can provide some further expansion on that. So that civic administration maybe can respond to questions colleagues might have in terms of the impact on that. Yeah, so it was looking to provide some input into the multi-year budget proposal that’s coming forward to take into account some of the things that we’ve talked about that is needed in order to mitigate some of the problems for not just the neighborhood, but for the ARC as well, because when you’ve got one door right in the main, like the only open door access for people to reach homelessness services right there on the main street of the BIA, it also causes them problems.

And I shouldn’t speak, I’ll let Sarah talk about that, but the problems that it creates in terms of safety when people are competing for sleeping space, especially in the winter time. So I’ll let Sarah talk to that, but for me, it’s about this amendment is about getting input into that multi-year budget process so that it comes with at least that option for us to vote on at multi-year budget time or for the mayor to consider. So is that it’s one of the proposals in the appendix. There’s four proposals from the ARC and one of those is there.

I will hear your point of order. Yes, having, I think this is a drastic amendment, attaching the budget is fine. But I think getting into this discussion about actually moving the facility, coming at this point in debate, this could have been brought up earlier and I think it is so far removed from the actual gist of what is in front of us right now that it should be brought as a separate motion at a separate time. And I just think it’s, I’m looking for the right words, but I don’t think it’s reasonably related to the motion that’s on the floor right now.

And I think it could be brought up as a separate, if I may. I think it could be brought up as a separate issue, but I think to— Okay, so I’ve heard that point, Councilor, and that’s, I’m trying actually to figure it over here. That’s why I was saying to the Council if she can provide a little bit more because I’m trying to determine whether it in fact is substantively altering the main motion as amended at the moment. So I need everybody to give me a minute to confer with the clerks here, please.

Okay, this one gets a little bit gray. It’s not a clear cut, but this is my ruling and I will share the logistics. And then if somebody wishes to challenge the chair, they can do so. The first portion, the 1.8 million single source award be distributed to Council, the budget piece.

We actually do need clarification, Councilor, on whether you are asking that to be an attachment to the Council Committee or the Council meeting next week or is this a future date of Council? Because this is the 1.8, not the 4.3 budget case. So we would need some clarification on that first. So just on that, Councilor Stevenson, what is your intent in terms of be attached to the Council agenda?

Is it for the next Council meeting or a future Council meeting? Well, I would prefer it to be the next Council meeting. I’m assuming before we vote on 1.8 million, we’ll know how it’s being spent. Yeah, okay.

So we’ll just address that so that it speaks to the next Council, the upcoming Council meeting where this report lands. Now, on the second piece, which would be potentially relocating front door services off Dundas Street, which could look like a number of different things. And this is where I was trying to ask for some clarity because we are now in July and to the Council’s point of order. It is a fairly substantive change to the staff recommendation.

However, I’m going to rule that it is in order for us to discuss tonight because based on the committee and Council cycles of the next month, it could potentially qualify as an emergent item at Council next week in order to meet timelines for the budget process. So if we don’t deal with it tonight, we may simply be dealing with it this time or Tuesday of next week, which isn’t that substantively different. We’ve already had a motion to extend past 6 p.m. tonight.

By dispensing with it tonight, we potentially avoid going past 6 p.m. again at Council. So that’s my rationale is in line with an efficient meeting that we deal with it as it is. So that’s my ruling.

That’s my ruling as chair. If somebody wants to challenge that, that’s open to them to do so, but that’s how I’m going to deal with this. So Councillor Stevenson, I’m going to come back to you because you had said in your comments that you would let Ms. Campbell speak to that, but you didn’t actually ask a question of Ms.

Campbell. So was that your intent to ask Ms. Campbell if she could provide some clarity on what the relocate front door services often done that street potentially means. And Councillor Stevenson.

Yes. - Okay. Ms. Campbell, could you share with us as succinctly as possible what relocate front door services off Dundas Street from your perspective might be?

Thank you and through the chair. And I really appreciate the question because understanding what that means is critical. 696 Dundas Street is owned by Arcade Street Mission and the intention is not that we would ever shutter our doors, my board chair right here rightfully said, that would be a change of direction to our strategic plan. And that is not the intention of what is in the report and the plan that we submitted.

There’s some additional funding that was identified within our strategy. So we even have some estimated costs on moving front door services. And what that is meant to be is, if you think about what was in the hubs plan as the front door for services, that means a door that’s open all the time that people can come to and get some assessment, have an opportunity to get those basic needs met, maybe get some resting right now because 696 Dundas Street is the location we have. That is where we provide those services.

In our system of beds approach that we’ve been working on with partners and colleagues with the whole of community, that service has been described and suggested to be in another location where people would then go to a hub, imagine, we had enough of them, we could move people to hubs, we could get people to hospital, we could help people get to appropriate referral drop in spaces such as the hub that is run by London Cares, our own space, my sister’s place, other places where people would be almost appropriately served from that assessment center. But the idea of having a location that is always open where people can come for care and service and that the other locations would have less of that volume of folks associated with the space is something that is anticipated. So there’s a cost to that. It’s not included in this budget.

And certainly the location, I think a huge question would be, well, where would said location be? My experience in finding locations is that it’s challenging to find the appropriate zone and the right facility for such things. I think that’s one of the challenges we’re having with hubs. So to say that we can begin to plan and find these kinds of things, certainly the direction to look for that and to work towards that end, I would be completely fine with that and to create a budget amendment that would include that because it would serve the whole of the community, I think, and that’s our partners have also talked about that type of thing.

To say that it will definitely happen, I would be unprepared to give that answer today. Thank you, Ms. Campbell. I’m gonna go back to Councilor Stevenson and I’m also gonna say while you’re speaking, Councilor, I can solve with the clerk on your timing because in all of this stuff, I deleted the timer.

So I’ve lost track of how long you’ve spoken so far, but if you’d like to resume, I will check with the clerk to confirm. Yes, thank you. Well, just speaking to this amendment, as I said, Sarah and I have talked about this and I would just like to have this on the table come budget time to look at exploring this because we did have, we’ve done a lot of things. We’ve, Council has approved a lot of documents in terms of vacancy, core area vacancy.

We talked about people place, I can’t remember what all the acronyms were, but place, you know, one of the things was a consideration of the implications on nearby vacancy when locating hubs. That would apply to this. We didn’t anticipate expanding shelter services, but that would matter here. And the rationale was consultations had said that concentration of social service had tenants leaving the core area, made lease renewals more difficult because of the social issues.

So as we, if we’re gonna consider a long-term solution here, it makes sense to me to at least consider when it comes to multi-year budget time, the options that could improve this situation that we’re in. Maybe it’s the best that we can do for now until the end of December, but at least come budget time to be able to explore, having the 30 beds on Dundas Street, but allowing the front door service to be in another location. I don’t think that the amendment requires it. I think it says that we’re directing them to work on that.

And I think it supports all of the things that we have said in terms of our strategic plan, the vacancy, the occupancy, the safety, the neighborhoods. We’ve got rapid transit right there. And so to be able to look at that as we’re at least have that document prepared so that we can make those decisions when the time comes and that the mayor can do that as well. Thank you, Councillor.

And through the various discussions here, I just, I’m gonna alert and make sure that you and Councillor Pribbler are both aware. From a vote perspective, it’s not actually amendment to part B with two parts. It’s part B, then I, and then part C and I, because the front door piece goes to the budget preparation, which would be an amendment to part C rather than part B. That is actually the way I forwarded it the first time, but that’s fine, yeah, however it fits best.

That’s just how we’re gonna handle it within the voting process. So I just wanted to make you both aware of that. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair.

So just listening to the relocation of the front door, just some clarification here. Is that to the back of Dundas Street, or is that a whole other property altogether? I, while we can ask Ms. Campbell, I think she answered that once already, that there isn’t a clear answer to that yet, but Ms.

Campbell, it is your agency we’re talking about. So I’m gonna go back to you, if you can add any further response to what you’ve already provided. When we say front door services, we’re not talking about what door in the building, we’re talking about the type of service. So this is the welcoming services and the assessment and helping people find their way to other places.

It’s more of like, if you think of it like a referral center, that’s what front door services is more or less referring to. And what I believe the intention of the counselor, and certainly what was in my plan per collaboration with colleagues, is that it would be wonderful to have a place like that, that’s available 24/7 in our community, that was just focused on that type of work. That would be a different location for that type of work. So that’s what was intended within the strategy that we proposed, as well as what I believe Councillor Stevenson is talking about.

It would have a price tag to it. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you for that. So it would be another location, and the one on Dundas Street would close.

No, Councillor, that was already stated, that they own that building, and their intent is not to close the services, it would be to remove some of their services elsewhere. Okay, so I just feel like we’re just going really kind of off the rails here. So I would really like to see us not get too far into the weeds with stuff like this, especially when this does start looking again towards the whole of community response in the hub system. I do want to see the arc have some type of system, or be part of the system with the hubs, and I do believe that there’s conversations about that in the future.

I wouldn’t be supporting that the way it is, it’s just too vague at the moment. And I’m wondering, just from the Councillor’s comments, you’re looking at core area vacancy, and that means we’ll open up another service provider in the core area. And I do know that we have a concentration of services, which has always been a concern of mine. So I just wanted to have some clarification for that, but I did kind of get some of the answers, so I’m not comfortable with it at the moment.

Looking at part B, I, the $1.8 million single source, just going to council, would that not be already going towards the council agenda? Do we need a direction for that? I’m not going to engage in back and forth cross debate between Councillors, we’ve allowed a little bit of that, but we’re starting to slip into a pattern here. We can ask Mr.

Dickens or Ms. Barbone if that is already understood by them, or whether they need this direction. So because it’s financial, if Ms. Barbone wants to weigh in, that’s fine, if Mr.

Dickens wants to weigh in, that’s fine too, or if Ms. Dater’s beer would like to take the lead on this one. Thank you, to be clear, so I just want to understand, part I is asking for a copy of the budget that’s already been approved as part of the recommendation number two on the initial recommendations, correct? Okay, the second piece is asking us to engage arcade mission to relocate front door services off of Dundas Street.

This is information that’s come on the floor this evening. We have not as administration had an opportunity to have this discussion either with the agency or even with our own team. There will be a cost to that, and as the agency’s rep has indicated, we’re not sure what that is, we don’t know what that looks like. If it’s moving the door to the back, that’s a very different discussion than moving the door, the large door, in a different way.

And so, we have not had this chance to even consider this and what this means for the agency, and we are in a short timeframe to get budget proposals back to you as it relates to the 2025 budget. My answer to this would be, it will take more time to have a broader discussion about what front door services relocation means, and I would suggest to you that it’ll take, it may take longer than this process to get back to you, but what those costs would be, and what the agency has, and what it intends to do with its current front door spaces and those spaces, and what other spaces are available, and that we heard the agency rep say that as well. That’s our prayer. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for that answer. So, I did hear Ms. Campbell say that we’ll continue services, the front door services at Dundas Street, and you’re looking for another one, but the language does say services off Dundas Street. So, the language does point me in a direction, ‘cause when I first read that, it seemed like closing Dundas Street front door services, looking for another location.

So, the language itself can be interpreted, regardless of what’s said here, it seems with that direction. So, I’m not good with that language, and also, I see that staff is saying they need more time with this, and I didn’t see this coming, so I had no time to prepare for it, but I will not be supporting that the way it is. Thank you, Councilor for Councilor Raman. Thank you, and through you.

Okay, so I’m trying to, again, further understand what’s in front of us right now. When we refer to front door services, what’s in the report referred to as front door services is also coupled with some other things. I’m just wondering if we can just set out what is considered front door service, so we know what that means. So, I know Ms.

Campbell is at the mic to prepare to answer as well, but I do wanna see if Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper, from their perspective, a civic administration, what that means to them. ‘Cause I think we’ve heard partly what it means to the agency, but from a civic administration’s point, perhaps we can get a response.

Through you, Chair, I’ll start this answer. When we look at section 2.3 of the report, you’re ready to talk about 24/7 front door and assessment at the Arcade Street Mission at 696 Dundas. This would include meeting people’s basic needs where they’re at, meal provision, social connection, checking on one’s health, taking the time to sit down with those individuals, make referrals to other service providers, perhaps referrals into other indoor spaces, into the one of the 90 beds, perhaps that are in this proposal as well. So it is that first point of contact, it would be all inclusive and all encompassing in terms of what those front door services would look like, based on whatever the presenting need is that come through that proverbial front door.

And I’m gonna go to Ms. Campbell, just from her perspective, if she wants to add any clarification from the agency’s perspective, but I really appreciate Mr. Dickens highlighting from the report and their understanding Ms. Campbell.

Yes, Mr. Dickens rightly describes what we would also understand as front door services. And you know, you never have them completely separated. I think the intention here from my discussion with the counselor is that the drop in component, this open door service would be limited at 696 Dundas Street.

And I do think with my board chair sitting here, that that would be a remarkable change to how arcade operates in terms of, we do have a welcoming space at all times. And so saying that we’d relocate the energy or efforts of those front door services to another location does not mean that we would not welcome people at 696 Dundas Street. So it’s very, I’m a little concerned about the language. I just wanna highlight that.

And just as the discussion is going, it becomes, I think, distracting to the main intention of the proposal that civic administration has put together. And potentially, I think it’s an ongoing conversation related to the discussions around working with the BIA and solving some of the challenges that are happening. Thank you, Ms. Campbell.

Councilor Raman. Thank you. So just to clarify further with you, Ms. Campbell, you’re not supportive of part two.

Ms. Campbell. As mentioned, it’s in our proposal. Actually, we have a whole section related to this and we’re certainly interested in exploring that further, but through our discussions with civic administration, our understanding as well as it wasn’t coming through this report at this time.

So it’s something that if there’s an interest for us to continue that look and find the location and look at what that looks like, I’m open to that. Certainly there’s a willingness, I understand the challenges that Dundas Street faces. But to say that in this moment that we have those answers, I think the city manager had a very clear understanding of the challenges, like there hasn’t been enough discussion really to have a full sum view of that, as well as with my board about what that would look like because it wasn’t being recommended at this time. Councilor Raman.

Thank you. Okay, so I’m going to ask you the same question again in a different way. Sorry, I just want to be clear because this started as a single source proposal. It came in as a request from your organization.

We’re dealing with a request from your organization. So if there’s now a motion to expand to include other portions of the request, I want to know whether or not you’re in, this is what you’d like us to also look at because it does change the scope of the work. It may mean that I’m not sure if staff can make this work for the budget proposal, that’ll be my follow up question. So I just want to make sure if we’re expanding the scope of the work in order to add this, that this is something that your organization is asking for and if so, if we can meet that timeline.

So we are prepared to do the work, sorry through the chair, I missed it. We are prepared to do the work and roll up our sleeves with civic administration to look at these options. It wasn’t our proposal as I mentioned. And I think that both timing and the financial constraints may mean that, like it may or may not happen is what I’m trying to say.

Like it was in our initial proposal, we have the capacity and interest to do it. I don’t want to make a commitment to that work without having all of the eyes dotted in T’s crossed. Councilor Robin. Thank you.

And so again, knowing what our timelines are right now, do just civic administration feel comfortable with this direction to be able to meet the budget timeline. And I’m going to go to Ms. Dater’s beer for this. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. If council’s direction is to do this, we will take the direction and improve forward and provide the as much information as we can. And it will really depend upon what the agency has and information to support this. I heard Ms.

Campbell say that this is in their proposal. Perhaps it’s good for us to clarify where in the proposal and gather more information from that perspective. If directed, we will take on the activity and provide you as much information as we can within the timeframe. Councilor Robin, you’re good?

Okay, Councilor, I’ve got Councilor Trussell and then I’ll come to you, Councilor Frank. Oh, yes, sorry, Councilor Trussell, please. You mean just a moment, please, Councilor Frank? Thank you, sorry.

Well, Councilor Kye and I both actually have a Middlesex on Board of Health meeting right now. And they’re starting to move towards some items that I feel like I want to go and attend and be there for because we will be able to have this discussion in Council if it depends on how the things go. And I understand I’m sorry that I’m leaving in the middle of a vote, but I would like to be excused at this point and I will vote at Council depending on how things land here. Thank you, we will mark you as absent for the remainder of the meeting.

We should have at least one of you at the Board of Health meeting, Councilor Cuddy, if you, you’re going to stay for now. Thank you, I’ve already notified the chair of the Middlesex Health unit that, Councilor Frank will be filling in for me, thank you. Thank you. And I’m gonna say this not, I’m not trying to admonish any individual colleague.

So please, Councilor Stevenson, know that this is not directed specifically at you. This is what happens when we get motions put out on the floor without notice before the start of the meeting. And we have a very long meeting. And now we are approaching 720.

I am not ordering a meal break. We are going to work through. We have this item and one other item on the agenda. So if we can please move on this as best we can.

And I’m sorry, two more items on the agenda. So colleagues, again, it’s really important that we try and be proactive and circulate amendments that we want to make in advance. So colleagues are aware. I have Councilor Trussow and then Councilor and then Mayor Morgan, sorry you’re sitting in your old Councilor seat.

So I went to Councilor. Then Mayor Morgan on the speakers list. And again, we are still on an amendment. We are not even on the main motion as amended yet.

So Councilor Trussow. I just went to through the chair very directly ask, when we talk about front door services, does that include having some kind of kitchen and food service available? Ms. Campbell.

Through the chair, it certainly involves food provision. Front door services, any basic needs should be provided. Doesn’t necessarily have to have the kitchen on location. That being said, I’m just wondering, and I’m not sure this is appropriate through the chair, you’re gonna have to help me out, that I feel like this addition is something that we could certainly give more detail on and come back to Council with, but I’m not sure that this could be prepared in the timeframe that’s being sought at this moment.

I’m quite anxious about following my own board’s direction and the strategic direction of where the conversation is going. I feel like I need to consult in order to be able to deliver what I’m hearing from Council right now on this motion. Thank you. And I think that’s both in order and helpful, but I’m gonna go back to Councilor Trussow.

I’m asking the clerk for some assistance. What I’m hearing is we’re sort of getting bogged down in a detail that we cannot reasonably deal with tonight. I foresead, I foresead, I foresead, I foresead, I foresead, this when I made my initial objection to this coming up, what was that an hour ago? And I’m just wondering, is there a procedural device that is available to us to just defer this to another time so we can get on with the main motion?

The procedural way to deal with this is simply to defeat it today and allow the agency and staff to have some further discussions and if they wish to bring forward a proposal in a longer timeframe when they’ve had an ability to flesh it out informally more first and then bring forward a formal recommendation at a later date to do that by defeating this, which has a very specific timeline of the 2025 budget update. And doing that at committee does not preclude them from coming back at a later date, but that is the way to dispense with this now, given the time and that it is on the floor and we’ve had considerable debate on it. I don’t think it’s appropriate to allow it to be withdrawn now because everybody has spoken quite a bit on this item. I would seek to make a motion to put the question or call the question, but I wanna be respectful of the mayor who hasn’t spoken yet on this, so I’m just not gonna see anything else.

So that only works at council, not at committee. Maybe we wanna change the council policies and procedure by-law so it does work at committee, but that doesn’t work here either. So I have mayor Moria next on the list. I’ll be brief.

I won’t be supporting the amendment. I don’t have enough information to make a decision on the amendment. Defeating this particular amendment does not preclude it coming back at some other time in some other way. And I think it will be much more focused on the overall proposal if we vote against this and move back to the main motion.

Okay, on the amendments, any further speakers, I am going to ask the clerk to open the vote. If not, Councillor Stevenson. Just asking you to split them. That’s already been requested, so that will be dealt with as two separate votes.

So first we will deal with the amendment to part B, which is the new clause I, that the budget be attached to and distributed to and attached to the next council agenda. And we will get the clerk to open the vote on that just momentarily. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero. Now we will ask the clerk to open the amendment part CI, which is the direction on the front door service relocation.

Closing the vote, motion fails four to eight. So now we’re back to the main motion as amended. That is the provision of the 1.8 million for the remainder of this calendar year with the direction for a budget business case, with a further direction for the mayor’s advocacy piece. And at this point, I’m missing a second piece that was added, the engagement with the community on the budget proposal before it comes as a budget amendment.

Looking for any further speakers on the main motion as amended, Councillor Layman. Just a point of clarification, Chair. Earlier in the delegation made reference to the foot patrol hours being cut back or reduced. And I just want to make it clear.

I’ve had confirmation that that is not the case. There’s been no cut back or reduction in hours for the foot patrol. Thank you for that point of clarification. And that’s why we have council members on service boards so that we can check information if we need to.

Appreciate you getting that for us, any other speakers, main motion as amended. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Ferrer, one of you has to go first. I guess I’ll take it. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for pointing that out, Councillor Layman. That’s what was my understanding too. I guess, just, okay, I guess I went through a lot of those questions when I shouldn’t have, but I will ask this last question just towards Ms. Campbell if she can reply.

So obviously we’re talking about, you know, the interim area until we get everything ramped up on the whole of community system response, but I just kind of seeing out in the future when that time comes, like I do want to see our continued services. I do want to see our habits capacity. So I just wanted to know what would be the plans when that time comes with the arc services? Ms.

Campbell. Thank you and through the chair. One of the most important parts of this, these motions is coming back into that multi-year budget, having some stable funding, allowing us to continue our services in a way that we can predict, allows us to pivot and plan for moving into the highly supportive housing and hubs model. When each year we’re being asked to expand and contract and do, you know, kind of mammoth work, our focus is kind of on the day-to-day, rather than the necessary strategic planning that our board longs to do and that we have been doing, sort of on the back side of our desk.

So I believe that the locations that we’re talking about, our locations that are temporary in nature, we are able to wind them down, especially as other services ramp up. And it is our full intention to make that pivot ourselves. We have a plan for highly supportive housing on the second floor of our 696 Dundas Street location. We have a plan in partnership with others in the community around hubs.

We are planning to fully engage in that process. We have been attending all of the whole of community response meetings, as well as looking at the gaps within our system, which is where the Arc has historically, we’re a 40-year-old organization, where we historically have found ourselves stepping up into service, and we will continue to do that. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Chair, thank you for that.

And I would also say, you know, in the future, continue communication with me. I’ll be more than happy to assist whenever you can. And thank you for keeping your commitments and your promises that you’ve made to me. Again, I just wanna say, you know, going back to the community engagement with the business card piece, you know, we did that.

We had those meetings, we did that outreach. So there is a level of a commitment there that is something that we should take note of, and I do appreciate that, so thank you. Any further speakers? Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. I do appreciate all the work that the Arc has put into this. And I do appreciate the way you love on people. I’m not gonna be supporting this, and I did in the last extension, but I just can’t do it now.

I mean, we are increasing our shelter space by a third. This was not in our strategic plan. It was not in our whole of community response. In fact, we closed the lending here’s 15 resting spaces that were 24/7 without even consideration.

And I asked this council to get an explanation. I was told it was not even, that was voted down. We closed the drop in spaces at 602 Queens. So we used to have, even in the winter response, the Arc had three locations.

Lending here’s had two safe space had one this past winter. And now we’re talking about not having a winter response, and this is gonna be it. We’re gonna have one door on that industry on the main street of a BIA, of a business district, in a neighborhood that has not been consulted. Where we know there are problems, real serious safety, public safety problems.

The whole of community endorsement is not here. So we’re making a huge investment in steering in a different direction with no letters, no endorsement from the whole of community. The, this has been done from previously approved funds. Well, those funds was 4.6 million that we had proved to stabilize the shelter system, of which one of those shelters was converted to highly supportive housing.

Again, seemingly no consideration of the 15 24/7 resting spaces that were available to the, to those most in need. We don’t have provincial funding. So we are now putting this on the backs of the taxpayers. So we set up a committee, the SWORD, to look for dimes because there were no dollars.

And now we’re spending dollars, $4.3 million. We’re gonna increase the property tax rate by 0.5%. Now think about the neighbors in Oldies Village, those who are paying property taxes, we’re asking to take their property tax money and spend it on something that is literally destroying their neighborhood with no input, no opportunity to engage and try to make this something that works for them too. People are saying, what about the 25 million?

We used it for operational funds for Elmwood Place, but note here we’re looking at property tax dollars, those who can barely, many, many people are struggling financially. And now we’re looking at taking that money and giving it to others who are struggling. But that’s not, we used to be done on charitable donations. Those who had would give to those who did not.

And the art does a great job of doing that. And they always have. But now all of a sudden, we feel an obligation to fill in need. But honestly, in my opinion, is not ours to fill, as much as our hurts want to do it.

I’ve got apartment buildings full of people who are living on Ontario Works and ODSP that don’t have food that are barely getting by. And we’ve got people in the streets with those same checks every month, and yet all of this money is going there. We’ve got a big problem on that street. We’ve got a big problem.

It’s a business district that this council has said they endorse. That we say we’re support. That we ask business and property owners to pay a levy to support revitalization. We have a strap plan where we all said we were committed to this.

We’ve got a rapid transit system right there that deserves to have a vibrant neighbourhood. This should be a place of vibrancy and revitalization. We’ve got newcomers coming. CCLC is building a new building.

And we cannot let this be welcomed to Canada. I really think this council, we get to look at this and address it. We’re gonna have drop-in services in only one location when we used to have five. We asked, we voted down the encampment strategy plan of funding because we were talking about this kind of thing.

How do we support and provide food to people who have the same amount of money as people living in the buildings? And I know they don’t have access to refrigerators and cupboards and stuff, and so it’s different. But there’s lots of different food things there. And so we’ve got the cost of enforcement.

We’re looking at one drop-in location in an area where we’ve set a zero tolerance for encampments. So what is this gonna cost us in terms of enforcement in terms of the frustration that both those who are seeking place for shelter as well as those who are charged with doing in the enforcement? We’re gonna lose residential and commercial tenants and we all need those spaces. What about tourism?

We’ve got Banting and Kellogg’s Lane. What is this gonna do? Well, I really wanna hear, if we’re gonna support the strategy to March 2027, what is that district gonna look like? And how are we gonna support it?

We’ve got the arts, alien hall and the palace. Elsa, you’re past five minutes now? Great. Well, bottom line is I’m not gonna be supporting this and it makes me sad that that is the situation that I’m in but I cannot support it.

Thank you. Any other speakers? Mayor Morgan. Yes, through the chair.

But a quarter of what was said is not true. Council is not making a decision to develop a strategy until 2027. Council is not making a decision on the budget at this point. Council is directing staff to bring forward a business case which will go through an actual budget process.

What we are proving today is some support through the end of the year. And yes, people can either support that or not but to speculate what council is going to decide through the budget process, given all of the other priorities we have, we’re simply in this direction asking for that to be forwarded. We have not approved anything next year or the year after or through to 2027. So I just wanted to clarify that for anybody who’s listening because it’s important for people to understand the actual decisions that we’re making in this room and not what people like to say that we’re making.

So that’s all I had to say. Thank you for what I hope is the last time tonight. Vice Chair Raman, can you take over please so that I can offer a couple of comments. Thank you.

I will recognize Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer. I appreciate the Mayor’s comments ‘cause that means I don’t have to say them because I’m not approving a budget business case tonight. And I know that I have shared with both our staff and with Ms.

Campbell that I don’t know how we can absorb 4.3 million on a property tax base, that’s a half a percent. We can’t, we can’t go from 8.7 where we are now to 9.2 in approving this. So we have to and that’s why I’m supporting the extension to December 31st to give us a longer runway to really find a way to, first of all, hopefully get the senior levels of government to find this, fund this, to look at other ways the service can be delivered. But what I will say is that a couple of years ago, if we were receiving a request like this from Arcade around First Baptist Church, I would have been a resounding, absolutely not no.

Big exclamation marks, red flags waving in the air. But why I’m encouraged and why I’m willing to have this longer runway is I have seen lessons learned, improvements made, changes to approach from Arcade where with the Warner House and with the services that they’re offering at 696 Dundas, being a significant improvement over what it was then. And I know when we put out the call for winter response and for longer term plans later, the ARC was the one that stepped up and said we have one. I understand Councilor Stevenson’s concerns about one spot dropping and they are valid concerns.

I also think we also have to consider that the Salvation Army Mission Services, they’re going to continue to function as well. But there is where I agree that we are overstepping our bounds budget-wise because those organizations funding is primarily provincial. So we have to look at, and there’s got to be some serious work done by all of us in the next little while to look at other ways to fund this. But we need to recognize that what the ARC is doing right now is it’s not perfect, it needs some changes.

They know that, we know that. But what we see right now is almost a sort of hub light where we’re not serving necessarily the highest acuity people, but medium and lower acuity people that can get into the the Warner House situation and be supported in a different way than highly supportive housing or a hubs model would support and it is a gap. And I don’t know what else we do except create some runway for ourselves here. It’s not the funding we have right now that we’re deciding on today is funding that’s already there.

We’ve already decided that’s doable. I don’t have, and I want to be really clear about this, supporting this tonight does not mean I am a yes to 4.3 million in the budget. I don’t know what else that means, but it does not mean that I am voting tonight that I’m going to say yes to 4.3 million. And I know there’s going to be incredible worry about December 31st, all these beds are going to close and disappear.

So that’s why AMO, FCM, everybody on an advocacy level needs to really ramp up the pressure on the senior levels of government to step up. That includes our community partners too. But I’m not going to crystal wall what I’m going to do around the budget. What I do want to do is provide runway right now to continue to provide a service which is saying in this proposal exactly what we said, make this a year round and it may be flexes up and down during the summer and winter a bit in terms of the volume, but that we wanted to quit doing one off, one off, one off winter responses.

And this is at least offering some sort of path that could potentially do that. The price tag is really big. Like I said, I’m not sure about all the day spaces. I want to ask Ms.

Campbell about that in the longer run for the budget ask, but that’s something I can do later for tonight. I’m going to be supportive of this. Thank you. I’m returning the chair to you with no one on the speakers list.

Well, with no one else on the speakers list, well, when we have someone on the speakers list, Councilor Ferreira, you could have put your hand up while Councilor Raman had the chair. Sorry, just quick, the motion has amended. Can we pull part G from that for voting separately? We can.

Hang on one second. We can do this. I think it’s important for all Councilors to hear this. Once in a motion has been amended.

Will of Council is to include that clause. And from an efficient meeting standpoint, to object to one clause again, that was passed 12 to one, is really, and I’m not trying to pick on you, Councilor Ferreira, ‘cause this has happened multiple times before. And I think it’s actually something that we all have to reflect on ourselves. When the will of Council has been expressed on an amendment, all we are really doing is taking up time to pull it again a second time to vote against it.

So we can do that if you wish. And I’ll look to you for guidance on that. But this is one of the reasons why we are having longer and longer meetings, even though the agendas are the same size. Thank you, Chair, noted.

I guess keep it in there. And I do like efficient, streamlined, quick meetings. And I always, always do that. So keep it as it is, I’ll vote for it as it is.

Thank you. That’s the spirit of compromise that we need to see some more on when we don’t get an amendment that we necessarily agree with on the main motion when it comes back. So I’m gonna look to Councilor Raman. Thank you, Anne, through you.

So I won’t repeat all the discussion that’s happened so far, but I do wanna say that I’m having some of the same struggles as Deputy Mayor Lewis on this. I want to ensure that there’s a runway here, but at the same time, what’s in front of us right now, they’re, in my opinion, is no off ramp. So I’m really challenged with how we would go about taking on the full municipal responsibility for this cost, at which point, when does it effectively wind down? At what point do we say we have fully addressed all of those needs, and therefore, we no longer need a temporary shelter?

I also think that one of the things I’m really challenged with at this point, and I wanted to go to staff if it’s okay through the Deputy Mayor, through the Chair, I just wanna clarify, because this was a single source procurement process, any other providers did not have a chance to look and see whether or not they could provide additional bed spaces, and we didn’t get any sort of costing associated with that. Ms. Dickens, I saw the light come on for you, so I’m going to you first. Light is on, nobody’s home.

Correct, this proposal was received from the ARC. It was considered by Council in May on May 7th at SPPC. The decision was made to fund it for 60 days, and direction was provided to civic administration to work with the provider that sent the proposal and come back to Council, so that has been the process. We have not commissioned a procurement process, and we have not received any other unsolicited proposals or proposals of any kind.

Councillor. Thank you, and so just to be clear, that we would not go out with a cold weather response if this was approved even in the interim until December 2024. So if today we’re just approving until December 31st, 2024, and we are not going out to the community at all for any cold weather additional spaces. Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, at this time, Council may recall that, and I think it’s been mentioned tonight, so I’ll be brief that last year’s winter response, there was one sole provider that stepped forward. We see this as a continuation of those services with additional services added on, which would constitute the cold weather response. In addition to that, the community continues to meet around the community, or sorry, the encampment implementation table, so look at how we’re going to meet people’s basic needs through all weather situations, and how we will create pathways into hubs and into housing, including trying to bring more of those online.

That is where those efforts have been targeted. We have not had an organization, a shelter of any kind indicate that they have significant capacity or empty spaces to be able to wade into a cold weather response at this time, beyond the work that’s happening at the encampment table. Councilor. Thank you.

So this is where I’m a little bit confused, because our typical approach is that we would go to all the organizations and ask whether or not they are able to provide based on our needs to provide, but we’re now in a way messaging that this provides that service. So how would they know to come to us to say if they were able to, because it looks as though we’re saying, this is what we’re funding, and this is what’s addressed. My challenge with that, just to continue, is that this is for 90 beds, and we funded the cold weather response at 120 beds, I believe the last time we funded 160 day spaces, this, or sorry, we funded more day spaces than the initial cold weather, and this is for the 160, I think, at this point. I just, I see some discrepancies, especially in terms of the overnight numbers, and we hear the demand has grown, and yet we’re going to agree to fund this with less overnight spaces, and that’s where I’m stuck.

So I will go to Mr. Dickens. I would, however, go back to colleagues and point out that last year’s cold weather response, recommendations that the staff brought forward, were actually a menu to select from, and they hadn’t recommended that we fund them all, but Council chose to fund them all anyway. And so Mr.

Dickens, I’ll go to you for further response, but I think that it’s important to share that clarification from the Council perspective. What we got was actually more than what staff recommendation was. Thank you, through you, Chair. Trying to take one step back here to look at more of the totality of this picture.

We just recently came to Council with the acknowledgement that there would be more highly supportive housing units added at the House of Hope with London Cares and London Health Sciences Center. That those are net new from last year’s winter response. The development for change and in-law looking to bring on as fast as they can, 50 new units of highly supportive housing. That’s a combined 75 more indoor spaces that we did not have last winter.

When we look at the stability of the sector, this Council approved funding for the Salvation Army to add 31 additional beds through till the end of March 2026. That is a continuation in maintaining of cold weather level type beds as well. This proposal here is 130 spaces. Granted, some of them are rotational.

We get that. There’s 90 beds that are allocated more consistently. So it’s not a stark drop off, but you’re right. There are some inconsistencies in the number.

This is not a one-for-one approach, but there have been many things happening over the last six months where we’ve brought more people indoors and more people continuing to be housed. And we’ve been able to sustain the sector through the continuation of some of those other beds as well. And I will go back to you, Councilor ramen, but I’m just Mr. Dickens last year’s also had funding from other levels of government involved, whereas this is solely us.

Is that also accurate? That was correct. - Councilor ramen. Thank you.

So again, I’m struggling with some of those things. I’m hoping that between now and the budget update that there will be more opportunity for those kinds of discussions, which is why I’ll support the continuation of funding until December 31st and look to find out more through the budget update process and hopefully engage with lots of advocacy at other levels so that we can try to really put forward what the need is in the community and why this is needed at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

And I know you didn’t use all your time, but I went to hit start and hit reset instead. So I really gave you some lenience there, but I know you didn’t use it all. Apologies for that. Councilor Trussow, you’re okay.

Well, actually, I was going to, since I was the seconder on the main motion, I had quite a bit to say about it, but I think everything’s been said. I appreciate that, given the hour. I have no other speakers, so I’m going to call the main motion as amended. Wasn’t the vote motion carried?

You colleagues, Ms. Sherry, you’re do not disturb is absolutely the opposite of mine. Usually by this time of night, mine is on, not off. So moving on, we have item 4.5.

Oh, sorry, we have to do 4.5, and then we have to come back to 2.3, which is the 11th report of the governance working group that was pulled from consent at the beginning of the meeting. I have to leave the meeting. Okay, Councilor Palosa has now left the meeting. Councilor Frank has left the meeting.

Councilor Hillyer is not with us today. Councilor Van Meerberg and are you still with us online? I just want to confirm, can you turn on your video? We need to make sure where we are for quorum.

No, I’m not sure. Thank you, we needed that. We’re glad that you’re hanging in. Colleagues, we’ve had a very long meeting already.

So I’m going to hopefully ask that we work through this as quickly as possible. Item 4.5 is an item from Councilor Hopkins, a request for recording and live streaming working group meetings. Councilor Hopkins, I will go to you first to put your motion on the floor, and then I’ve got Councilor Raman next. Yeah, I am more than happy to put up my motion on the floor that City Clerk be directed to record and live stream the meetings that the governance working group and the strategic opportunities review working group in the same manner as the meetings of standing committees and Council, it being noted that the technology to the live stream and record is provided for in Council chambers.

That is my motion. I am looking for a seconder. Okay, Councilor Trussell seconds. Councilor Raman.

Thank you. Again, I’ll be brief. I’m looking to amend this to include only record and not live stream and purely based on some of the additional costs as well as limitations when it comes to the live streaming option. And I’m not sure if it’s right now, I’ll wait, I guess I’ll wait for a seconder and then I’d like to go to staff to ask questions about the costs.

Okay, Councilor Cuddy’s indicated he’ll second. So if you’d like to go with your questions to staff now on the amendment. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if staff might be able to indicate any associated costs with live streaming.

Mr. Parity, we’ve got something for you to do before the meeting ends. If you could respond to Councilor Raman, please. It’s funny as everybody else is being through the chair.

Yes, there is costs associated with this. Not for having the ITS person, the IT professional present. We would treat that more like if there was a special meeting at Council call and emergency meeting, we would treat it like that and shift some staff around to accommodate. For the security side, we would require a single security guard, the contract allows us to call up a person to attend.

There is a cost with that. It’s not substantial, but there is a cost. We would be able to cover that in our existing budget. If the intent is for this working group to be multi-year, not just something short-term for this budget, but going forward, we would evaluate those costs in June and next year, gather some data.

If we figure the need is there, we would use this as new Council direction and we’d bring it forward as a budget item for 2026 to top up whatever shortfall we’re experiencing. Councilor ramen. Thank you, that’s helpful. And I appreciate that you’ve given some consideration to covering it within this budget and at this time.

However, I do think that we have the technology within the committee room to already record. And so, I’ll put the amendment forward for that reason. I will say that we know that it changes the nature of the conversation and how we work when we’re in smaller groups and we’re in different spaces. It’s just the nature of meetings.

And so, I do think that we do change things up when we add this level of formality. The other piece I wanted to ask staff is, let’s say we have governance working group on the same day that we have another committee. How long do you need in between the two meetings to ensure that the room is changed over in time for the other meeting? So, we will go to the clerk for that.

And I’m gonna quickly interject that perhaps there could be a two for one because you had said that there’s the recording ability within the committee rooms. So, we’ll ask the clerk if they can confirm that. And they turn around time if these working groups were moved to council chambers. Thank you through the chair.

On the first question about recording capability, we do have the ability to record a Zoom session and that video could form part of an upload. On the second question, it would take, I would say an hour. That is assuming that nothing goes wrong. We would need more time than that if there is some issues that we would need to troubleshoot.

But there is some QC that we need to do. There’s shifting over even small things such as moving nameplates do take time. So, we would need that time between meetings. Councilor?

Yeah, thank you. I have not a chance to review the schedule and to see how those two intertwine or overlap at this point. But I do have, I do want to express caution because of that. So, right now at this point, I’m comfortable with the direction of just recording.

Thank you. Further speakers, Councilor Trusso. I think we have to provide the public with what the level of open meeting is in terms of people’s standard of understanding. We’ve come too far along the way of having meetings streamed to be able to go back and say, “Well, this will be recorded.” You can listen to it later.

I think if this is too expensive to stream, then it’s too expensive to have the meeting. And I really would call on the mayor and other Councillors to think about what the costs of this committee are. I do not think we can cut corners and not have streaming. And I do think that if we, so I’m opposed to the amendment.

And I do think this will be opening up some very serious open meeting questions. Well, I am giving my thinking that this could possibly open up an open meeting question because the people’s reasonable expectations of what they’ve come to understand in terms of the level of service that where people do not have to come here and they can watch it simultaneously someplace else. And I think this is a very, very dangerous threshold that we’ll be crossing if we start to say we’re going to have meetings of council. And I don’t care whether you want to call it a working group or standing committee.

There has to be proper public access. Otherwise, we shouldn’t be doing it. And that’s why I’m opposed to this amendment. Thank you.

On the amendment to any other speakers. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, on the amendment, I haven’t had an opportunity to speak to my motion yet. But on the amendment, just following up on the clerk’s comments around recording opportunities.

In the committee room being on Zoom, how and will that be shared with the public? And I’m asking that question just in terms of timeline. Sometimes we have committee meetings that go into standing committee meetings that go into council and for me, the opportunity of having that accessible, not only to me as a councillor, not being able to meet some of these working committee meetings, but also to the public and also to staff as well, just in terms of them taking notes and having some reference to go back to that working group. So when would the Zoom link be available?

Okay, the clerk can answer that. Through the chair, Zoom meetings, the way that they are administered now, when a participant comes into a Zoom meeting, that needs to be managed in a very different way from staff or a council member. So if that is the direction of council, that may require a different solution rather than simply sharing a Zoom link. I think that would be my answer to that.

Thank you for that and I will not be supporting the amendment therefore. I have no one else on the speaker’s list. The vice chair has moved a motion or an amendment. So Mayor Morgan, can I ask you to take the chair and I’ll just provide a couple of comments?

Yep, go ahead Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Your Worship and through you. I’ve been on the governance working group, both as a councillor and now as the chair, since I got here, it’s only the last two meetings where I can recall public delegations looking to weigh in on things. But I also appreciate the comments from the mayor earlier today and the intent to make sure the terms of reference are clarified, that these are not public participation or public delegation meetings.

We may invite somebody to speak to us on a topic, but they’re not a list of delegations. And so for that reason, I’m perfectly comfortable with it being recorded and posted. I think there’s the cost piece for sure. There’s the turnaround time of being in council chambers and how that lines up with other meetings, particularly because working groups have a set stop time.

And it means that we start to curtail our ability to have more open and free flowing discussions at working group if we’ve got to wrap up in the middle of an item, because our time in council chambers is done because planning committees next or civic works is next or whatever, there might be next in line. I also think that from an open meeting perspective, I don’t have concerns because the recordings available, but in the committee room, the door is still open to the public if they wish to sit and watch the meeting that way. Media still come when there’s an item of interest to them on the agenda, and so it’s broadcast that way. And the agenda is a public matter too, so folks know what is happening.

But no decisions of council are actually being made at a working group. They’re referred to a formal standing committee where we have public delegations, where we have engagement that way, where it is live streamed and everything else. So there is no formal decision of council being made at a working group. In fact, they’re informal and we’re able to be less functional because their decisions aren’t binding on their standing committee, on their parent standing committee or on council, changes can happen there.

So I’m comfortable with the record option. I’ll return the chair, I don’t have anybody on the, oh, Councillor Hopkins actually put up her hand again. Yeah, I just wanna know if I have an opportunity to speak to the main motion, if this gets passed? Well, we have an amended motion on the floor, so we have to dispense with that.

Then we would have a main motion as amended. So I’m gonna ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment. Sorry, I’m gonna ask the clerk to close the vote actually, just because the way it’s worded to your question earlier, Councillor Hopkins, I need to check with the clerk in terms of, with this amendment, because it doesn’t just say delete the live stream, it says amend the motion. So would there be, to the clerks, if you can indicate with, if there would be a main motion as amended?

So the clerk’s advice is yes, we would still have a main motion as amended if this is passed, so then we can discuss again. Sorry, the way it was worded, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something, but then that we were respecting the answer, I just gave you Councillor Hopkins. So we’ll reopen that vote on the amendment. Seeing the vote, motion carries eight to three.

Now colleagues, we are on the main motion as amended. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I feel like this was done a little bit backwards, but I know it’s very late. And I brought this motion forward, now that it’s been amended, in the spirit of keeping our strategic planning policy committees shorter.

There are opportunities when we look into recording our working groups, and we have a chamber here that Council does business in the chambers. And I think the amount of money we have IT support here, the need for security, I do not think that there is very much overlapping that can go on with these working groups and outstanding committees that create a problem of turnover. And in fact, sometimes it might make us more efficient. The reason I think that we need to do a better job when it comes to being more efficient with our meetings is that we have opportunities to review live streaming and recording.

I’m not convinced that this recording on Zoom will be available to the next meeting, standing committee meeting, or council meeting that can be viewed by staff, that can be viewed by council, and can be viewed by the public. So I won’t be supporting the amendment to the motion. I have very, very, I’m very doubtful that this is gonna make us more efficient. So, and sort of disappointed that my original motion was not even further discussed.

We’ve had many working groups throughout the number of councils that we’ve met here. Those meetings did not have to follow a certain decorum. They are a working group. I’m not looking at having our subcommittees be recorded, but I do think as we get into more working groups, we need a better terms of reference and we need to be a little bit more transparent and accountable not only to the public, but to each other.

So I won’t be supporting the amendment motion. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Before I move to anyone else, you expressed a concern about the length of time that would take to get posted. The clerk’s advice, they can provide information on how long it will take to get posted.

So I’m gonna ask them to provide that information. Thank you, through the chair. Zoom has some post-processing after a meeting. So it may take a few hours for the video to be processed.

Once that’s processed, we can download that file. I’d have to confirm with the eScribe and I’ll reach out to them prior to council, but it’s my understanding that we would be able to get it online by the following day. Thank you, just for providing that extra information for us, Councillor Trussow, did you wanna speak? Yes, let me ask this through the chair to staff.

Is there a technical reason why the public could not be told on the agenda that if you can’t attend in person, you can attend by Zoom, but you have to contact us and we’ll give you the coordinates. Is there a reason why we couldn’t do that? Clerk. Through the chair, as I indicated before, we could and we have had, for example, PPMs.

You may recall some PPMs they had participants. We could, there’s a process implication to that. If there’s going to be a lot of people watching a video or wanting to participate in that, you could have a very difficult Zoom meeting to manage. With a small amount, I think that could be done.

Certainly, but with a large amount, so I would be very hesitant to commit to that. There are other technical solutions that we could look to in the committee rooms, perhaps Zoom webinars, but that’s a different framework and it requires some different approaches. In that case— - Councillor. In that case, I’d like to make a motion to refer this to staff for further consideration of how we possibly could use the technology to put the public on a stronger basis than just watching it later.

That wasn’t the most eloquent way to put that, but I want to refer this back to staff for the purposes of getting the kinds of information that the clerk just said, there might be other technological possibilities, ‘cause I don’t think that we should pass this tonight with this limitation. I also think perhaps— Okay, so I’m just gonna stop you for a second. What I’m hearing is that you are making a motion to refer this item to civic administration, to report back to a future SPPC on options for alternate technological options for working group video access. Is that, would that capture your intent on the referral?

Yes. Okay, let’s give us just one moment for the clerk to finish typing what I just said to see what that, okay. So the clerk’s language is that this refer, to refer the request for the recording and live streaming of working group meeting specific administration to report back to a future SPPC for alternate technology options for consideration. I’m seeing a nod from Council Trust House, so we’ll look to see if there’s a seconder for that.

Councilor Ferreira, you want a seconder, you want a second hand speak to it, so we’ll mark you as the seconder, and if you’d like to speak to it now, we’ll go ahead. Thanks, Chair, I’ll be brief, and I don’t want to hold us up anymore ‘cause I do want to go home. But so the reason that I was supporting the original motion, because I’m on governance working group, and I attend the meetings in person, so I never had the need to see the videos again online, but then, ‘cause I’m not on the strategic opportunities working group, and I was trying to look into the videos, I wasn’t able to see that, so I did see that that impacted my work. With the live streaming component, for me personally, we get a Zoom link that we could just watch from the clerk, so we can do that, but originally I was, and this is why I’m supporting this motion, I do want to have the public be able to attend live if they can’t make it in, for whatever reason, and the recorded portions being posted on that, obviously I’m supportive of that, so I’m just trying to obviously allow the community to be able to cycle back and watch videos in our discussion just so they can get the full breadth and depth of the conversation as I am looking for myself, but that’s why I would be supporting this referral, because I do see that it’s looking into the alternate options to be able to still accommodate that, and it does give myself the opportunity to go online and rewatch a meeting if I’m not in attendance, so that’s why I’m supporting, I’m seconding the motion.

Any other speakers? Seeing none, this is the motion to refer, I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote. I’m saying the vote, motion fails three to eight. Okay, so we are back on the motion, which is as amended to direct the clerk to record and post the meetings, any other speakers?

Councillor Trussell. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to do this one, but I would like to make another motion to refer to get a legal opinion in terms of the open meeting implications, and whether that’s from our internal staff, or whether that is asking for the ombudsman’s person or for a rolling in advance. I think I’d leave that to a civic administration, but I’m very uncomfortable about the motion that we’re about to pass from an open meeting’s point of view. So I would like to refer— So, Councillor, I’m gonna let the clerks discuss that for a moment while they do that.

No one has asked our city solicitor who is here what her take on this would be. Now, she may say that she can’t provide that advice in public session, that’s her call, but I would suggest before referring it for a future that perhaps a question to our city solicitor might be a more appropriate approach. In which case I will ask the solicitor to respond to that concern if she’d like to, thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Pollack. Thank you and through the chair. I think given that these meetings are open to the public, we’re not getting into a closed meeting situation. Thank you, Councillor Trussell.

There’s not much I can say to respond to that other than to say it might be safe for us to ask the ombudsperson for an advisory, but I would leave that to the clerk and the solicitor as to whether we should do that. I think we should do that, but I’m not going to try to override what the solicitor just said. Any further discussion? Mayor Morgan.

I have a question for our staff. Served on and off the governance working group for, I think, almost nine years. None of those meetings were even recorded or posted. This seems more transparent than that.

How many open meeting complaints did we get over the course of that timeframe by having a meeting that’s open to the public, but simply it’s just not available by live stream? I don’t know if Ms. Pollack has the whole history of in the last nine years, but we’ll see if she can comment and perhaps a member of our clerks team might have some history that they could share as well. I’ll look to see if they have anything to add, but Ms.

Pollack. Thank you and through the chair. I haven’t done a substantial review into it, but I’m not aware of any complaints to the ombudsman. And I’m just going to see if the city clerk from his history in the office is aware of anything.

Through the chair, I’m similarly not aware. Mayor Morgan. Yes, so my thought on this is when we moved to live streaming, it was like an added level of access for the public to have, which is great. And I think the motion before us is a step that adds an option for the public to view.

So I think this is a good step without moving into some of the challenges that we face in council chambers, perhaps someday down the road, maybe those challenges are mitigated or the costs in some way, but I can’t possibly see how a step towards doing more than we’re doing now today, a couple of weeks ago, is anything but more transparent. So I’m supportive of the as amended motion. I don’t feel we need to refer, or we can take this step, we can consider further steps down the road. Any other speakers?

Seeing none, then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the main motion as amended. Posing the vote, motion carries nine to two. Thank you, colleagues, moving on. We have one deferred item from earlier in the meeting.

That is 2.3. That is the 11th report of the governance working group. Councillor Hopkins, you asked to pull this. I will go to you.

Yes, I did. And I had to follow a procedure. I did not support the added emergent submission regarding the expense account being reduced from 15,000 to 13,500. I can speak to that right now, but I would like my vote to be recorded that I was not supportive of that.

I do think the $21,000 that we are saving is something not substantial enough for me to not allow other Councillors to use their expense account. We came in knowing how much we were going to bake. And we know what our expense account is and halfway through. I’m not sure how important this reduction is.

So I will not be supporting it. Okay, so Councillor, I just want to be clear. So it is pause D. It’s 4.3, the added emergent submission.

That was from the working group agenda, yes. But in the working, in the motion for the working group itself. And if you refresh E-Scribe, it is in there. The decision on the expense account is clause D.

So you’re looking to have that called separately and everything else can stay together? Yes, and I’d just like to thank the subcommittee for working on the job description that is also on the agenda. Okay, so we can call D separately. That’s no problem.

I will look for any other speakers on this before we open the vote. And we’re just calling it separately so you can speak to any part of this or none of it or just the part that’s being called separately or whatever you wish, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I will just say I agree with Councillor Hopkins and I will not be supporting this either.

It wasn’t something any of us had used fully anyway, so it doesn’t save any money. And I feel more for the incoming Councillors next time who might need more is set up and training and that kind of thing costs are only going up. So I won’t be supporting this part D. Thank you.

And so we, sorry, we do need a mover and a seconder for the 11th report of the governance working group. Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Stevenson. So I’m going to first ask the clerk to open one moment. Okay, so we’re just conferring with the clerk.

We’ll do part D first and then we’ll do everything else as amended. Councillor Ferrera. Sorry, Chair, real quick. I will also not be supporting part D.

So I’ll be voting that down as well. I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on part D. Seeing the vote motion fails, five to six. So then all we need to do is move the balance of the report and so that’s already, we’re going to use the same mover and seconder.

So I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on the balance. Mr. Tressa. Oh yes.

Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to zero. And that concludes our deferred matters, additional business. Councillor van Mirberg and I saw your camera come on. Would you like to move adjournment?

Absolutely, thank God, thank you. You saved all your speaking time tonight for the best motion possible. And we have a seconder in Councillor Ferrera. This one’s by hand folks, all those in favor.

Motion carries. We are adjourned and I appreciate the media voting to adjourn as well.