March 17, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Items 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2025-03-06 AWCAC Report

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 3rd Report of the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 6, 2025:

a)    the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee list of accomplishments, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for review and consideration, as per Council direction, in relation to the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee with respect to responsibilities related to the welfare of animals in the community; and,

b)    clauses 1.1, 3.1 and 5.1 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.3   London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Update

2025-03-17 SR London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership - Part 1

2025-03-17 SR London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership - Part 2

2025-03-17 SR London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership - Part 3

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)    ratify Contribution Agreement Number S263926014, as appended to the above-noted by-law, between the City and Canada (as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship), effective as of April 1, 2025, executed by the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression;

b)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression to approve and execute:

i)     amending agreements with Canada (as represented by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship) for the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership (“LMLIP”) as of April 1, 2025 (“Contribution Agreement”);

ii)    further agreements with Canada that relate to the Agreement and to the LMLIP; and,

iii)  agreements (including amending agreements) with third party service providers that relate to the Agreement and to the LMLIP (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

c)    direct the City Manager and the Director, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression to forward a copy of the above-noted fully executed agreements to the City Clerk’s office for record-keeping purposes;

d)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Director of Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression, or their written designates to approve and execute such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, regarding the LMLIP, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer; and,

e)    delegate authority to the Manager, Strategic Programs and Partnerships, Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression, or their written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of IRCC’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the above-noted Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement. (2025-C01A/S15)

Motion Passed

2.4   London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Hazardous Materials Handheld Spectrometer (SS-2025-037)

2025-03-17 SR LFD SS Procurement of Hazardous Materials Spectrometer - Part 1

2025-03-17 SR LFD SS Procurement of Hazardous Materials Spectrometer - Part 2

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Hazardous Materials Handheld Spectrometer (SS-2025-037):

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with Visiontec Systems, 1-247 Armstrong Ave, Georgetown, ON, L7G 4X6, for the price of $83,880 (excluding HST) for a single source, one-time purchase of one (1) XplorIR handheld spectrometer for the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval above BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with Visiontec Systems to provide one (1) XplorIR handheld spectrometer to the London Fire Department;

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

d)    that the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report; and,

e)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, as required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-V08)

Motion Passed

2.5   Food and Beverage Concessions in Arenas

2025-03-17 SR Food and Beverage Concessions in Arenas

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the staff report dated March 17, 2025, with respect to Food and Beverage Concessions in Arenas, BE RECEIVED. (2025-R05A)

Motion Passed

2.7   Update on Provincial Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-Assisted Bicycle Pilots

2025-03-17 SR Update on Provincial Electric Kick-Scotter and Cargo Power-assisted bicycle pilots

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to an Update on Provincial Electric Kick-Scooter and Cargo Power-Assisted Bicycle Pilots:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to share these findings with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO) as part of their annual reporting requirements for participating in these two pilots, London Police Service and the Middlesex-London Health Unit. (2025-T10)

Motion Passed

2.8   Multi-Space Parking Meter Replacement - Single Source Procurement

2025-03-17 SR Multi-Space Parking Meter Replacement Single Source Procurement

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Multi-Space Parking Meter Replacement Single Source Procurement:

a)    a Single Source procurement process BE AUTHORIZED to be undertaken, necessary in connection with the replacement of this infrastructure;

b)    the approvals given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract for this purchase; and,

c)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute a contract, statement of work or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-F17)

Motion Passed

2.2   Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program Report

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025 related to Primary Care Recruitment and Retention Program:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED;

b)    the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 for one year; it being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million; and,

c)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to Middlesex County Mayors requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $80,000 London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London Middlesex and surrounding area;

it being noted that a delegation and presentation from A. Loewen, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-S08)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

Motion to approve the delegation request from A. Loewen, Middlesex London Ontario Health Team to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

That the City’s financial contribution BE APPROVED from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 for one year. It being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million.

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion be amended to add a new part to read as follows:

The Mayor BE REQUESTED to write a letter to Middlesex County Mayors requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $80,000 London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London Middlesex and surrounding area.

Motion Passed (4 to 2)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the amendment, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 1)

2.6   One Year Update: Green Bin and Biweekly Collection Program - Part One: Program Monitoring and Community Feedback

2025-03-17 SR Green Bin One Year update

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, related to the One Year Update on the Greem Bin and Biweekly Collection Program Part One Program Monitoring and Community Feedback:

a)    the above-noted staff report BE RECEIVED; and,

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to add the following details to the Part Two report, in addition to details on pet waste, garbage container limits and additional collection services and related matters, by including:

i)        a final update on Blue Box transition and what Londoners can expect starting January 1, 2026 when the program fully transitions to the producers of packaging, paper products and packaging-like products;

ii)    options on how recyclable materials that have been deemed as non-eligible sources for collection by industry can be handled;

iii)    an update on other extended producer responsibility programs and the impact on waste diversion in London and program cost; and,

iv)    options and cost estimates on how the green bin program can be extended to churches and non-profits offering food services for hospitality meals. (2025-E07)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

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

iv) options and cost estimates on how the green bin program can be extended to churches and non-profits offering food services for hospitality meals.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.9   Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs

2025-03-17 SR Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, related to the Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs:

a)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to operationalize the components of the above-noted Provision of Outdoor Basic Needs Report dated March 17, 2025;

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

b)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $37,033 (excluding HST) for the provision of Portable Washrooms (May 2025-March 31, 2026);

c)        the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $14,953 (excluding HST) for the provision of Water (May 2025- March 31, 2026);

d)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $653,200 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for Ark Aid Street Mission Inc. (SS-2025-069), for the provision of Meals, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

ii)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

e)        a single source procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $341,049 (excluding HST) for the period of May 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for 519Pursuit Umbrella Relief Programs Inc. (SS-2025-070), for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

ii)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

f)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with London Cares Homeless Response Services (SS-2025-071) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $203,707 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025, to March 31, 2026, for the provision of outreach supports for outdoor basic needs, utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Section 14.4 d) and e);

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

ii)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above-noted executed contracts for information; and,

h)    the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated March 14, 2025, from Councillor H. McAlister:

i)        the Mayor and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request from the Provincial Government additional funds to open a new shelter location in the City of London akin to the funding agreements that currently exist between the Salvation Army Centre of Hope and Men’s Mission Services; it being noted that this request would include the potential use of Provincial facilities and land to accommodate a new shelter; and, 

ii)        the above-noted communication BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that communications from A. Todd, M. Kaye, J. Brasil, B. Rudland, D. Boyce and Councillor H. McAlister, with respect to this matter, were received. (2025-F17)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above noted executed contracts for information.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the motion be amended to add a new part h) to read as follows:

h)     That the following actions be taken with respect to the communication, dated March 14, 2025, from Councillor H. McAlister:

i)    the Mayor and the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to request from the Provincial Government additional funds to open a new shelter location in the City of London akin to the funding agreements that currently exist between the Salvation Army Centre of Hope and Men’s Mission Services; it being noted that this request would include the potential use of Provincial facilities and land to accommodate a new shelter; and, 

ii)    the above-noted communication BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.10   Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement

2025-03-17 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - Approval of Federal Contribution Agmt - Part 1

2025-03-17 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - Approval of Federal Contribution Agmt - Part 2

2025-03-17 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - Approval of Federal Contribution Agmt - Part 3

That the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025 to:

a)        severally delegate authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

i)         amending agreements with Canada (Minister of Health) for the Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund (“SUAP-ETF”) Arrangement 2425-HQ-000181 (“Contribution Agreement”);

ii)        further agreements with Canada that relate to the Contribution Agreement; and,

iii)          agreements (including amending agreements) with third party services providers  that relate to the Contribution Agreement (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

b)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved above;

c)        severally delegate to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, the authority to approve such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer;

d)        severally authorize the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates to execute the documents approved under part c) of this by-law;

e)        severally delegate to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, the authority to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement, as approved in section a) above;

f)        ratify the Contribution Agreement, Arrangement 2425-HQ-000181, Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund, executed by the City Manager; and,

g)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above noted executed contracts for information. (2025-C01A/S12)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

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

The Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above noted executed contracts for information.

Motion Passed (3 to 1)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.11   Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report

2025-03-17 SR Emergency Shelter and Day Drop In Space Update

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report with respect to amending existing contracts to implement the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampment Initiative (UHEI) and additional Reaching Home incremental funding to support those living in encampments and experiencing homelessness:

a)        a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $3,078,130 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to administer 70 emergency shelter spaces at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Cronyn Warner” (SS-2025-65) Housing Stability Services funding as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

ii)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

b)        an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope (SS-2025-68) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $511,293 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to provide 18 women’s only emergency shelter spaces utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

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

ii)        the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from S. Campbell, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated March 17, 2025, related to Additional Emergency Shelter and Day Drop-in Space Update Report with respect to amending existing contracts to implement the Unsheltered Homelessness and Encampment Initiative (UHEI) and additional Reaching Home incremental funding to support those living in encampments and experiencing homelessness:

a)    a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $3,078,130 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to administer 70 emergency shelter spaces at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Cronyn Warner” (SS-2025-65) Housing Stability Services funding as per The Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

ii)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

b)    an amendment to the existing Municipal Purchase of Service agreement with The Salvation Army Centre of Hope (SS-2025-68) BE APPROVED to a total estimated increase of up to $511,293 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to provide 18 women’s only emergency shelter spaces utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 20.3 e);

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

ii)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services;

c)    a Single Source Procurement BE APPROVED at a total estimated cost of up to $610,577 (excluding HST) for the period of April 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026 to continue limited day drop-in space at The Ark Aid Street Mission – “Day Drop-In” (SS-2025-66) utilizing Housing Stability Services funding as per the Corporation of the City of London Procurement Policy Section 14.4 d) and e) to the following provider;

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

ii)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London entering into new and/or amending existing Purchase of Service Agreements with agencies identified through the City’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy to deliver the approved services.

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the delegation request from S. Campbell BE HEARD at this meeting.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That part c) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Failed (2 to 2)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That parts a) and b) of the motion BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee

2025-03-05 ESACAC Report

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 5, 2025:

a)    the Mayor’s New Years Honour List Working Group recommendations, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

b)    the Working Group comments related to the City of London Plant Lists, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Civic Administration for consideration;

c)    the Draft Invasive Plants brochures, as appended to the Agenda, BE FORWARDED to the Manager, Community Planning and Corporate Communications for consideration; and,

d)    clauses 1.1, 2.1, 3.1 to 3.3 and 5.2 BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund

2025-03-17 SR Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund - Part 1

2025-03-17 SR Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, on the recommendation of Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)         ratify the Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund Agreement, as appended to the above-noted by-law between the City and Canada (as represented by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities) (“Agreement”), effective as of April 1, 2025, executed by the City Manager;

b)         severally delegate the authority the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth to approve and execute:

i)          amending agreements with Canada for the Short-Term Rental Enforcement Fund (“STREF”) as of April 1, 2025 (“Agreement”); and,

ii)         further agreements with Canada that relate to the Agreement and to STREF; 

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

c)    severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Housing and Community Growth, or their written designates, to approve and execute such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under sections above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Agreement with Canada, regarding the STREF, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Agreement, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

5.2   (ADDED) Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for Costs Incurred Between April 1 and December 31, 2024

2025-03-17 SR (5.2) IHAP for costs Incurred Between April 1 and December 31, 2024 - Part 1

2025-03-17 SR (5.2) IHAP for costs Incurred Between April 1 and December 31, 2024 - Part 2

2025-03-17 SR (5.2) IHAP for costs Incurred Between April 1 and December 31, 2024 - Part 3

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated March 17, 2025, BE INTRODUCED at the Council meeting to be held on April 1, 2025, to:

a)         severally delegate the authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

i)           amending agreements with The Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement; 

ii)         further agreements with The Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement.; and,

iii)        agreements (including amending agreements) with third party services providers  that relate to the Contribution Agreement (“Service Provider Agreement”);

on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024 and to ratify the Agreement. Or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer or a written designate of the City Treasurer;

b)        authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved above;

c)        severally delegate the authority to the City Manager, the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to approve such further and other documents (not Agreements) that do not fall under section a) above, that may be required in furtherance of The Corporation of the City of London’s obligations under its Contribution Agreement with Canada, and Service Provider Agreements, on the condition that they are consistent with the requirements contained in the Contribution Agreement or Service Provider Agreement, as the case may be, and that do not require additional funding or are provided for in the City’s current budget, and that do not increase the indebtedness or contingent liabilities of The Corporation of the City of London, subject to prior review and approval by the City Treasurer;

d)        severally authorize the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to execute the documents approved above;

e)        severally delegate the authority to the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to undertake all the administrative, financial and reporting acts, including signing authority regarding application forms for funding, budgets, cash flows, other financial reporting including financial claims, and directions, consents and other authorizations as may be required, provided that the monetary amounts do not exceed the maximum amount of Canada’s contribution specified in the Contribution Agreement (and any amendments) that are necessary in connection with the Contribution Agreement or Purchase of Service Agreement, as approved above; and,

f)        ratify the Agreement with the Government of Canada (Interim Housing Assistance Program (IHAP)) for costs incurred between April 1 and December 31, 2024. (2025-S11/S14)

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 5:02 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 (4 hours, 25 minutes)

need that. All right, hello, everybody. I’m calling the fifth meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee to order. I will start with a welcome statement.

So Council Chambers, please check the City website for additional meeting detail information. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Adnishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lina Peiwok, and Adawandran. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse Indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit today as representatives of the 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 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 cpsc@london.ca or dial 519-661-2489-extension-2425. I’d like to recognize members of committee and visiting members. I have Councillor McAllister to my right, Councillor Pribble to my right, and Councillor Truso to my right.

I believe Councillor Cuddy is on his way and he should be here in a few minutes. Recognizing visiting members first to my left. Councillor Anna Hopkins. Councillor Susan Stevenson to my right.

Councillor Krenn, Raman to my right, and online I believe we have Councillor Hillier and Councillor Palosa. I first look to committee for any disclosures of interest. I have none. Okay, that moves us to consents.

I do have some poll requests. I have two poll items for delegations. That’s a poll item for 2.2 primary care recruitment and retention program report. And another poll request for 211 additional emergency shelter and drop-in space update report.

And I have another poll request for 2.9 for an amendment. And I’m just going to be looking to committee for any further poll request. Councillor Truso. 2.6 for an amendment.

2.6, poll any other items? Councillor Pribble. 2.10 has it been pulled out yet or no? So added to the list.

Thank you. Okay, 2.10. Any others? That’s items 2.2, 2.6, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11 pulled.

So looking for members of the committee to move and second the remaining items, that’s 2.1, 2.3, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Looking for a motion to move those items. Moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded. I will second that.

Okay. I’ll look to committee for any comments or questions. Councillor McAllister. Thank you.

I just want to comment on 2.5. Appreciate staff looking into this. I’m happy to receive and take no further action on this. I had reservations about introducing alcohol into arenas.

I think create a lot of problems that we don’t really need to be dealing with right now. Appreciate that, you know, something we wanted to look into. That’s fine, but I don’t want to put the onus on our staff to take on something which I think would actually be a pretty burdensome for them to deal with. So thank you.

Thank you, Councillor and Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir. Chair, to the staff, a quick question on 2.3. It states signature of the city manager and the director.

Do I understand right that both are needed or could it be either or? Thank you, Councillor, going to staff. And through you, Chair, both are needed. Thank you for that.

And 2.4, the capital investment. I don’t have this remaining amount from me, but it was really a low amount that’s remaining with still two years left in the budget. And I just wanted to know if there were any potential worries that with such a limited balance, if we are okay for next two years. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Miss Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, we have a number of special capital funds put aside for specific, for example, for apparatus for bunker gear, etc.

So we don’t have any further concerns in this account. No. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you.

No more questions. Thank you, Councillor. Looking for visiting members, just one more around for the members first and then I’ll go to you in a second, Councillor Stevenson. Last call for members of the committee.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just have a quick question on the multi-space parking meter replacement single source procurement. Given all the talk of procurement and U.S.

and Canadian companies, I wondered if any of the people who bid on this were Canadian companies. Did we have an opportunity for a Canadian source procurement? Thank you, Councillor. Mr.

Kecolek. Yes, thank you. And through the chair, T2 Systems has a manufacturing plant in Burnaby, BC, and that’s where these are going to be manufactured. Councillor.

Thank you, just to follow up. Is it a Canadian company or just has manufacturing in BC? Mr. Kecolek.

Through the chair, it’s an American company that’s traded on NASDAQ, but it does have a Canadian sisabjeri. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. So just one last question.

That’s great to hear about the manufacturing in BC, but I just wondered if any of the people of the companies who applied were Canadian companies. Did we have an opportunity to deal with a Canadian company? Thank you, Councillor. Mr.

Kecolek. Through the chair, this procurement was initiated last year, so I don’t have an answer for that of how many Canadian companies bid on this bid. Thank you, Councillor. That’s it.

I have next Councillor Palosa. Please go ahead. I’m having technical issues. Just thank you for this.

I wanted to respond as I heard Councillor McAllister’s comments and I guard starting 2.5 being the food and beverage at concessions in arenas. Actually, this report is for food and beverage. It is not the licensed one that is on the Budget Committee that is still coming up later this week. And thinking staff for this report, it was a Deputy Mayor Lewis and myself, realizing we both spent a lot of times at arenas and looking at the concessions, which are sometimes actually usually closed.

It seems when we’re there, looking for revenue generation opportunities as well as servicing Londoners and happy to know from staff that as we move through the procurement process as some contracts are coming up later next year to see where the interest is, realizing some of our facilities are also aging and there could be other technologies put in to help generate revenue and service gas from out of town as we do host a good number of services for tournaments too. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Great.

Just a second before I go back. I just wanted to recognize Councillor Cuddy is in chambers and we are moving or we’re speaking to items on the consent. That’s 2.1, 2, 3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.7 and 2.8. All right.

I have, I believe, Councillor Ramen is next on the list, so please go ahead, Councillor. Thank you and through you. My question is in respect to 2.5 and the food and beverage concessions in arenas. I’m wondering if there might be any information about any communities that might use social enterprises and I know when this report it does mention arenas have been staffed or supported at times by nonprofits.

Being that the revenue amount is so low, I’m just wondering but it’s a great training ground, I think, and how the RFP could perhaps reflect the opportunity for social enterprises. Thank you, Councillor. Miss Smith. Thank you and through the chair.

That’s a really good question, Councillor. I’d be happy to take it back as we explore the RFP in Q1 of 2026 and what our opportunities are noting that what we’re, what we can and can’t do with our procurement policy but also know that is being updated in the coming year too. So there may be some good opportunities and we’ll look at the flexibility we have when we go out in RFP. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. Would it be possible before Council to have just any information on what might need to be if there’s any changes that are needed within the procurement process or anything that needs to be looked at in order to address that social enterprise piece if there’s anything we need to do just because the way it reads right now, if I had a social enterprise or if there was a social enterprise I don’t know that they would see this as an opportunity as much for them and so I’m just wondering how we can expand the language a little bit to allow for that. Thank you, Councillor. Ms.

Smith. Thank you and through the chair. I’d be happy to report back if to Council prior to Q1 2026 when we’re ready to go out if there’s any direction we require from City Council. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you. My second follow-up to this was I’m just wondering how we might engage in more discussions around food recovery within our own operations and specifically around arenas and concessions. I know that just recently Canada Life Place is now doing food recovery, food rescue through their operations which is fantastic news. I’d love to see us engage in the same type of process when we open concession stands and have active service there.

Thank you, Councillor. Looking to Council, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff.

Going back to 2.8, I just want to ask about the parking meter replacement as a capital expenditure. When we have other capital expenditures we receive appendices and sorts of financing and the balance remaining balance in the accounts. In some of them we do in some of them are not presented like in this one. What is the difference that in some we receive it in some we don’t?

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to staff. Through the chair, thank you for the question.

This replacement was previously funded so we are simply reporting back on the sole source with T2 systems. So this is not a new budget ask. It’s a funded replacement. Thank you, Councillor.

So let’s say we’ll be the next step if I wanted to find out what was the source of financing and also the balance in that account remaining. Would it be going back to the previous report when it was approved because probably the balance in the account will probably be different than when it was originally approved. Thank you, Councillor. Mr.

Katoleg. Through the chair, there will be a difference in the balance of the account because we were able to negotiate a very good replacement for these 86 parking meters. So this was previously approved in the multi-year budget. So that’s why there’s no appendices in this.

So if there’s bunnies left over, that’ll be indicated in the financial statements. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. No more questions.

Thank you. Okay, looking for any other members who wish to speak, visiting members, members of committee, none. Last call. Let’s call the question.

Posing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0. Okay, that moves us to scheduled items. I have one. I have a delegation for this scheduled item.

So I will just look to the clerk to see if the delegate’s online. Okay. Okay, I see Mr. Samuels is online.

So just let me know when you’re ready. Just give me a thumbs up. You have five minutes starting now. Okay, thanks.

I don’t think I’m any of my full five minutes today. Thank you for accommodating me online. I’m in Hamilton. Mr.

Samuels, you have cut out there today. Sorry, Mr. Samuels, I’m gonna start you all over again. As usual and provide a report from the environmental stewardship in action.

Can you still have you? You’ve cut out there. I’m gonna ask if you can start right from scratch again, because you cut out for the first few seconds of your of your delegation. So I’m just gonna start the five minutes again.

Please, please start again. Can you hear me okay now? Okay, apologies for that. Yeah, I’m just joining remotely.

I’m in Hamilton today for teaching a class. I just wanted to present the report from the environmental stewardship and action committee. You’ll see it included with your agenda. We have provided some recommendations related to the mayor’s honor list, which you’ll find attached.

We’ve also suggested that the city develop some educational literature for the public with respect to invasive plants as a proactive strategy for limiting introductions into the natural heritage system. Finally, there are some literature some language lists of species that are identified as invasive. We asked that staff take a look at those items for consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking to members of committee to move items 3.1. Moved by Councillor Trussell, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. And Councillor Trussell, I have you first on the speakers list.

So please go ahead. My question is, do we need to adopt those recommendations or would they automatically go to staff? All I want is this report to be referred to staff. Thank you, Councillor.

I just heard one of the things. Congratulations, Dr. Sandals. This is quite an achievement and I don’t think that we’ve seen you since this has happened.

So very good, very good news. I see you’re already going your way to Hamilton. So good luck. Thank you, Councillor.

Sorry, Mr. Sandals, I’m just I can be I can have the clerk answer the Councillors first question. So I’m just going to go to the clerk. Through the chair, the motion on the floor has the items pulled out to be forwarded to staff automatically.

Councillor Trussell. Okay, thank you. And I just wanted to also note that the deputy mayor has joined remotely. Okay, any other members first?

Comments or questions for this item 3.1? Okay, visiting members. Okay, let’s call that question. Supposing the vote, the motion carries 5 to 0.

This is the end for scheduled items. So now we are on items for direction and we have consent items that were pulled 2.2, 2.6, 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11. So I’ll start with item 2.2. So I’m looking for a mover and a seconder moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor cutting.

Looking for members first for a speaker’s list, Councillor Trussell, please go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair, I did file an amendment which probably would make sense to have discussed along with the motion. So Councillor, are you wishing to move that amendment?

Yes. Okay, could you read the amendment to committee? If it’s the amendment that that you sent, I’ll be seconding that amendment as well. Clerk have it handy on the screen because I did send it in.

Okay, I can read it. At the city’s financial contribution be approved from the Economic Development Reserve Fund in the amount of $80,000 for one year. It being noted that the uncommitted balance of the Economic Development Fund is approximately $4.8 million. And I’d add that as a amendment.

Thank you, Councillor. And I have indicated that I will second that so it should be coming up on your e-scribe. Councillor Trussell. I’d also like to move through the chair that we hear the delegation who has requested status to speak to us before we proceed further.

So I just conferred with the clerk. We would have needed to dispose of this amendment first before we can go to the delegation. We have to, yeah, for what’s on the floor. Okay, Councillor, go ahead.

Yeah, the problem with that is she’s gonna speak to the very amendment. And I think the amendment is going to generate some discussion. So it really would not make a lot of sense for us to have the debate on the amendment when that’s exactly what she’s here to discuss. So I would request that she go first.

Thank you, Councillor. Just give me a second. So procedurally, we have to dispose of the amendment first. But I’m just gonna look at committee and see if committee would be willing to listen to the delegate first.

And we would be breaking a little bit of procedure here. So I would just like to look at committee to see if you’re okay for me going to the delegation first. So if anybody’s opposed, just raise your hand. None.

Okay. So we would need a motion to approve this delegation. So moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Or we’ll put that in e-scribe for the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Ms. Lowen, you are you ready?

I’m just gonna start my timer. Okay, I’ll start mine too. You have five minutes. Go ahead.

I believe you’re all aware of our extreme family doctor shortage, which is getting worse as our population and manufacturing sector grows. When I first started, I wasn’t made aware of the inequitable incentive funding situation that the provinces ended up needing to adopt. So unfortunately, London’s on the wrong side of that and I’ll explain what’s happening. To get there, we have basically three groups of family doctors.

So we have recent graduates. We have the those already in practice and we have international medical graduates, which I’ll refer to as IMGs. I’m moving forward. So only the last group that IMGs right now are the doctors going into practices in London and Ontario wide at the moment.

If you want stats, I can give that to you at another time. Those doctors are coming from overseas and they need financial support. They also don’t care where they’re going. So when they’re looking at Niagara, Kingston and us, it’s equitable in terms of we have similar medical opportunities and similar cities.

But Niagara and Kingston are offering their doctors a hundred thousand dollars for doctors. So our IMGs are going there. At first, I tried to find a way, as you know, to for London to match these incentive funds, but I’ve been unsuccessful so far to keep at it. And so then I needed to understand why and her recent grads going into practices.

And I believe I now understand why because I’ve built relationships with our residents here also McMaster and Ottawa. In fact, I got an email today from the chief from McMaster explaining everything. And I can’t wait to take that to the OMA president whom I’ve built a close relationship with. Now I need to elevate everything they’re telling me to, you know, where decisions are made, where the decision makers can actually have some effect on system change.

And we’re getting there. I really want to see that the provincial table. And that is where we’re going to get the system changes that we need to get doctors in London. System change is what we really need.

So I was invited to be a director of the Ontario’s newly formed Provincial Recruitment Alliance. I wasn’t sure if you’re aware of that. We had to self-organize because the Ontario health system didn’t include a mechanism for this. We are moving forward.

So we’re getting meetings and we managed to make it really important in the recent provincial election. So the ask is for $80,000, which is what we need to run the program for 2025. All of the other funding partners so that you’re aware have already sent us their checks. We actually already have the funds.

So this is the last one remaining. The money is used for the salary for this role plus travel and hosting events for doctors and residents, which is really important for that building relationship and helping them. Just you know for example on April 11th I’m hosting a seminar called Profitable Practice so that we can help our doctors already in practice do a little bit better with their finances. It’s also important to note how much of an equity piece this issue this is because only those aware of me or my Instagram account know where I’m posting new family doctors accepting patients and so we’re in a process right now with our Ontario health team and a new group called MLPCN Middlesex London Primary Care Network to get that kind of system in place so we need to keep that going.

Most of the needs for family doctors right now are in the south and the east and we’re really working on those areas. So you may have heard of Dr. Jane Phil Potts team, the primary care action team. We received a memo.

The Ontario health team received a memo from her team inviting us to come up with a plan. So her plan is that we’re gonna make a plan which I’m happy for because that means we get to make one London specific and the OHT and the PCN and myself as kind of the subject matter expert will be working on this. So my hope is to work myself out of a job. I don’t want to keep coming here every year.

This is what our city needs right now. We need this role to continue and we need to stay, you know, continue to get at the provincial level. I just met with the president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce so I’m meeting with whoever will talk to me to get this where it needs to go. Even though the processes are not stacked in London’s favor, I managed to recruit six doctors last year.

I have 12 good candidates in the funnel for this year and I just need to keep all this momentum going. Thank you so much. Thank you Miss Long. All right, so to the amendment that’s on the floor, I am looking for members of committee first for a speaker’s list.

I do see, I think I saw the deputy mayor’s hand up. Oh, EK, put it down. All right, I’m gonna go to committee members first. So just looking to members, Councillor McAllister, your first.

Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate the amendment, adhesive sea value in continuing this. I know at AMO last year we were able to have a delegation and I mean it was an eye-opening experience for me to be perfectly honest. I think the thing that still very much shocks me is that I do feel like the province is really putting the onus on municipalities to be in direct competition with one another.

I don’t think I ever envisioned a time when I had to essentially offer incentives for doctors. I understand it’s a very competitive market. Doctors have options, but it does seem wild to me that the province is encouraging practices of throw money on the table, throw cars or houses, like whatever you have to try to incentivize doctors. I don’t love that scenario.

I think we have to do what we can at the local level. I wish we didn’t have to fund this and I agree with Smith Sloan, like I’d love to work her out of a job because doctors, I know we need them and I’m happy to keep trying to recruit, but I do think this is an uphill battle because we are in competition with large municipalities that can throw large incentives on the table and I think we’re kind of at a disadvantage, but I’m willing to keep trying. Appreciate the work you did to get sex doctors and happy to hear there’s 12 on the pipeline. So I’ll support this because I do think we have to continue this.

Thank you, Councillor. I have next, Councillor Cudi. Thank you, Chair. And through you, first of all, I’m grateful to the to our speaker to come today.

Thank you very much and thank you for the work you do. And as a as one of the council’s member on the Middlesex London Health Board, I understand the problem that we have with our shortage and this is something, as Councilman Callister has mentioned, that we have to continue to go, even though it seems like it’s an uphill battle, I think we will be successful at the end and I am grateful for the work that you’ve done and your team has done and I’ll fully support this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Preble and I do see that the Deputy Mayor’s hand is up, so I’ll go to you when we go to visiting members. So Councillor Preble first. Thank you and I actually have a question. Thank you for the delegation and thank you for the work you have been doing.

Who funded in Agras the 2.8 million relocation costs, what budget did it come from? Yes, but budget. Okay, I just procedurally, we can’t be asking the delegate any questions and it would have to go through the chair. I’ll let that answer fly, but that’s the last one.

Councillor Preble. Through the chair to the delegate, the 28, do you know where they are reallocated from? Most of them? Through the chair?

No, you’re not. Councillor, apologies, but just for a procedural order, we can’t be going asking the delegate questions. I can go to staff, I can take comments, but I wouldn’t be able to go to the delegate before. Yeah, point of order.

Councillor Palose, I believe that was at your point. Sorry, thank you. Just as committee did accept an official delegation that was submitted and requests looking for clarifications to the clerk that as they did do a presentation that we can’t ask questions to Ms. Lowen.

Thank you, Councillor. I will go to the clerk. Through the chair, a delegation request that is approved allows for five minutes of a delegation. The council procedure by-law does not allow for Q&A after the fact.

Councillor Palose. No, that’s if that’s the official rolling, just seems like a waste of talent that’s never up. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Just a second committee, just a second. I have Councillor Tressa, next on the list. Thank you. Through the chair, just to follow up on that last advice from the clerk, does the procedural by-law not provide for it as in it’s silent to the point or does it specifically say delegates may not speak?

Okay, I’m gonna just chime in. If committee would like to ask questions to the delegate, I need committee to give me that consent to do that. That would be breaking procedure, the council procedure. But if committee would like me to ask questions to the delegate, tell me so.

Break it. Consensus of the committee. We’re gonna break procedural order. So I’m gonna go back to Councillor Per beau.

Please, Councillor Per beau, please address your questions to Ms. Lowen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, the Kingston incentive. Do you have any more details about dead one and how successful dead one was? Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Lowen. They have $100,000 for 10 doctors per year, as far as I’m aware. And the majority of the physicians are IMGs. But we don’t have details.

Kingston’s one of the only places I don’t have details for, but I do have them for Niagara. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You have mentioned that all partners already sending the checks we are the last outstanding one. Is your budget the same? Do they contribute the same amount of money as last year? So last year, the city approved $50,000, which left $30,000 that we needed in the budget not provided for.

So LHSC said they would cover that last year. I met with them prior to this meeting. They said they are unable to cover that 30,000 difference moving forward, which is why we asked for the $80,000 to ensure that was already there. Thank you, Ms.

Lowen. So we’re not going to break the procedure through the chair. So I just would like me to recognize you before anybody speaks. To say through the chair?

Everybody at committee, visiting members, members and delegations. So that’s not just that you. So Councillor Pribble, please go ahead. Against through the chair, I do understand that thank you for the information that LHSC is going to do the additional 30.

But in terms of the other partners, is the budget the same or has anyone contributed more or less or the same as last time? Thank you, Councillor Ms. Lowen. So through the chair, the amounts were the same.

The one Mental Sex Health Alliance, MHA, had committed $5,000 last year and they were the only ones who were unable to continue of the $5,000. So they did not. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you.

No more questions at this time. Thank you, Councillor. I believe I saw Councillor Trussell’s hand up. So I just wanted to go to you if your hand is still up.

Okay, Councillor Trussell. That was on the procedural matter and I’ll defer my questions until other people get the chance to speak. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, visiting members.

I think I have an exhausted speaker’s list. I will go to Mayor Morgan first and then I have Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor Palosa. Yes, thank you, Chair. So through you to the delegation, I appreciate all of our engagements that we’ve had on this issue over the last little while.

And you know, I’m supportive of the work that you’re doing to try to recruit family doctors into our city. It’s certainly a significant issue that we know many Londoners expect the provincial government and to a lesser degree, the municipal government to assist with where we can. I will say, and I have been clear on this since the start, it is fine if we want to continue to support the work that’s being done and I think the contributions we made in the past are appropriate. But if you see what’s happening here, it’s creeping up for the City of London.

LHSC, a provincial entity, is not contributing there 30,000. We’re expected to fill the gap. Others aren’t able to contribute their amounts. So if committee approves this to continue the work, as Ms.

Phil Pot does her work to try to solve this issue at a provincial level, I can get behind that. But I can tell you, I will never get behind throwing municipal property taxpayer dollars into incentive programs that should frankly be illegal by the province of Ontario. Because if Kingston wants to give $100,000, what’s stopping us from giving 120? And then what’s stopping Kitchener Waterloo from giving 130?

And then Windsor 150? It is totally a race at the bottom with property tax dollars that we’re never meant to spend, be spent on incentives for family doctors. We all need family doctors, all the communities do. It is a problem for the province to solve, and frankly they should make that sort of incentivization illegal for municipalities to do.

So I appreciate the work that’s being done. As you have the opportunity to give recommendations for solutions, I would strongly encourage you, as I’ve encouraged, for the provincial government to find a way to provide family doctors across the province without having to involve municipal property tax dollars that were never meant to be spent in this way. We’ve got lots of priorities, lots on this agenda, many within our municipal budget structure that we can spend money on that is squarely within municipal jurisdiction. This is one that is not, and one that, although we may fund on a short-term basis, we need a permanent solution too, and that solution is not a race to the bottom by ever increasing incentives that just puts municipalities and competition with each other.

Under the BS Black, we’re not allowed to bonus specific businesses exactly for this purpose. We’re not meant to try to get into providing incentives to one specific business, and then another, and then another. It’s the reason why we can’t participate in things like the provincial and federal governments when they bring large industrial partners in and they incentivize them. It is their role to do that.

Municipalities were not structured to be in that sort of competitive market with each other for these sorts of competitions. That being said, and I have engaged with our delegate, there’s lots of things a municipality can do. Family doctors looking to set up clinics, requiring zoning, or pre-zoning within certain areas when we build subdivisions, all things that we should be at the table and providing as much support as we possibly can on, but I just don’t think we want to get into the path nor encourage the path of putting municipal property tax dollars towards cash incentives, towards doctors, because there is no end to that. We will simply just up the bar each and every time.

Another municipality wants to compete with us on it. So I appreciate that that’s not the ask before us today. The ask is to continue the work that’s being done until the province completes their work. I can be supportive of that, but I wanted to step in and just share my thoughts on the incentivization that is happening across the province.

Thank you, Mayor. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next on the list. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I appreciate what the Mayor said.

I won’t repeat everything he said. This will absolutely be a no for me at Council. It was a no last year, too. And at the end of the day, this is a slippery slope into back filling healthcare.

We just heard from our delegate that LHSC said no to another $30,000. LHSC and St. Joe’s have a budget in the City of London to provide healthcare for this region just as big as our entire budget for the city. We will bankrupt property taxpayers if we start engaging in back filling healthcare on property tax dollars.

That’s not fear mongering. That’s for reality. Health care services, doctors, hospitals, those things are meant to be provided by the province. Through you, Chair, I’d like to ask, and whether this is our delegate or our staff, how much money did Middlesex County contribute last year?

Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I will go to staff first. Thank you. And through the Chair, my understanding is that committed $0 last year.

Thank you. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Yeah. So there we have it.

LHSC, no. Middlesex County contributed nothing even last year, let alone now. We know that family doctors in our community, whether they’re located in London or in one of our neighboring satellites, they’re not just serving Londoners, they’re serving a patient roster of whomever they accept as patients. And we have no control over saying that the doctors we recruit have to take Londoners first as patients.

That’s not within our purview. To me, I think the Mayor hit this on the head when we’re talking about incentivization. We’re and I recognize that we’re not talking about direct incentives to doctors today, but we are in a race to the bottom here. And I understand Councilor’s frustration saying, well, the province isn’t doing it.

We have to do something to help. Frankly, that’s playing right into the province’s hands. I’ve yet to see the province ever upload something that municipalities have voluntarily downloaded onto themselves. And that’s what we’re talking about doing here today.

I didn’t see a recommendation in the staff report to support additional funding. And I think for us to just throw this out because we like the work that’s being done. I think it sets up a very bad precedent that we’re going to start back filling healthcare services. If the school board came to us tomorrow and said the province won’t give us any more funding for more portables and their overcapacity of the school, we would say no, that’s a provincial responsibility.

And that should be our same response with regard to providing family doctors to Londoners. That is the role of our MPPs. I’m happy to take up the advocacy with them, but I was at that OMA delegation at AMO last summer too. And I heard very clearly from them saying help beat advocates with the province.

They didn’t say put municipal dollars into physician recruitment. They said help us advocate with the province to change the situation. And so having been at that OMA delegation, seeing what’s before us today, I appreciate the work that Dr. Lohan has done.

But I really think this is a dangerous precedent, especially at the time when we desperately need to find some budget savings. This might not move the needle percentage wise, but I’m not going to be saying yes to any further funding on this. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Councillor Paul Losa.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My comments would follow somewhat along the levels of Deputy Mayor Lewis. I know the mayor was looking for a tax rate under 5%, not saying there’s other things that are important to be funding, just really questioning which way we’re trying to move the needle.

Also, it saw the report, as was already echoed, that it was 50,000 in 2023. It’s 80k for this year, realizing the South End does need more doctors. But as we said, we can’t pick what clients in what areas actually get to fill those spots for health care. Looking through you to either staff or Ms.

Lohan, whoever might have the most update information, realizing CBC’s been reporting what BC is up to for their health care of trying to recruit from south of the border, realizing the uncertainty in those who might not want to operate practices in that political climate. If there’s not been any conversations with Ontario, Ontario, Health, or locally what we’re hearing about more doctors looking this way, who would want to come from south of the border? And maybe if there’s conversations about easing some of the restrictions to get the designations they need to open practice here. Thank you, Councillor.

I will go to Ms. Lohan. Thank you, through you, Chair. So I was in Cleveland, Ohio, three weeks ago, and we discovered there that the physicians who are Canadians, they train internationally and then end up in the United States, which is something part of the things we’re trying to fix.

They are not aware that in the fall of 2023 that there was a change to me that they can now actually practice in Ontario without needing to do additional exams. So we learned in our visit to Cleveland that we actually need to inform the physicians, the Canadian physicians working in the US, that they can actually move back home. And we need the funds to create an ad campaign to let them know that they can come back. That’s one of the things that’s actually on the top of my list, given the current political climate.

So I think it was October of 2023 where that came into play. So any physician with US, Australian, Irish, or UK family physician licensure can move to Ontario, and they will not need to redo their exams. They just need to go through the immigration process. If needed, and I’ve made a close connection with the immigration team at IRECC, and they’re actually helping me to make it a little bit easier to improve the immigration channel.

So that’s also in works at the time at this time. Thank you, Councillor. Just thank you for that update and sounds like a great advocacy piece for Councillor, you muted yourself. Sorry, sometimes it’s usually better that way.

Just thank you for that update and realizing it’s a great advocacy piece for Ontario Health and others to be taking up as well and putting funds in as it would need to be a larger campaign as our doctors have moved far from our borders. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Stevenson next on the list, and then I have Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Tresso, and I will have Councillor Raman and then Deputy Mayor Lewis back on the list.

So please go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. My views are similar to the Deputy Mayor’s as much as I understand the desperation people are feeling in terms of family doctors. We cannot be spending municipal property tax dollars.

Our residents are asking us to please stop spending property tax money on things that are not municipal issues. I am also really uncomfortable taking it from the Economic Development Fund. We are businesses are struggling and we’re going to hire, we’re going to give money for a salary, for a provincial matter. What about hiring somebody to help our businesses out and the struggles that they’re going under if it’s going to come out of our Economic Development?

I’m also uncomfortable with the fact that there’s no staff recommendation for this. There’s no contract here, but we’ve got to delegate and appreciate all the work that’s been done, but we’ve got a delegate here asking for money for her salary and travel, and we’re just going to put an amendment and give that. Are there no procurement issues with this at all? So I’m going to be through you to the staff.

To the staff, are there any procurement issues with this motion? To the city manager? Thank you. Through you to the committee, for your chair.

So council made a decision to fund $50,000 in its previous budget, and that money was flowed to the Ontario Health Team, which houses Ms. Lohan and her team. We do not currently have, before you, as some have said, a request for additional funding, but should council direct that, we would be going through the process of putting that in place. It would be an agreement directly between the city and the Ontario Health Team, if that’s what council’s direction would be.

Thank you. Just a follow-up there, I guess, because I’ve heard of a need for funding for transitional beds by one of our social service agencies, and when I mentioned that, I was told we couldn’t make that kind of suggestion. So maybe just for clarity for me, how can we make this allocation of funds, but we can’t make an allocation of funds to support some transitional beds that are closed right now? Councillor, I want to keep the questions relative to the motion itself.

I’ll do that one offline then. Okay, thank you. So my follow-up then is, could we ask staff through you why there is no recommendation to meet this need? All right, I will take that one to the city manager.

Thank you, through you, Chair. And I appreciate the question it was asked. The intention of the funding that I believe council provided was for the initiative, sorry, for the initiative, the initiative that the health team manages, which includes the work that the staff person does plus other activities as well. And my comment is simply that if council wants to approve the initiative in the community, and the host agency is the London OHT, then council could direct staff to allocate funding to the OHT for the provision of the supports to the initiative.

And so I think that’s the clarity that I wanted to provide in that regard. If there’s a second question, you’ll have to remind me again, because I’ve forgotten it while making that comment. My apologies. That’s okay.

Thank you. I’ll go back to Councillor Stevenson. If the second question is, okay. Thank you.

No, that answers my question. But I just will say I’m an emphatic no on this too, that we get to let the province deal with this. And if it’s not coming recommended by staff, I don’t want to set a precedent to have delegations coming, asking for salary and travel for all of the many things that need to be improved upon in our city. I think there’s a process that’ll be better than that.

Thank you. I have next on the list, Councillor Hopkins, and I just want to recognize that Councillor Frank has joined the committee. So Councillor Hopkins, please go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, for recognizing me. I’m going to stick with my question. This is on the amendment on the 80,000 for one year, I assume. I have a question for you, Mr.

Chair, to staff. And by the way, I want to thank the delegation for being here addressing us. We approved 50,000 last year for one year. And it was to be noted that the program will be reevaluated.

I would assume it’s after one year. So I just want to have a better understanding what that timeline is. Or is this in this recommendation the reevaluation of that 50,000? Just want to get some clarity here.

Thank you, Councillor. Just I guess I will go to the delegate to answer that one. I can answer that. Thank you, through you, the Chair.

The year has passed. So that was for 2024 was 50,000. The original ask was 80,000 over three years. It landed on 50,000 for one for 2024 with a reevaluation.

So 2024, that would have finished the period ended in December, coincided with the calendar year. So for 2025, we asked for the original amount again, because just we can do more with 80 than with the 50. And that’ll again be for 2025. And as I mentioned, all the other partners, the amount that they had committed to for 2024, they did, they all repeated for 2025 with the one exception of MHA of $5,000.

Everyone else has already sent in their checks. The city is the only one that’s remaining. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, thank you.

So it’s 80,000 just for one year. And that is it. So I do have another question through you, Mr. Chair, and I might as well do that.

So thank you for recognizing me since I am visiting. And this is for staff. And it’s regarding reviewing opportunities for rethink zoning and to sort of deal with some of our empty spaces downtown to create these base family care facilities I am just wondering where we are with those guidelines. And can we expect anything coming back to us soon or when?

Thank you, Councillor. I will let the delegate or the delegate answer this one. Oh, if staff can answer this, I will go to the chair. So there is a planning, a planning review that’s been initiated.

And staff is targeting late 2025 to bring forward any recommendations to Council. Thank you, Councillor. You don’t have. I’ll go to the Councillor.

She would like an answer that she can ask. Sorry, Councillor, go ahead. Unsatisfied with staff’s response. So thank you for that.

And if I can just give you my comments on just following up in the Deputy Mayor’s comments about the AMO delegation we did meet last August. And I quite agreed with him when it comes to municipalities not putting ourselves in a competition that we shouldn’t be competing against ourselves. But things have changed. 100,000 Londoners do not have doctors.

We need to do something. I think it’s really, really important that I don’t see that we’re even competing against places like Kingston who gave 100,000. It’s not a competition. But not to do anything where there’s such a need in our community to me is something that I will be supporting this at Council.

Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor Ramen next. Thank you and through you. First, I want to thank the Delegate, Ms.

Lohan Noyer. Sorry. Thank you so much for the presentation and the work you’ve done. I really do think you’ve done a lot in the time span.

However, I want to just go back to the report and specifically where it mentions Ontario government announcing a $1.8 billion investment, which includes $1.4 billion in new funding and $400 million in previously approved funding to connect 2 million people with a family doctor, primary care team. That announcement came just before the election. The writ dropped and no money was distributed. So how do we know that we are not getting money or that money isn’t being allocated in a way to attract family doctors here in the region?

I’m just wondering if that might be something that could be addressed by other staff or the Delegate. Thank you, Councillor. I will go to staff first and then the Delegate, if staff refer me to them? Yeah, Ms.

Lohan. Through the future, I think the Delegate is best prepared to answer that. Okay, Ms. Lohan, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. We did receive a memo from Jane Philpott’s primary care action team informing our Ontario health teams that we are going to be part of the planning process. So we will need to create a plan for London and submit it to them for approval or adjustment. So we are in the process of making that plan.

So the memo was, her plan is for us to come up with a plan. Thank you. Councillor. Thank you.

And I understand that I would be more comfortable, comfortable, referring this until after the provincial government begins sitting again and we get an update on where this is going because at this point I think it’s commendable that there is integration with existing systems, but that’s because we created a system. And I think part of the challenge with this is they’re going, of course, lean on every potential lead that they have in order to meet this ambitious target. And I would like them to do so, but I’d like them to pay for it because that’s where the responsibility really truly lies. And when we originally entertained the one year, $50,000 contribution to this, I had brought the amendment to lower the amount to $50,000.

And part of that reason was for the exact reason that you spoke about knowing how incentive driven this process is and that other cities were paying already to incentivize family doctors. I knew that with us going into this without having money on the table, we were going to be in a situation where we would be less competitive and be forced into a competitive process where we would have to give more money in order to really compete. And I truly do not believe that’s the way we should be recruiting doctors. Although I do think that the idea of promoting the fact that the licensing licensure has changed and the requirements have changed, I again see that as a provincial matter.

I think there’s value in telling London’s story that we’re a great place to live. I also see this as LEDCs as well. And I think that they’ve already contributed and are quite supportive. So I think that that’s a mechanism for us to do it.

I am feeling guarded about our economic development fund. I want to make sure that we have the ability to do some of the other very serious things that we have to do. And we are looking at budget, a shortfall budget. So I want to make sure that we have every dollar available.

So at this point, I would rather refer it until we have a chance to hear back from the province. Thank you, Councillor. I have two speakers on the list left, first Councillor Tresso and then the mayor. So I’ll go to Councillor Tresso.

You have three minutes and 30 seconds remaining. Thank you very much. And through the chair, I’m going to direct my first question to staff, although LEDC might be in a better position to answer it, but that’s up to staff. When we talk to potential employers about relocating to London, does the question of the availability of family physicians come up prominently?

Thank you, Councillor. Through the chair, Mr. Fowler. Well, thank you.

Yes, in our conversations with LEDC, they do recognize it as an attractant to both businesses and to professionals, the availability of doctors. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. So I would argue that this is a very, very appropriate use for this particular reserve fund.

And somewhat on staff through the chair can correct me if I’m wrong, but this money has already been allocated and it’s sitting in the account. The $4.8 million, is that correct? I believe the question was the uncommitted balance in the reserve fund. Is that the question?

Yes. And if I have the number wrong, please correct me. But could you just could you just tell me? And I did speak to Mr.

Murray this morning, but I think I should put this on the record and let other Councillors through the chair hear this. What is the status of that account right now? Mr. Stater’s bear.

Thank you, Chair, through you. The status of the economic development reserve fund is approximately $4.8 million. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, so I’m going to just sort of cut right to my main point.

And that is, Londoners need this. We need family doctors. What Londoners do not need? And I understand the arguments because I think the province has really dropped the ball on this.

And, you know, I applaud the mayor and AMO and everybody that works to try to get the province to be more forthcoming. But we need to do this. And I think I have a question that is best directed straight through the chair to Ms. Lowen.

And that is, what happens if you don’t get this funding? And specifically, what happens to the portion of this program that is particularly targeted to London if you don’t get this funding? Thank you, Councillor. Ms.

Lowen. Thank you, through the chair. I appreciate the question. Without this funding, I’m not sure if there’s enough for the salary.

We’ll have to look into that. But definitely all of the traveling and any other. So no hosting of events. Would we need to stop and no memberships to the national and provincial recruitment alliances that we use for that’s basically how I train what to do, how to undertake this position.

We need somebody to answer the phone. So if this position isn’t here, doctors were telling me that before the position, before there was somebody in this role, we didn’t have anyone to answer the phone and doctors were finding it too hard to come. So we don’t want to make it difficult for physicians to come. And I believe that this funding discontinues that will be the case.

It will become difficult for family doctors to come to London. Thank you. So in closing, truly in closing, through the chair, we need to do this. And the purpose of this report on our table today was to give us that one year reevaluation.

And everything points to the fact that this has been like a very successful program, given the resources that we gave them. And I really want to commend not just the delegate, but all the people she’s working with for what they’ve been able to accomplish. The fact that she has been elevated to be the provincial leadership on this points to how successful she’s been. And the point that she’s been able to get at least a few doctors to come to London points to how successful she’s been.

And she’s got other ones, she’s got other ones in the pipeline. I think it would be devastating based on a jurisdictional argument to not do this. Bottom line, London residents need more doctors. And that’s what this on the table today is about.

And I think this $80,000 from a reserve account is money well spent and will provide good value to taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I have the mayor next.

Yeah, so I’m going to make a couple of further points. First off, I want to emphasize to my colleagues that community debates matter because I’ve been convinced to change my mind on this based on the questions and answers and the debate that’s occurred. I don’t think we should be funding this at this time. I don’t think the reserve fund is an appropriate source of financing.

I will remind colleagues, although there is an uncommitted balance there, we have an entire downtown master plan that will be developed. And an entire economic development plan that will be developed, which requires funding that is not existing in the municipal budget, but exists in the allocations that we put into the reserve fund through the multi-year budget to build up an unallocated balance to be able to fund those items. So that’s a comment on the source. But also to the point that several colleagues have made, absolutely, let owners need doctors.

And the province needs to provide them. And the province has set along a path. And if the Ontario Health team wants to prioritize this work, they can readjust their budgets to prioritize this work in the region and the community. But in the absence of a detailed budget, in the absence of knowing exactly how this integrates with the provincial work, and in the extreme needs that the municipality has to fund a number of resources, this probably is not a good idea for us to be putting money behind.

Now, I don’t know if Council Raman’s referral or figure out down the road is that, but that’s not the details we have for us today. The detail is an amendment to say, let’s fund this, even though it’s not recommended by staff. And I don’t think this is the appropriate time to do so. And I appreciate colleagues injecting into the debate and remind you that people’s minds can be convinced by debate.

So it’s always important to share your thoughts. Thank you. I have, I believe, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next on the list. And Deputy Mayor, you have one minute, 34 seconds remaining.

Thank you, Chair. I’m going to try and be really quick here through you to staff. You’ve heard what the balance is in the executive reserve fund. But what we haven’t asked them is, what is the actual target balance for the economic development reserve fund?

Not what’s there available, but what is our actual target balance? Thank you to staff, the target balance for the economic development reserve fund. Through you, Mr. Chair, we do not currently have a colleague here from finance with us, but we can get that information as quickly as possible.

My apologies for not having that. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. If we can have that for Council or perhaps circulated to Council just via a briefing note, that would be appreciated.

I just wanted to ask that. That was really my only comment other than I will say, you know, I agree with colleagues who say Londoners need a family doctor. We just had a provincial election. Londoners just elected three MPPs.

And it is their job through the Ministry of Health to be advocating for those Londoners who need family doctors. This is not jurisdictional thread splitting. This is very clear. Health care delivery is the responsibility of the province.

And we have three MPPs in this city whose job it is to be working on this file, not city councils. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I have Councilor McCallis to mix on the list. And you have three minutes and 38 seconds.

Thank you through the chair. I did want to follow up question in terms of anything mentioned earlier that I believe the question was Middlesex contributed no dollars. Were there any engagements with Oxford, Elgin? Did any of the counties indicate and I guess it’s to the delegate that they’d be willing to contribute to have some sort of a regional strategy?

Thank you, Councilor Ms. Lohan. It’s my understanding that Oxford and Elgin support their recruitment team. So like St.

Thomas provides $37,000 per each doctor coming in and they support that program. And Oxford has its own team for a recruiter. Thank you, Councilor. Okay, thank you.

Because I’ve been contemplating as we’ve been discussing having some sort of partnership with our regional governments. But I think, as has been already said, we are already in competition with them, which is part of my frustration. So I won’t be entertaining that unfortunately. But I do want us to work together if at all possible.

But I still come back. The reason why I’m still supporting this is and I appreciate my colleagues who don’t want to support it and understanding the backfilling. But my issue is, for as long as I can remember, having a family doctor has been damn near and possible. This is a long, long standing issue in the province of Ontario.

And as much as I would love to put my faith in this billion dollar project to recruit doctors, it is still going to take a substantial amount of time to get this off the ground. And in that period, I still want us to have a local strategy and a local recruitment, because I have seen value in terms of getting a few doctors, even if it’s six doctors, 12 doctors. I mean, I’m happy with whatever we can get at this point. But this strategy moves like molasses from the province.

It is it’s an issue that for as long as I can remember has been a problem. And so I’m still willing to support this from a local perspective. I understand it’s a provincial responsibility. But I think anywhere we can make a little bit of dent in this that we should put some dollars there.

I don’t think $80,000 at the end of the day is that much compared to some of the other projects we fund. And so I think the return on this is decent. And in the short term, we should invest in it until we can see some movement from the province. Thank you, Councillor.

Before I go to any other members who would like to speak, I want to go to the city manager, because I believe that she has the answers that the deputy mayor requested for the target balance for the economic development reserve fund. And thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you, the question was, what’s the target balance?

It is 22.6 million. Thank you. Okay. Looking to members of committee first, I have Councillor Pribble.

Councillor, you have three minutes and eight seconds. You can go ahead. Thank you. I did have an opportunity to meet one of the new family doctors that came to London and his family.

And I did ask him what were the reasons why he decided to come here. And there’s no doubt that he came because of the work Mr. Slavin and her group did. I did support the 50,000 last year.

I look at the numbers now after the one-year evaluation. And I certainly would be willing consider to go same amount, certainly not higher. One of my disappointments is that it didn’t go through the staff and we didn’t have the staff evaluated and potentially to state which fund potentially it could be the most appropriate from last year. It was this one, but maybe this year we found they could be another fund.

So I will not be supporting it. Having said that, I do know, I do want to say that I did meet one family doctor who came to London and he certainly has his patient list. If not complete, if not completely full, it’s almost full. And I do believe that $50,000 investment would be was was very good return on investment.

My disappointment is from both ends that the other health organizations like LHSC, because again, if you are going to come back with scenarios, if people have family doctor, I’m quite sure down the line we could make same scenarios as the health care, local health care system would be on the less pressure. So I’m disappointed that they didn’t come up with more money. Same as Middlesex London, both. But as I said, whatever is in front of us, I will not be supporting it because I certainly don’t want to increase it.

And we’re all stated already before that we should have certainly local MPPs that should be lobbying and bringing these kinds of money and funds to London. So we don’t actually have to deal with provincial issues by the municipal issues. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

Looking to, okay, we have a visiting member. Councillor Frank, please go ahead. Thank you. And I agree.

I really appreciate the work that has been done so far in this file. As we know, lenders are desperately in need of family doctors. I too lean more towards still funding this, but perhaps at the $50,000 mark and having a budget and have staff review it. So I’m wondering procedurally, at this point, when we just receive all this information and then ask that staff and Ms.

Sloan Nair work together on bringing this back with a little bit more of a cost to plan and perhaps $50,000 as opposed to 80. I know that this would have to fail if we were going to change the number, but I would be more interested in supporting that because I do see a need. But again, I am trying to be cognizant of how much money we’re pulling out of the active fund. Thank you, Councillor.

Councillor Tresso, you have 25 seconds, Councillor. Then I’ll make it really quick and I’ll talk fast. The purpose of having this report sent to us today was to deal with these questions. So to send it back to staff for another evaluation, when we passed the $50,000 last year, it was with the proviso that had come back in a year with an evaluation.

I cannot speak to why this was not in the staff report. I thought the staff report was deficient in terms of not saying that, but my time is up and I’m not going to repeat things I’ve already said. Thank you, Councillor. I saw that the mayor’s hand was up.

The mayor is also at a time. So, okay, you’re okay. Okay, I’m looking. Other members of the committee, visiting members who have time.

All right, I’m just going to make some comments from the chair. So I still support the amendment. I hear that what everything that is being said, you know, everywhere from we’re playing into the province’s hand, this is exactly what the province wants us to do. They’re not going to backfill fund us if we start funding it.

And I get that and I don’t want to see that, but I see that we are in this vacuum of finances, this money vacuum that the province has not necessarily contributed to the issues that we need, especially when it comes to having family doctors in London, primary care physicians in London. And the truth and the reality of the landscape is we are being out competed by other municipalities. I know Kingston has been referenced. There’s other municipalities as well.

I’m not saying this is something that I would support in perpetuity because I would like to see the province come in and fulfill the obligations that they should be fulfilling. But in the meantime, I just can’t seem to sit back. I can’t sit back and have more people without family doctors. I have friends.

I have people who live in my neighbourhood, people who are in the ward who tell me this. I have a few family who also don’t have family doctors. And I know that this is a very pressing time. So just in the meantime, this is why I’ll be supporting something like this.

I totally agree with the questions on the Economic Development Reserve Fund. If there’s other sources of funding, that would be great. But without that other source of funding being pitched proposed, this would be the funding that it would go to. Ultimately for me, I would like to see London bring in more primary care physicians to meet our demand.

And yeah, with the amount of money that we’re putting forward, and this is for recruitment, solely for recruitment, just bringing in one or two or three. I think we saw three last year come in. I would like to see, you know, those doctors come in as long as we keep on trying to just relieve some of the demand that we have. That’s the kind of the action that I would like to be going forward until we see a real action from the province.

So I will still be supporting this amendment as it is. And with that, I’m just going to look, I’m going to go to Councillor Cutty. You have four minutes and 26 seconds. Thank you, Chair.

I sent through an amendment to the motion. I’m not sure if it’s been received. Just a second. Okay, Councillor, thank you.

Just conferred with the clerk, we would have to dispose of this amendment first before we can bring an additional amendment to the floor. So you will get a chance to bring that forward, but just procedurally, we have to dispose of the amendment that we have right now. Can we not make an amendment to an amendment? Councillor McAllister, sorry, ask your question one more time.

I believe the Councillor is looking to amend the amendment, which I believe we can go down two levels and then it’s not. Councillor, you can amend the amendment. You can move an amendment to amend the amendment. And I believe that’s the last level of amendment we can do at this point.

Thank you. So if the clerk could put it up on the screen, and I believe I might have a seconder in Councillor McAllister. Do we have a mover and a seconder? Okay, let’s put it up on the screen and check your eScribes.

It’s up on your eScribe right now. So do you want to read the amendment? I’m going to be amended to add a new part to read as follows, that the mayor be requested to write a letter to Middlesex County mayor is requesting that the county contribute a percentage of the $80,000. London is contributing for the recruitment of doctors to London.

Councillor, with that amendment, I have a new speaker’s list. So I’m going to order a station point. My point is, is X instead of or in addition to the amendment that’s already on the table. Because if it’s in addition to, I would support it, but if it’s instead of, I would not.

And it’s not clear to me whether it’s, yeah, what I just said. Thank you, Councillor. I’ve just conferred with the clerk. They have said it’s in addition to, but I will go to Councillor cutting to see his point.

Thank you, Chair. It’ll be in addition to Councillor. Thank you. That answers my question.

Thank you. Now, for the amendment to the amendment, looking for a speaker’s list, comments, questions? Mr. Chair, just Elizabeth online.

Yeah, go ahead, Councilor. Question through you to the movers. Just with the wording, it says recruitment of doctors to London. I don’t know since we’re asking the counties to maybe help chip in.

If you want to put like London in area or middle sex in London in area, just for doesn’t seem to take all the doctors. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Good point.

I’m going to look at the movers in the seconder for that. They are nodding in approval so we can make that change. Just to confirm that’s London in area for the amendment to the amendment. Well, it would be London middle sex because specific to middle sex.

Thank you. Okay, just check the e-scribe for the change in the motion, just to make sure that is what you would like to see. Thank you. So I’m getting a thumbs up for them over in the seconder.

I believe the deputy mayor has his hand up. So I’m going to go to the deputy mayor next. Please go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

Well, I appreciate the sentiment that the Councillors moving the amendment to the amendment are expressing. You know, I, and I’m asking this as a rhetorical question. I don’t intend on engaging in cross debate through you, Chair, but we approve this at Council and the Mayor writes a letter. I’m not sure why Council colleagues would think that after we’ve paid the bill, the county might consider picking up the tip.

And that’s essentially what we’re saying here is let’s approve the funding and then go ask the county if they’ll reimburse us for some. Why would they when we’re doing the job for them? So I appreciate what they’re trying to accomplish, but this is actually honestly, to me, it’s a pointless exercise. If this was a refer and have the mayor engage with county and ask if the county was willing to pick a part of the tab, that would be different.

But you’re talking about approving the funding and then writing a letter after the fact. So I don’t know what what colleagues realistically think they’re going to accomplish here. I don’t see the value in this amendment. Thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I have Councillor Trussell next. And this is on the amendment to the amendment. Yeah, thank you through the chair. The answer to your question.

Why would they do it is because it’s the right thing to do. And they share our concerns about the need for more family doctors. And there is no harm in having the mayor press them on this. And I think a well drafted letter might get a response.

So I really disagree with the assessment that it’s useless. And I would thank the Councillors for bringing that amendment to the amendment forward. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor.

I’m going to have to add a hand over the chair to the vice chair for a second. I just got to make an emergency call. So I’m handing it over to you. I’ll be right back.

Okay, I don’t have anyone on. Oh, I should say I’ve assumed the chair. I don’t have any other speakers, but looking around the room. Oh, sorry, Councillor Preble.

Go ahead. Just one second. Just trying to thank you one comment. I would like to mention that one of my colleagues said that this the being mayor never said that this would be useless.

He mentioned that and I agree with him that the other way into suffering it and actually go to your potential partners before the decision is made is much more beneficial than after. But one thing is just going back to it. I really don’t I see both points or both both sides of the coin, but going back to it, I really don’t want to increase what we have committed to 50,000. And the other part is I would love to have from the staff to see let’s say if there was any amount allocated will be the most appropriate fund or reserve fund, which was never attached to it.

But bottom line is I will not be supporting it, even with with the amendment to the amendment, because I don’t want to increase the amount to 80,000 from 50,000. Okay, I think Councillor Preble, sorry, I was looking at your time, but I realized you hadn’t spoken on the amendment to the amendment. So sorry about that. One of the joys of jumping in last minute.

I don’t see anyone else. I will have to pop over to my chair to vote at that computer, because I currently love this Councillor for air over here. So I will, okay, actually I can vote from here. So that’s okay.

Any other speakers? Okay, Councillor Trussow, I believe you used a little bit of time, but go ahead. This is a procedural matter. I mean, typically we don’t like to take recesses in the middle of an item, but I feel very uncomfortable that the chair who’s the seconder, who’s been very involved in this discussion will be out of the room for the votes.

And I’m wondering if we could just take a five-minute break. Okay, so do you want to move a five-minute recess? Yes, I will move a five-minute recess. Okay, I’m willing to second that.

Okay, we’ll open a vote on taking a five-minute recess. I’m just going to do it by hand. All those in favor of five-minute recess? All those opposed?

The motion fails three to two. We can’t take proxy votes. Oh, okay. I can return the chair of Councillor for coming back.

Okay, looking for any other speakers on the amendment to the amendment. Okay, let’s call the question. Okay, now we’re on the amended as amended. All right, we’re going to have to redo that vote.

We did not have the mayor. He wasn’t on that vote and he does wish to vote. So we’re going to redo this vote. Okay, vote is back and he’s correct.

Mayor Morgan against closing the vote. The motion carries four to two. Morgan. Yes, I’m just informing that you’re I have to leave the meeting.

I have two cabinet ministers waiting for me down the hall. I’ll ask them for money. Thank you very much. Now we are going to be voting on the motion, the amended motion, the amendment as amended.

So calling the question. And just to members of committee, we would need a mover and a seconder for the motion as amended. So moved by Councillor Cudi, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Just to rephrase what I said, we are for the did motion as amended, the amended amendment as amended.

Call the question. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to one. Now we will have the main motion as amended.

Closing the vote. The motion carries four to one. Okay, thank you. I son orthodox, but I’m going to have to leave this meeting.

I have to attend to an emergency situation. I would like the presiding or the vice chair to take over, but I would like to call for a five minute recess just to get everything’s arranged for you so you can get ready. So if you don’t mind, if I’m looking for a mover for a five minute recess moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Cudi, let’s call that question. Okay, hand vote is fine.

All in favor? All opposed? That motion carries. Thank you.

Hey everybody, call this meeting back to order. Councillor Preble, if you could take your seat. Welcome back everyone. I will be chairing for the rest of the meeting.

We are on to 2.6. This is the one year update green bin and bi-weekly collection program, part one program monitoring and community feedback. Okay, so do we want to get the staff recommendation on the floor, looking for a mover and seconder? Nope, not seeing anything.

I need something on the floor. Definitely on the floor to discuss. I was wondering through the chair, if this would be an appropriate time to put my very minor amendment on the floor, that adds a point from a numeral floor to be? Yes, I know.

I need the actual motion on the floor. So I need the staff recommendation if you want an amendment. Okay, Councillor Trosto, looking for a seconder? Councillor Preble, thank you.

Okay, and Councillor Trosto, you want to put an amendment? That would be your time. My amendment simply adds a part four to be included in the report back, dealing with non-profits offering, well, the exact language is the exact language on the screen yet? The clerks are just working on that one moment.

Okay, you want me to read it? Want me to find it and read it? Yeah, you can read it while it and it should be up now. It should be showing now if you want to give your rationale, go ahead.

Yes, my rationale is that I think the distinction between profit and non-profit could be further refined. And if we just make a special exception and the report back to us presumably in June can deal with us, how this can be operationalized, I think would be of great assistance to those entities that are providing meals, meals that are using rescued food, rescued food. So I think it’s very minor, but I think it would be much appreciated by the churches and other non-profits. And like I said, to staff over the break, think of the strawberries.

No, no left? Okay, anyway. Thank you, Councillor. Go ahead, Councillor Preble.

Thank you, and I would just like to receive sort of chair feedback from the staff regarding this amendment. Thanks for the question and comment and through the chair, the item that has been raised here can easily be accommodated in our report in June, and where we are looking at different options with respect to the green bin. And this would be as the motion indicates there, we’d bring back options and costs associated with that. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, no follow? Okay. And for any other committee members, I have a quick comment. I appreciate the Councillor bringing this forward.

I had also had non-profit, I had one of the resource centers reach out in terms of trying to be part of the green bin program. I know we have a few others, especially those who work in different food programs have expressed an interest in this, so I think it would be good. I think Mr. Stanford, you’d already expressed that we were going to look into this anyway, so obviously just acknowledging it, and hopefully we can move forward with that.

I’m looking for any other comments from visiting Councillors. Not seeing any. We’ll open the amendment for voting. Supposing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0.

Okay, so this is on the amended original motion. Any discussion on that? Okay, Councillor Preble, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, to the staff. I do have a question. When we started this proposal and we went out to the bids, we talked about certain tonnage per year. Now we are at just under 15,000, and I was just wondering, what was it originally, or if this amount is actually in our favor against us, but I think it was 14,480, and what was it that we went out with the bid was in our proposal.

Thank you. Go ahead, staff. Through the chair, for the first year, we hit the target amount, so there was no penalty from the contractor, and by penalty, I mean, if we didn’t deliver the right amount of tonnage, we would have to pay for that space. So for the first year of the program, Londoners hit that mark, so there was no additional payment required to the contractor.

The increase for 2025, it’s in the order of about 5 or 10%, so with the growth of the city and the second year of the program, I see no reason why Londoners will not be able to achieve that as well. Thank you. Follow up, Councillor. No, you’re all good?

Okay, Councillor Trasso. Thank you. Through the chair, I just want to briefly state that I thought that this was an excellent report. It went into a lot of detail, and it gives Londoners, and I know people in my ward are very interested in this question, and they’ve had complaints in the past.

It gives Londoners the kind of information that they need to properly evaluate this program. Furthermore, it creates the view on the part of residence, which is sorely needed at this time, that people are listening to them, that people in City Hall are listening to them. So this work that you’re doing here is outstanding, and I just want to commend you for it. Okay, thank you, Councillor.

Looking for any other questions? Oh, Councillor Ploza. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Presenting, Officer. A couple of comments and a question. A question through you to staff. Bag tags are currently at $2, and I believe that price was in effect since 2012.

Looking through you to the Mr. Stanford to see if that would be part two of the report coming up, or if that’s tied to the other W12A reports coming back, if that price is still in line with the other industry standards. Go ahead, Mr. Stanford.

Through the chair, I believe the movement from $1.50 a bag to $2 per bag was within the last couple of years. So I will get that confirmed, but we’re happy to bring forward ideas on how to increase green bin participation, ideas on how to actually provide ideas such as for the revenue that could be obtained from the additional bag tags. So those would be items that we bring forward for our June report. Follow-up, Councillor?

Yep. Thank you for that. I did think it was more recently that we have the price from $1.50 to $2, just the report does date 2012. Just wanted to thank you and your staff for the very detailed report and the information that they’re currently putting out for bulk item pickup.

I know that’s one that’s been kind of changed throughout the city, and residents are still catching on to the call five days in advance to have it picked up. So thank you for your office’s help with getting that information out to especially War 12 residents. I do think that we’ve missed part of an opportunity. I’m still dealing with residents who believe they’ve actually had a decrease to service when actually lenders have had an increase as it is weekly pickup now, just some don’t view green bins as waste and garbage.

They’re just thinking garbage in the canisters in their black bags. Just one follow-up to staff. I did take the opportunity to the survey. I’m just going to highlight on page 127 on table B10.

It was a question to residents if they thought the three container limits was adequate or if they want to move to four or five. Personally, I would have liked to have seen an option to decrease the container pickup limits of a request to residents for their feedback. I know I usually only have one. I saw a contain within the report that on an average it’s only two containers being put out by household.

So just thought that was a missed opportunity during the survey for resident feedback. And I thank you to your staff as I saw the numbers doubled for those who are requesting medical exemptions for their family needs. I know I’ve have a couple in ward 12 who staff have helped due to seniors and adult children with incontinence products. So thank you for the compassionate care that we do give to lenders.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Story, Councillor Caddia and Missy, who know you’re a committee member, but go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you.

And I just want to echo my colleagues by saying Mr. Stanford, great job. What a great report your staff have done. I really appreciate it.

Very thorough. I mean, the one of the one about diaper collections was one that I’ve heard from my constituents. It’s well beyond my ears, but for others who who have issues with diapers, it’s been a problem. And I continue to hear about it, but I’m glad that we’re looking at addressing it.

But the report’s been excellent. I think your, I think the entire rollout of this program has been flawless, in my opinion. And I’ve heard nothing but positive things from my residents in the past year. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Caddia. And remember, diapers come back around. You started an end with them.

So I’m looking for other counselors. We’d like to call that. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I’ll echo the thank yous on the report. I did notice that on page three, it says that 42% of households are not satisfied with the new collection schedule for garbage collection, the, it being collected biweekly. And I just wondered if there is going to be follow-up questionnaires or what the plans are to address that, that large number. Okay.

To staff, go ahead. Thank you. And through the chair, perhaps the most important part about 42% is that the feedback method that we’re using through Get Involved, it reaches a lot of people, but it is not a random sample. So we do hear from people sometimes ones that are more concerned.

So we always have to read these things carefully. On an annual basis, we also do collect information on customer satisfaction. And on page three of the report, which is actually page 98 of the agenda, there are, there’s information as well on garbage collection, 24 versus 23 years. And, or so 2024 versus 2023.

So we’re constantly collecting information like this. And it’s not a surprise for us to hear in the first year, a higher amount of people not satisfied when something has been reduced. As we also heard to the idea that I think there’s still people who are not using the green bin, don’t understand the service, and realize that that is how you get rid of a fairly significant portion of your garbage that is on the smelly or side. So there’s work to do this year.

We will continue to collect survey information. The Get Involved tool works out very, very well-forced because it’s a way to capture a large amount of data, but we do have to use it with caution. Follow up, Councilor? Yeah, I think you may be just a follow-up comment that I appreciate all of that.

And I do feel that it affects people quite differently and areas of the city quite differently, areas that don’t have garages that have multi-residential that maybe have more, I don’t know how to say it other than to say it’s impacting some more than others. So I just get concerned at times about the equity issue there and how we can address that. And I appreciate the accommodations for medical and that we’re looking at making other accommodations. I’ll maybe look into that further in the year as to maybe it’s about addressing and meeting other accommodations beyond medical to facilitate, because it becomes quite a concern when there’s garbage that is animals are getting into it or it’s being left out.

It has a significant impact on certain neighborhoods. So appreciate the report and the answer. Okay, thank you. I do have a Councilor Raman next.

Go ahead. Thank you and through you. So yeah, thank you so much for the report. And I really appreciate getting as much data as we did in this report.

I just wanted to touch on two things. In my ward, I know that I’ve seen a significant increase in calls, service-related calls related to the New Waste Collection and Greenville Program. A lot of what I’m hearing from residents is experiential. And there has been some frustration, which I do think through some education will be able to address some.

But some of it is related to the service expectation. And I’m just wondering what steps we’re going to be taking in years to come to address some of those service challenges that we’ve had throughout the program. So that’s my first question and my next doctor. Okay, I’ll go to staff for the first one.

Thank you and through the chair. Service expectation is something that we deal with on a regular basis. And when we are working with our own crews or even our contractors, we express what’s sort of the standard that lenders expect. And we know sometimes that is not met.

So we do our best to continue to work with staff and share information and expectations of management. We have run into situations sometimes where we have to take a tougher stance at times. So with one year under our belt, we’ve got that much more experience. And so we’re able to look at all the highlights, including where services being delivered at a very high standard, a very high level, and use that as the standard that we have to share and make sure others within the service group are meeting or exceeding.

So we admit we have work to do on this. But what we believe we achieved in the first year is acceptable to many. But we know when we deal with those calls, we know that there’s many reasons that we have to even work harder. Follow-up, Councilor?

Thank you. I have two follow-ups. The next follow-up is related to multi-unit residential. I noted that in the report, it mentions the ones that have come online so far.

I’m just wondering in terms of strategy for others, is it voluntary, is there a push to add more multi-unit residential? And then my next question is, in new builds, as we build more multi-unit residential, how are we preparing them so that they are green bin from day one? Okay, go ahead, Mr. Sniffer.

Thank you. And through the chair, regarding the multi-residential pilot project, for the last part of 2024, we ran into a resource challenge. We’re basically we were spending so much more time on the curbside program and working in some very challenging areas, particularly in some townhome complexes, to try to get that service in there. We were not able to make as many inroads into the multi-residential sector.

We do have a list of buildings that do wish to join, and we do hope to be getting those online later this month and into April. So it is one of just resources where these things are unfortunately more time-consuming than we had planned. But the programs that are in place at the three buildings are producing very, very good results for us to make it that much easier to build confidence with the building owners that this can be done. So that is the path forward there.

And for the second question, my apologies, would you mind repeating part of that? I got the first one done. I believe it was for new builds, how to get them on the green bin from day one. Thank you.

And sorry about that. Through the chair, we have additional information that now goes forward as part of site plan review that highlights sort of the additional space requirements that are needed, not only for a blue box and garbage pickup, but also for the provision of green bin services. So that is sort of a process that goes through the regular information sharing. And it’s something that most building owners are where they need to do.

At the same time, finding that extra space on site can be a challenge. So it’s something that we do have to go back and forth with building multi-residential building owners. Follow-up, Councillor. Thank you.

So to clarify then, it is not the expectation that any new builds automatically will be green bin buildings, or is the expectation that they will be from here on out? Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, the way the provincial government has laid out the organic collection framework, it is that the onus is on the building operators and the building owners to put in place that system to make sure enough space is there.

So we are basically delivering information on their behalf through the site plan process. We’ve had discussions over the last couple of years with London Property Management Association, where many of these groups are part of the membership. So they’re aware of the requirements and the onus being on them to deliver these types of things. And we’re here to provide assistance where we can.

But at this point in time, there will be more information that comes forward on that, because that is something there that perhaps that message is not sinking in the way it should be. We do hear the smart colleagues in other cities as well. Okay, follow up, Councillor. Thank you.

You mentioned the province is the province only providing direction when it’s a new build, or are they providing direction on all builds, or on current buildings? Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Stanford.

Through the chair on all multi residential buildings, whether they are new or in place right now. Follow up. Thank you. I will follow up with you offline because I have so many more questions down.

But I just want to comment on another piece. One of the things I hear from residents quite often is their desire for an additional pickup in the summer. So it’s not that they need the garbage scheduled tweaked beyond to to a greater extent. It’s just that they think that they would benefit from one additional pickup.

So I’m not sure whether or not that we that’s something that we could contemplate in our secondary report. But I’m just wondering if maybe there’s there’s a way to look at that as we continue to look at. And I do realize there would be an additional cost. But I do hear from residents that that would be something they would love to hear more about.

And my last comment, just as we are talking about bringing on potential new streams in the second report, in your data you collected it said that the majority of homeowners are not interested in an increase to taxes in order to pay for an additional stream. I just I worry about the way that that can be interpreted because I think in general people are saying, look, I’m not willing to pay any more taxes, period. But if you were to say, hey, this stream would come online. And it would be X.

I think it’s still really important for us to have that discussion because I think that people may benefit from the information on what additional stream costs could be as we’re going to see in the next report. And be able to confidently weigh that information I think at the time when it comes forward and communicate with their member council how they feel about that. Okay, thank you, Councillor ramen. I’m looking around any, any one on this side?

Councillor Frang? Councillor Hopkins? Nope. Okay.

So we will open this for voting. Opposing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0. Okay, we are now on to 2.9 provision of outdoor basic needs. So I’m looking for motions.

Councillor Trozzo? I’ll move the staff report for your seconder. Councillor Cuddy. Okay, so that’s on the floor looking for speakers.

Councillor Stevens? Thank you. So the concern I have with this one is D E N F and when it comes to the outreach to encampments, council supported the strategy, but we have said no to the funding so far. And we talked about where the locations were going to be.

And we’ve not addressed that yet. So if we’re going to go ahead and fund the outreach to the encampments, my question would be what, where is that outreach going to happen? And I know we said mobilized, but mobilized to what perks? Because residents want to know where this is going to be happening and how we are going to keep public safe and allow people to enjoy the parks in a safe manner.

I know there’s a lot to this and there’s also the mayor and the chief of police have been talking about addressing open public drug use. So I’m wondering how our outreach strategy is going to change or will it change given what’s coming forward there? So if I could have, I’m looking to request to have a clear transparent communications with the public regarding where outreach, this mobilized outreach service will. Okay, I’ll go to staff, but noting that I believe what was contained in the report did say mobile.

I believe it was weekly and that it would be rotational that you’d be moving to different parks and that was based on CRM data. I believe it was in the report, but I will go to staff to clarify all those questions. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Presenting Officer and through you. Yes, so what we were asked to do is report back in a mobile depot operational plan and through discussion and planning and trying to come up with a model that would actually be functional in a mobile way, it became pretty clear you’re still going to end up establishing certain spaces and that’s what we were trying to avoid. We heard that loud and clear. So what we’ve moved to is a recognition that we have encampments throughout this city.

We are trying to decentralize access to these basic needs as much as possible. That’s why we’re proposing the placement of multiple, portable washrooms throughout the community as to not over concentrate in one space or for have them to be static. Right now there are 19 active parks where people are where we have known encampments, 19. Those are not, you know, it’s not a council approved list.

What we have is restricted areas. Council has directed us on where people cannot be, not where people can be. So right now what you see before you is an acknowledgement that encampments exists throughout the community and we are going to try and outfit outreach workers with the necessities to do their jobs effectively to get out to those people to the best of our ability. If a site as it does today becomes a problem, a safety concern, an environmental concern, we will work with those individuals and with police and with community partners to relocate those individuals or disperse that encampment.

That means if I put a portable washroom somewhere and that space is no longer conducive for any reason under our council approved guidelines and safety protocols that encampment would move as would that portable washroom. We recognize that when you put 10 or 12 portable washrooms throughout the entirety of the city, any member of the public can use them to. So we’re not establishing this as we have 12 depots now. What we’re recognizing is that we have encampments throughout the city.

We’re trying to strategically work with parks and forestry to place portable washrooms and spaces that are accessible that can be picked up, cleaned, dropped off and the public can use them so that we decentralize those services and not over concentrate them as per council’s direction. Follow up, Councillor? Yes, thank you. When we looked at encampment locations last time, they were not, it didn’t appear to be centralized around the city or decentralized.

It appeared to me mostly in the east end and we didn’t seem to be able to get past that. So I feel as though council is going to get to address this in some way. McCormick Park is listed here as a possible location and the problems that are happening there and what’s happening to the neighborhood around is really almost not for public consumption. And so I don’t know how we talk, tell residents that we’re going to fund $650,000 for food and $540,000 in delivering food and basic needs to our parks.

And it really brings us back to where can they go? Where is it okay for people to be? Because if we have 19 parks, well, I can only speak for the ones in my ward, it’s a really, really, really significant problem. People are not able to get outside, go for a walk, allow their children to go and play.

Their property is broken into, their cars are broken into. People are struggling financially and it’s taking a huge, huge physical and mental wearing tear on them. I will not in any way be supporting DE&F when it comes to council. I’m asking this committee and staff to come up with something with a solution, a place where people can go.

Let’s start saying these are the places where people can go that decentralizes this. And that’s really, I’m open to what everyone else is saying at committee here, but I would like to be able to assure or let the residents of my ward know that what they need to prepare for and specifically what this council has said is okay to happen in their neighborhood. So I feel like I’m going around in circles, but I’m going to be listening to this committee and I’m going to be bringing forward something that very clearly says not at McCormack Park at council. I’m not going to do it here.

And not in other areas where it is oversaturated in the east end. And it is becoming an equity issue in my opinion. So where can people go? That is the question that we need to ask or answer.

Okay, thank you, Councillor. And just letting you know you’ve used up four minutes. Go ahead, Councillor Trozzo. So the councilor just indicated through the chair in an open committee that notwithstanding the fact that we’re sitting in a committee doing committee work, she has something that she wants to bring forward as an amendment that she’s not going to bring at the committee that she’s going to bring at full council.

And I just I just think that this is the place to do committee work, not at full council. Okay, Councillor, it’s not really a part of the order. It’s just yeah, yeah. Okay, I’m looking for other members of committee visiting members.

Councillor Pribble, does that get up? Or let’s go first. Councillor Trozzo, you already had your hand up. Do you want to keep going?

Well, I’m just I’m just wondering if there’s a ruling on that because I guess it’s on the table now, but it’s not being put on the table. And that’s what frustrates me. Is it the place to discuss it? It’s not a point of order.

It’s just a general comment that Councillors can bring forward things to to council if they’re not a committee member. They don’t have to disclose that right now. So I’m going to leave that as it is. It’s not really a point of order.

But if you want to speak to the motion, go ahead. Oh, I’ll wait. I don’t have my thoughts formulated yet. There’s too much going on in my head.

Okay. Councillor Pribble, you are next. Kind of had your hand up. You want to go?

Okay, go ahead. Thank you, answer your chair to the staff. In the last year, I forget exactly if it was November or December, two Councillors put forward a motion about other potential sprung structures, et cetera. We left it actually very wide open because we wanted to really our staff to think outside the box and put other options we have.

I do understand that we need to address the issues of homelessness. We do. And we need to secure certain things. But I just think that this right now, if I remember correctly, it was the end of this month or potentially April that we are supposed to have an answer back from the staff.

And now we are designing about certain things that potentially the next report will actually change it. And if I can receive a feedback from the staff. Okay. When staff ready, go ahead.

Through you, Mr. Presenting Officer, that work had moved over to a housing development working group that Mr. Mathers and his team were working on. They’ve met a few times, I believe, I don’t have a timetable for that report back.

But that was moved over to a housing reference table that was already established under Mr. Mathers’ shop. So I’ll maybe pass it in. Go ahead, Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair. So yet that item is still under discussion at two reference tables, actually. So we’ll be coming, we’ll be bringing forward any kind of recommendations coming out of that work in the future, but I don’t have a timeline on it currently.

Okay. Go ahead, Councillor Pero. Can we follow up? Try to understand that we don’t have a timeline for it because actually the Council, we did approve certain timeline.

So is this timeline going to be extended? Go ahead, Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I don’t have any further update.

I can provide an update prior to Council. Okay. I’ll give a word to my colleagues, but that’s kind of my struggle with this report, because as I said, potentially we might be coming up with a certain solution that we are approving now something until March 31, 2026. But potentially there will be other options that will be coming forward to us, which will be actually more acceptable and more beneficial to both residents of London and also to homeless population.

Okay. Any other comments from staff or Councillor Pero, are you okay? Oh, I’m okay for now. I’ll leave it to work to my colleagues.

Okay. Thank you. I’m going to make some comments from the chair before I go back to, I know, Councillor Stevenson, you have one minute left just to let you know. Okay.

So with this, and this kind of speaks, I have a motion after we’ve disposed of this that I want to speak to more as well. The way I’m viewing it right now is it’s very much a continuum of services. The basic needs, we don’t have enough spaces for people to go. And I absolutely do think we need to be providing some basic services, food, water, washrooms.

These are things people absolutely need to be able to access. And even having this point of contact with people, in terms of the data we collect, you know, where we go, where people are at, having those services. But we also need to be collecting this data to figure out, you know, people’s acuity. Like, who’s been, you know, homeless for short amounts of time?

You know, which housing service would be best for them? We have high acuity. We have some people, like I was saying, that are just, you know, new to homelessness. There’s some people who are living precariously.

There’s a whole spectrum in terms of the population we’re dealing with right now. And I know, I hear this all the time too. And this came up with this report. I had people reach out to me and say, you know, why are you putting, you know, the money towards basic needs and not just purely shelter?

But the reality is, and we hear this all the time. We don’t have the capacity. We don’t have all these spaces which people absolutely would love to have. But we just don’t have them.

And so the reality we’re working with right now on the ground is that we need to be able to provide food, water, washrooms. And I’m sure all of council, we all have opinions in terms of what that looks like. And I’m sure, you know, some of my colleagues may want to share that. And to echo what Councillor Stevenson was saying as well.

The parks, the locations, obviously important. Having one of the depots, this is something I’ve heard constantly for mind that it’s been in Watson for a while. And those neighbourhoods do feel the brunt of that. But I do think we have to provide these services.

I was happy to see that it was operationalized. Because that was really my issue last time. And this is why I wanted it referred back. What staff were able to provide?

Nothing’s perfect. I do think that this provides the services that we’re being required to do. And having it move around based on data is important. I agree.

I think it does disproportionately affect the east. But the reality is, unfortunately, a lot of folks in the east are really struggling. And that is not to say that they should bear the brunt of this because they absolutely shouldn’t. That’s not fair as well.

But moving it around, I think, is important. And I think having these services respond in different locations will make a difference. If it’s not working, please, staff, let me know. Let us know.

This is the kind of information we need to make decisions. But I do think we have to move away from a static model to a mobile one. So I’m curious to see where this goes. I’ll support it.

But I’m also willing to hear what my colleagues have to say. So I will leave it there. But looking for anyone else who wants to speak. So Councillor Stephens, I know you already spoke and you want to speak again.

But just doing a new round, Councillor Palose, I do see you have your hand up. If you’d like to go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

Just more a comment. Just I heard a colleague say, looking for a program is going to serve residents in homelessness. The homeless people are residents. They are here.

They are here longer term. Just sadly, they are unhoused residents versus housed. I just want to call out that point. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Councillor Palose. Looking around for any new speakers. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. Yes. Although I’m not on this committee, I will be supporting this at Council should come through to Council. I think at this point, again, somewhat echoing your comments.

But we need a continuum of services. There are people who are sleeping outside during the winter. We had, my understanding is 396 shelter beds. Of course, we’re able to augment a little bit from there.

Then we still have 320 people sleeping outside. Even in the next year, if we were able to build 100 new shelter beds, we still have 200 people sleeping outside. I’m not going to vote against giving them food and water and access to very limited bathrooms, but still bathrooms nonetheless. I think if we take away these essential services, we’re only inviting further issues with our neighbourhoods.

If people are not getting food and water and they’re living in these encampments, I believe that we will only see more suffering in deplorable conditions and further issues with neighbours and encampments. So I’d like to reduce that friction by making sure they at least have their basic needs met until we can bring them inside. And I know everyone in this building and everyone in the city wants to see more people come inside. So that is the ultimate goal.

And in the meantime, we need to keep people alive. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

Looking around for other speakers, Councillor Per beau, just letting you know you’d used about 1 minute 20. Questions through you, Chair, to the staff. If we approve this, and I know when I mentioned when I said for staff that they’re coming back with certain other housing options, I mentioned Justice Frank structures, but I mean potential available vacant buildings currently in the city and whatever it is. But my question is, if we approve this, if we come up to three, four months with actually better solution that actually a large number of individuals will be able to be more properly housed than in the outdoor encampments.

Is there an option that we can leave kind of open that this funding would not be because, as I said, my issue is March 31, 2026. And I’m hoping that before that we will have other better solutions. Is there an option that we can do that potentially we could reallocate these funds if a better option comes. And again, when I see a better option, I mean, for both residents of London and the homeless population, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, we would first need to seek approval from the federal government. That’s the source of funding on this. We had council direction to seek out funding source and to seek out specifically the federal and cabinet funding source.

For the provision of at the time, it was transactional. I reached and I got modified a few council meetings later to remove that term, but we submitted a proposal to receive funding to deliver the type of services that council told us to go and deliver to seek funding for. If council should choose to no longer want those services provided and to pursue other services, we would need the permission of the federal government of which we would be we’ve received the funding from to change course. If something bigger, better, more indoor were to manifest.

I don’t see why the federal government wouldn’t support that. But we would note this source of funding is from the federal government and it is not time unlimited. It is temporary funding. So as we go and chase new indoor spaces or structures or by buildings, this source of funding is not ongoing permanent funding.

So it would be temporary in nature. We just want to make sure we set that expectation up front. Follow-up, Councilor? I do.

It’s not a follow-up. Thank you for this explanation, by the way. We did ask and some time ago for each individual budget’s proposals from these agencies to provide and some of them is more detailed. Some of them is for example, you know, under the 519 pursuit, we have asked for 341,000 and then in the related in the report, it says outreach 544,000.

So I’m assuming the 341 is including the 544. Can you please confirm that and also can you please confirm that we do have from these agencies, social agencies, detailed budgets and based on the numbers that they have provided, we have allocated the amounts. And go ahead, Mr. Dickinson.

Through you, Chair, I’ll start this response and pass it over to Mr. Cooper. Yes, the sum total of E and F should equate to the 544 that you had referenced for outreach. So E and F combined is that total and I will pass it over to Mr.

Cooper for the second half. Thank you and through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Part of the negotiations we’ve had and are working with these agencies is we don’t have their finalized budgets at this point.

We had based our ass on some historical data, some historical relationships that we’ve had with these organizations, but we haven’t finalized the exact budgets at this point. We are looking for the allocation and the direction to be able to go and finalize those pieces with these agencies in order to provide the service. Thank you for the follow up. If we approve this and if the budgets from these agencies come lower, what happens?

If they come higher, what happens? Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Cooper, we want to take that.

Thank you and through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. If they come in lower, I think that’s excellent and would create some surplus for the program, which we could bring back to Council for direction. If it’s above the allocation, then we have to have some conversations with the agency related to their service provision, right?

We are working within that specific budget. And if there’s some other option that the agency may have fundraising or other pieces to help meet the commitment. Follow up, Councillor? Last question regarding the budget.

If we approve these amounts now and the agency, how do we secure that the agency doesn’t come with the amounts that are fitting approved figures? How do we go back to check? So we don’t say yes, it’s within the limit, it’s within the amounts. Yes, check mark.

How do we go back to make sure that the budgets are accurate and they’re not inflated, potentially inflated, just to match the amounts we approve today, potentially, or at the Council? Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. Allocated amounts that we’re requesting were based on previous relationships we have with agencies. So we’ve negotiated past contracts with London Cares. We have a general understanding of what a staff member costs, what transportation costs, what some of their administration aspects costs.

But we recognize, too, that those contracts were negotiated possibly a year ago. So this does leave some option for potential inflation. We’ve also had negotiated contracts in the past with 519 pursuits. So we based the numbers on previous experience and interactions we’ve already had with agencies.

Follow up, Councillor? Thank you for that. One quick follow-up. Our staff will, once they receive those amounts, even though they’re within the limit, we will check those amounts again to make sure that they are aligned and they’re not inflated.

So we safe potentially, because hopefully when they come lower, we can use it for additional initiatives towards homelessness. Okay, Mr. Dickens? Thank you, and through you, Chair, I think it’s safe to say with any of my colleagues on SLT, when we receive vendor contracts, proposals, budgets, we apply a very precise level of diligence when it comes to scrutinizing those budgets and any assumption that folks were not being forthright with their costs or that we would not scrutinize those costs.

That is what we do, right? We ask for this work. We work off the budgets we have now to try and expedite this process. We negotiate with those organizations.

It’s quite often that there’s — I mean, if you ask the service providers, they’ll tell you, we’re probably — we scrutinize it too much. There’s a lot of back and forth that happens with our team around eligible costs. There are certain things that fall in budgets sometimes that are not eligible based on the funding envelope that it’s coming from. Be a provincial, federal, or municipal.

There are certain things you can’t cover. So this is the work we do every single day is to scrutinize these budgets and to try to bring it in at the lowest cost possible and get the best service return as possible. Thank you for all the answers. No other questions right now?

I do still have you on their list, Councillor Stevenson, but Councillor Roman hasn’t spoken yet, so go next. Thank you. I just had a couple questions regarding this report. My first question is, I believe in the previous report that we had on this topic, we had identified about 120 meals that we were preparing daily is the 160, just us estimating based on that growth projection that we set around 5% of people potentially annually falling into homelessness.

To staff? Through you, Chair, Ms. Kramer’s — who oversees our CIR team is on the Zoom call, and she can take this answer. Go ahead, Ms.

Kramer, are you ready? Thank you, and through you, the Chair, yes, you’re correct. This is projected, and it is what we assume because following our patterns through our previous data collection, the number of individuals living outdoors does increase in the summer, and we have a continuum of increased numbers through homelessness. So those two factors combined, this is a projection, and we gave the maximum amount that we potentially could see.

Great follow-up, Councillor. Thank you. That really does help to understand the numbers a little bit more. So with the 160, I know that we see, again, as you mentioned, some seasonal increases with summer, perhaps some decreases in the winter, and that in the report, it’s mentioned the flexibility that’s needed in order to operate this program, and I appreciate that context as well.

I think it’s helpful for us to understand how fluid these things are, and I think that that just helps to, again, for us to understand, you know, we are dealing with people, and their circumstances move and change and things like that. One of the concerns I have, though, is that, in a way, I feel like by agreeing to some of the outdoor basic needs that goes into next winter, I just worry that, in some way, that may influence how we make decisions around what we’re going to do as a council and what we’re going to support for next winter. And so I’m just wondering if perhaps, I guess that’s where I’m a little bit perplexed about it, because I personally would like to see us with a different approach. I know that we have the report coming forward, too, to talk to us about extreme weather and things like that.

So I think that this is flexible enough that if we determine, you know, a different strategy that we will just reallocate and reuse and use portions differently, and I know that all the organizations that are involved are committed to getting people inside where possible. And so for that reason, I can support it, because I think that we have enough of a working relationship to move should opportunities present themselves in other directions be taken. So that’s where I am. I just wanted to share my perspective.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Looking for anyone who hasn’t spoken yet. Okay, I’m not seeing any.

Councillor Stevenson, you had one minute left. Go ahead. Thank you. It’s on here for $52,000 for a year of washrooms and water.

So I can speak for myself. I don’t have any issue with that. I don’t think the public does either. But we have over a million dollars here for food and basic needs.

And the reality is that our unhoused residents get the same monthly provincial check as our housed residents who are in need. So what is the maybe through you to staff? The answer to explain to residents is to why we’re providing food here and not to all the others who are struggling to put food on their table. Staff want to answer that?

Go ahead. Through you, Chair. I think the simple answer is that that’s not what this report is intended to do. We were asked to go and seek out federal funding for basic needs provision and outreach services, which we’ve done.

If council would like us to explore a funding source to augment or supplement food banks and other meal provisions and food security programs, Ms. Smith’s area works on some of that stuff. We could, but that’s not what we were asked to do, and that’s not what this report articulates. And for individuals in receipt of social assistance on interior works that do not have an address, their basic needs allowance is $3.43 per month for an individual person.

So they’re not entitled to a shelter allowance if you’re a homeless and of no fixed address. So just to clarify that they receive $3.43 per month. Could council follow up? Yeah, thank you.

Just to clarify, is that not the same amount for basic needs as a sheltered person gets? And they don’t have the cost of housing? And my understanding is that shelter allowance doesn’t actually cover housing in London. So just to be clear, it is the same basic needs amount as somebody who’s in our social housing.

Staff, go ahead. Through you, Chair, that in the most general terms, that is potentially true, in some cases. Okay, Councilor Follow-up? Maybe just a quick question.

Is there any problem with providing the signed contracts for all the agencies in a future committee report once they’re completed and signed? Go ahead, Staff. Through you, Chair, if there was a council decision to do so, then staff would comply. I have an amendment sent in.

Okay. So you’re not a member of the committee. So, sir, you want amendment? Is someone willing to move it?

Okay. And just to let you know, you have 15 seconds left. So are you, Councilor Preble, are you putting forward something? Okay.

So it has to come from a member of committee. So Councilor Preble, if you’re willing to put something forward, it has to come from you. Okay. Well, we’re looking for that.

Councilor Frank, you have a question? Thank you. Yes. And I’m not sure if this is too speculative task for staff, but I’m wondering, given the comments earlier, if like 100% of the people who are out in the house are getting ODSP or OW social assistance, because my understanding is there are a significant number of people who are homeless who don’t receive any kind of money from the government.

I’m just wondering if staff can comment on if they know of any percentage points, because my understanding would be there a significant number of people who are receiving zero dollars every month. Go ahead, Staff. Thank you, Chair. I wouldn’t have those numbers on hand, but I will say part of the transformational work and actually some of the transactional work that people do is identifying if folks are in receipt of social assistance or not, and if they’re not trying to get them on.

So yes, outreach workers will inevitably come into contact with people who do not have a monthly assistance, and we’ll try to connect them as part of the work. As we do at our Life Stabilization Department here at the city, as folks walk in our front doors at any one of our offices, we have teams that work with individuals with no fixed address to try and get them connected to various social benefits. Follow-up, Councillor? No.

Okay, thank you for that. So while the clerks load in that amendment, it will have to be moved by Councillor Pribble. So if you want to read that out, while the clerks are getting that ready. And the motion will state the civic administration be directed to present a report at a future meeting of the community and protective service committee providing the above-noted executed contracts for information.

Okay, and a seconder, it Councillor Cuddy. Okay, so that is on the floor for discussion. Committee members, Councillor Pribble, do you want to put your rationale? And the rationale is actually we’ve been saying it kind of even in the past that we would like to, if you remember the first year when we were here, there were agreements done only with one organization and this other organization did agreements directly, and that we didn’t have access to it.

So I think that this is kind of in the same path what we wanted before. We wanted to have access and be able to see the agreements and the budgets associated with these agreements. Thank you. Okay, looking for any other speakers, committee members?

Okay, Councillor Romney, you had your hand up first. Go ahead. Thank you, although I’m not a committee member. I just wanted to clarify perhaps what’s the timeline?

Staff, go ahead when you’re ready. Oh, sorry. No, it’s not to you. To the mover, what was the timeline you were looking for in terms of what’s coming back?

Going back, actually, what’s, I would like to ask this question to staff first, feasibility, whenever you’re ready. Thank you, Chair and through you. I believe those were executed agreements. So if Council, if this were to pass a committee and pass a Council, that would be in April, then we would take the time to thoroughly examine and negotiate those agreements and make sure the prices are accurate and then execute those agreements through the boards.

And through civic administration, you’re probably looking at May at some point in May, depending on when those Council and committee or when the CAHPS schedule falls in May. Believe we have a right after May 24, I think there is a CAHPS meeting. But okay, I’ll go back to Councillor Bribble if you want to finish up. I was going to say no, thank you for the date.

And for me, the most important is once that, of course, once that are finalized, so we have access to them. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Councillor Robin, go ahead.

Thank you. I know I appreciate the answer. That was my only question about the amendment. I have another question for it.

I mean, motion after. Okay, so we’re still on the amendment looking for any other discussion. Okay, I haven’t seen anybody else. So go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. In my initial request, I just said the committee meeting after they’re executed is fine. And maybe that language should be in there, or it just makes sense, the first opportunity once they’re executed. I’m going to be bringing this amendment to all of these contracts so that we can have just the contracts brought.

We usually get the contracts when we’re asked to approve funding. And in this case, these ones take a little bit longer. So to just have them come once they’re executed, would, I think, save a lot of time. I filed a few MFAPA or Freedom of Information requests early last October for some of these contracts that we’ve approved during this term of council.

And it’s taken me four months, three and a half hours of staff time, $105 out of my expense account. And I will be sharing this later, but they came back, one of them came back, redact, all of the expenses redacted. So I’m excited. Hold on.

We’ve got a point of order. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Dressa. I don’t think this is the place to be critiquing the way we administer our MFAPA system in London. And I’ve done requests myself, and yes, indeed, it’s very frustrating.

But that is not what we’re litigating. That’s not what we’re discussing on the floor right now, quite honestly. So I think this is out of order. Yeah, okay.

Thank you, Councillor. And yes, please keep it. We’re talking about just these contracts, understand those other things. But let’s keep it tight to what we’re talking about right now, which is just these contracts.

Okay, no problem. So my thought is, let’s just put on here that the contracts come once they’re executed. As I said, for most things, we get the contracts at the time. Totally understand the delay.

Just looking to do this the same way we do the others and have those contracts come once they’re executed. Okay, thank you, Councillor. Anyone else looking around on horseshoe? Anyone want to speak to this?

Okay, not seeing any. We will open this for rowing. Councillor Trasso, closing the vote. The motion carries three to one.

Okay, so now we have to vote on the motion as amended. Councillor Robin, you want to speak on this? Thank you and through you. So I just wanted to go back to the provision of food and the request that just passed as well.

I’m just wondering, will the contracts include anything of in-kind nature as well? Oh, sorry, in-kind. In-kind donations. Okay, go ahead, Steph.

Sorry, Chair, could you repeat that again for us? Our apologies. No problem. I’m just wondering if the contracts would include what’s in-kind as well.

Just so I know in previous discussions, we talked about in-kind donations and the report, it also highlights the in-kind amount as well. And I’m just wondering if that would be included in the that information. We’re Mr. Dickens.

If one of you want to go ahead. Three you, Chair. They typically don’t identify the in-kind contributions, but they do recognize that the cost per meal is quite low. It’s about $4 per meal.

So we get a really good rate at that meal provision. Now, organizations do have other offsets in terms of their income and whether it’s a shelter, we don’t fully fund shelters to 100% either. So, but what we get is their costs of this provision, but we do get a pretty good deal. Go ahead.

If you have a follow-up? No, thank you. That’s helpful. I just appreciate seeing the numbers in terms of the breakdown of what the charitable sector is putting in in terms of their contribution because I know it is significant, as well as the relationships that they leverage in order to be able to provide more.

So it is helpful when we get that information. It shows that they’re at the table as well, which we know they are, with lots of their goodwill and lots of their work. So I’m just, I always find that information helpful. So that was it.

Thanks. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, you have 15 seconds left on the original motion. It is.

Okay, please don’t use the full-life. I promise I won’t use the full-life. But I do want to say like this is a very difficult discussions with neighborhoods around this. We’re talking about funding a million dollars to bring support services to people living in our public parks.

It is difficult to explain to people that this is what we’re doing. It isn’t the issue of poverty or people unable to find a meal that is the issue. It is the mental health and the addiction crisis that we’re facing. And we’re, again, we’re trying to alleviate it with this funding and it is not providing the help that these people need and deserve.

And it is not needing what some and many residents feel is our obligation as a municipality to provide a safe public space. So I will, as I said, be supporting the toilets and the water. I will not be supporting the food and the outreach services until we find a location where people can receive these services that is not a serious public safety concern to neighborhoods, families, seniors, businesses, and other unhoused as well. Okay.

You used a minute of your time. I’m looking for anyone else who’d like to speak on the motion as amended. Okay, Councillor Roman, you’ve used up 47 seconds. So go ahead.

Thank you so much. So just to wrap up, I’d like to say this. I would support a letter to the federal government as well, saying that this money, although appreciated, isn’t enough to be able to provide shelter, which is, of course, of the utmost priority. And so with what we have, this is what we can do.

Because I think that’s a really key message that may be getting lost. Thank you. Okay. Unless you have something drafted, you’re really welcome to do it in Council.

So we have a second chance. Okay. So with that, not seeing any other speakers, we’ll open the motion as amended for vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries 4 to 0.

Okay. Thank you, colleagues. And we’re not done yet. I did have a motion.

As I unexpectedly am chairing this meeting, I won’t be moving it, but Councillor Preble, he will move the motion seconded. So we’ll get that up on the screens in a moment. Should be coming up. Okay.

So we have a new motion moved and seconded. Thank you, Councillor Preble. If the committee will allow me, I’ll explain my rationale. Just sending my timer on one moment.

Thank you, colleagues. And I really do appreciate the discussion we’ve had today. Basic needs is something that weighs on me. I’m happy that we’re doing something.

But as I said earlier, I really do view this as a continuum of services. We need those basic needs. But what I’ve realized, especially coming out of this winter, I know it’s particularly harsh winter, but we need more shelter space, recognizing that our service providers did their best through the cold weather to free up space. We were able to spool up Carling as an emergency shelter.

But I fully recognize that we do not have enough spaces. And I think we have to start the work of opening a new shelter. I’m curious what everyone else’s thoughts are on this, but I really do think we’ve reached a point where we need another shelter. And I gave examples, you know, obviously we have a number of providers, whether that’s the center of hope, men’s mission, obviously the ARC.

But we do not have enough spaces. And when you look at the projections in terms of 5% growth for the homeless population, we have a number of economic headwinds on the horizon. I really just fear for more people ending up on the street and not having enough spaces for them. So I really do think we need to engage with the provincial government, Councillor Robinson, even federal government.

We really need an all hands on deck approach to this. We need more spaces. We need more funding. I don’t think there’s any disagreement around council about that.

But I think we absolutely need to look at opening another shelter. So I’m going to leave it there. I’m curious to see what my colleagues have to say. But I really do hope I can get support for this because we need more spaces.

Okay. I see, Councillor, hold on. Councillor Peruzza, you want to go next? Then, Councillor Stevenson, I’ll let you go.

Thank you. I do have a question. Every time there’s a motion that we are directing, doesn’t matter if it’s whoever it is. Currently, it’s Mayor and Civic Administration.

Mayor is not here. So I would just like a feedback from the Civic Administration. Thank you. Good staff.

Through you, Chair, I don’t think staff have feedback on this. We’ll see what Council directs us to do. Councillor, if there are specific questions that Council wants to, or Committee wants to pose to us, we’re happy to take those questions. But we respect the fact that this is on the floor for Council or Committee to discuss.

Okay. Councillor Peruzza, do you have any other follow-up? I will pass for no. Any other committee members?

Okay. Not seeing any. Councillor Stevenson, you’re next. Thank you.

I appreciate the caring concern and this motion. And yet, it brings up a bigger issue because we, two years ago, approved a whole of community response that had a plan to address this crisis. And that plan was to move away from shelters and to reduce the number of shelter beds and move towards this other plan. In fact, last February, we shut down, last May, we shut down the 15 resting spaces on Horton.

They were 24/7 resting spaces run by London Cares. I expressed my concern at the time. And how did we explain to residents with the great need that this was closing to have that funding move to a highly supportive housing? And the answer was that this was the plan, that we were moving away from that and we were moving to the hubs.

So I just think this opens up the question as to what is the direction? Are we going to be expanding shelter beds? There’s no question there’s a need. I would prefer to have shelter beds than resting spaces so that we don’t have this lottery every day to find out who gets a bed that night.

I’m open to this, but I would like to know, are we still following the whole community response? Is that plan working? Maybe this opens up a bigger issue. The other thing too is right before us is 1.2 million in encampment supports and 1.4 million in encampment supports in the next item.

That’s 2.6 million that we could be using to do shelter spaces. But the whole of community said we were moving to an encampment strategy. So I wonder, I support this, but I don’t see how it fits into our plan. Okay, thank you, Councillor.

I’m going to respond just because I mean I put this motion on the floor and I feel like I need to address a few things there. But what I’m trying to acknowledge with this is this is one part of a larger puzzle. And I don’t think anyone would disagree. The whole community is addressing maybe even one portion of the population, the Thai acuity.

This is to acknowledge, I mean, the homeless population is growing regardless of how you view acuity. But it was never going to be one solution fits all. My intention with this, and even when you see the one we just passed these needs, we need a multi-prong approach. There’s no question about it.

There’s no one solution, whether it’s encampment, whether it’s shelter, you know, supportive housing, transitional housing, community housing. There are many facets to this, and there’s no easy answer. So I mean, I’ll let staff, if they want to take a crack at that, but I mean, I view this as just another piece of a larger thing we’re trying to deal with. So staff, I don’t know if you have any further comments on that, but feel free to take a crack.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, correct. This is not staff tabling this motion, so civic administration are not deviating from the plan, just to make that clear. Just recently, the strategy and accountability table, you’ll see this in your next quarterly update. We approved or green lit the creation of three separate highly supportive housing projects, totaling 211 highly supportive housing units to go to the Fund for Change and to pursue federal funding.

That will be coming as an update to Council, so spoiler alert on that. So I would say between the landing of a hard hub and the advocacy for more of those, the recent closure of our request for expression of interest on another hub and the tabling of over 200 highly supportive housing units, I think the plan is alive and well. Hello, Councilor. Thank you, yes.

I’m wondering if there would be any willingness or interest in this committee in lobbying for a dry hub or a shelter where people can escape poverty that aren’t wanting to see or be around the drug use. Okay, point of order. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Troso. Point of order.

Once again, we’re straying from what’s on the agenda and what is the subject of this motion. That is an open-ended invitation to Council to consider things in the future, and I believe the appropriate way to do this would be to put it on an agenda for a discussion ahead of time. So I think it’s out of order. Okay, thank you, Councilor Troso.

Yeah, I will just say, once again, if we can keep the topic in, I can appreciate it, Councilor. If you wanted to make amendment again, that would be something you’d have to bring to Council. But this is currently what’s on the floor. You can share your comments or you’d have to get someone to move something on your behalf.

So let’s try to keep with what’s on the floor right now. Okay, my comment was just to see if there was an appetite for that amendment. Okay, thank you. Okay, any other speakers to this?

Okay, I’m not seeing any. I do, just closing thoughts on this. I appreciate all the work staff and the service providers have done on this. My intention with asking for another shelter is just to kind of release the pressure valve that we’re seeing in community.

Through the winter, it was particularly difficult in terms of trying to find spaces for folks. In an ideal situation, we don’t want to be opening another shelter. But the reality that we’re faced with right now is that we need these front-end services as well, whether that’s an encampment response, getting people into shelters. Because the thing that I have realized, especially when we’re looking at supportive housing, the nonprofit housing, those are long-term projects.

They take time. They take multiple levels of funding from different levels of government. And unfortunately, we’re seeing a lot more people at the front end and not enough services at the back end. It will take time.

I think we’re moving in the right direction. I think we’ve done a lot of good work that should be acknowledged. The hub model has been adopted provincially. It’s something that the city should be proud of.

And a lot of the hard work that was done here is being adopted elsewhere. We also have, whether, you know, Woodstock, St. Thomas, other areas around us are also opening up new facilities to try to take some of that pressure off as well. But right now, I do think we need some more spaces.

Even if it’s on a temporary basis, we’ve got to have more shelter space. So I’ll leave it there. And I hope I can get support here and a council. Thank you.

We will open this room voting unless I see any other hands. Not seeing anyone open if we’re voting. Closing the vote. The motion carries four to zero.

Okay. We are on to 2.10. This is emergency treatment fund, the ETF approval of federal contribution agreement. I’m looking for motion to be put on the floor.

Okay. Councillor Trosser, you want to bring the staff right to go and initiate it on the floor? Okay. Seconder.

Okay. Councilor Preble. Okay. So that’s on the floor.

I open for discussion now. Any committee members want to speak on this? Okay. Councillor Preble, go ahead.

Thank you. And I’m sure the chair to the staff. Thank you for trying to find the money and federal money, provincial money for our community, which I think is always great, beneficial. Having said that, can you please explain?

One thing that I’m struggling with this report is that this transactional outreach to encampments. And I personally would prefer much more if there was into a specific site, specific building, then out into the encampments. And the thing that worries me is, again, the safety. I’m not sure if this is going to actually decrease it or actually increase it.

And if you can kind of give me a level of comfort, as I said, the encampments does worry me that these things will be going out there instead of being in a protected location. Thank you. Mr. Dickens or Mr.

Cooper? Thank you. And through you, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think this ETF funding or emergency treatment funding was a partnership with our community through our operations table.

This application came about from previous direction from a council on civic administration, finding alternative sources for funding. Part of the work of this proposal was to get more folks out into encampments. I appreciate the inherent risk that the councilor has identified. But the agencies we’re looking to work with on this project are experienced agencies with relationships in community with a number of these folks that they’re already serving are potentially going to expand to serve.

So that was a rationale as to why we made this application. It was to try and alleviate that desperation in encampments that we were seeing. Hello, Councillor. Thank you.

Well, full up. Is there a room? Let’s say if it was the will of the councilors of the council to potentially look at other options than going out to the encampments. Is there actually a room to change this or no, this funding is directly strictly encampments only?

Go ahead, Steph. Thank you. And through you, Mr. Presiding Officer, the application was submitted as approved by the federal government.

So we would have to take any further direction from Committee and Council back to the Ministry of Health with the federal government to determine any opportunities for whatever direction we seek. Our application was to help promote and support individuals in encampments. If Council wishes to change direction on that, then or provide additional direction on that, then we would need to rework back with the federal government on an answer. Okay.

Go ahead, Councillor Brill. Thank you. Nothing right now, but thank you for the answers. Okay, looking around for any other speakers.

Okay, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. I have a question around, when you look up the emergency treatment fund, it talks about a section 56-1 exemption. It’s a class exemption for patients, practitioners, and pharmacists prescribing and providing controlled substances in Canada.

Do you know if there’s the possibility that any of the agencies would be using that exemption? Mr. Dickens, Mr. Cooper, will you want to take a crack at that?

Through you, Chair, there will be no, we will not be enacting that. There’s no intent, and that’s outside of scope. Thank you. Follow-up, Councillor.

So there’d be no problem with an amendment asking that that be prohibited from being used in this contribution agreement? Okay, I’ll pass the staff, but I don’t think, I don’t know if our teams are qualified to do that, but if you want to comment, go ahead. Thank you, through you, Chair. So we’ve received the contribution agreement from the federal government.

We’ve signed that contribution agreement. We’ve sent it back. There’s no intention to use this clause. It’s not part of the service delivery.

There’s no controlled substance use. There’s no practitioners or pharmacists selling or distributing class to narcotics that is not within the realm of this funding. If it were required by Council to have that written in, it would be an ask to the federal government for them to amend the contribution agreement, which we’re happy to do. But understanding, we have no intention of waiting into those legalities or those exemptions under federal law.

They may not see the merit in doing that. Well, and I guess to the Councillor, are you looking for like the outreach teams to enforce this or who would you want? No, it’s right in the emergency, it’s okay. It’s right in the emergency treatment fund that you have to have already been cleared for those exemptions to be able to use them.

And I just wanted to know if that was in the plan. So for this, I mean, I hate to be against receiving money, because it’s 1.4 million, and we have a crisis in this city that desperately needs to be addressed. But to receive 1.4 million, to help make drug use safer in our parks, it’s not what the residents that I speak to want. Again, unless we’re going to find a location that would be an appropriate location for this service, that then I could maybe support it.

So my question, I have two questions. One is, is it possible, or what are staff’s thoughts on Council asking for specific locations for this? Because this is drug use. And the other is, I forgot it, so I’ll stick to that one.

So question to staff about specific locations. Thank you, Chair, and through you, Civic Administration brought forward a report previously with a map with over two dozen possible locations where services could be delivered. Council voted to take no action on those list of possible locations for services to be delivered, which meant we deferred having specific locations to deliver services to a potential mobile service delivery option. That’s what we were directed to do.

We just went through the previous report, which was how we were going to get services out to people without having a distinct definitive location. If now, Committee would like to introduce a set location or specific location, we would certainly want to consult with legal around what that would look like if we’re talking about a designated encampment location. This community has not had designated encampments or established permitted encampment spaces. We know other communities have, and they’ve dealt with those challenges in different ways.

So we would be at your service here in terms of what Council decides if you were to change course and now direct us to have a permitted encampment or a sanctioned encampment or a dedicated location. We would certainly work through our colleagues and legal and report back. Follow up, Councilor? No, thank you.

That’s helpful because we were given the two dozen locations. The thing is, from a public perspective, we were concerned about where the encampments were going to be. We asked for the locations. Then correctly, we took no action.

We said we’re going to do mobilized. Now we’re basically saying we’re going to allow the unhoused population to choose. I don’t know that that’s what is going to be well supported in the public. This 1.4 million is about substance-related harms, urgently alleviating substance-related harms through transactional outreach to encampments.

We’re going to tell the public that we asked Health Canada for $1.4 million to help reduce alleviate substance-related harms in wherever the parks where they’re at in a mobile service. As I said, I hate to turn down money. I will be voting no on this. And I just want to clarify, has this contribution agreement been signed already?

Thank you, Chair. Through you. So for clarity, that is the name of the grant. The federal government puts the value in that there is a substance-related harm component to this funding.

So yes, we applied for the fund under the parameters of the fund to try and bring services to our community that align with the fund so that we can reduce the harms related to substance use. Without the funding, that is fine if Council decides not to receive the funding. Those substance-related harms still exist. We just won’t have the resources to support those people through them.

But again, we’re at the direction of Council on that. And I’m sorry, the second part of your question is escaping me on what that was about. Sorry. Yes, and the agreement has been signed under our delegated authority through consultation with legal services.

We have signed that agreement. We’re coming here for the blessing of Committee and Council, and should we not receive that, we’ll communicate that back to the federal government. Hello, Councilor. Councilor Preble, you’ve used 120 of your time.

Thank you, Mr. President. Officer, to the staff, where will this funding be actually going? Is it going to be going to the currently existing programs?

To staff, go ahead. Thank you, and through you, Mr. President, Officer, this funding is to augment some of the other discussions we’ve been having around the unsheltered homeless and camp initiative. Ideally, the program is really to focus on the basic needs provision in that operational plan that we had just presented to Committee to try and help reduce the desperation in community.

So the funding will go towards outreach. It’s going to go towards some of the meals that we talked about. It’s going to go towards some of the water and the washroom provisions, all of those kinds of pieces within that operational basic needs plan. Follow-up, Councilor.

Thank you. No follow-up. Okay, looking for any other comments, Councilor Troso. Go ahead.

I just, through the chair, want to thank staff for the work that you put on this. I think somebody needs to say that, so I said it, and you’re bringing money into the city programs that we need. And I just, sometimes I get the feeling that, well, I’ll leave it at that. Thank you very much for the work you’ve done on this.

Okay, it’s a privilege. Okay, correct. My follow-up, Councilor Troso, because I said it right when I started my first conversation, thanking for this effort. Okay, the battle of the thanks continues.

So looking around any new speakers. Okay, Councilor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I’m sorry, I’m still a bit unclear as to how this report relates to the previous report.

So I’m just wondering if I can get a little bit more clarity, specifically around 3.0 financial impact considerations. So are these considerations on top of, or are they part of the last report? Okay, to staff, whenever you’re ready. Thank you.

And through you, Mr. presiding officer, as I mentioned previously, this is, we’re trying to fund the response through multiple sources, right? The ETF funding kind of came and dropped into our lap after, then sheltered homeless encampment initiative. Funding was announced.

So we’re trying to utilize this funding to the best of its abilities for the provision of basic needs. So all of this funding will go towards that provision of basic needs, which we recognize is not sufficient for our community’s basic needs. And then the remainder of needs will be funded through our unsheltered homeless encampment initiative. So it’s both of those funding streams that are going to go to support the operations of our basic needs plan should counsel prove it.

And if there’s any other surpluses or unallocated amounts by us executing contracts, determining, you know, how many meals everybody needs in a monthly basis, we’ll definitely come back to counsel for the direction on that. Follow, Kilzer. Thank you. So when it refers to total wages and benefits, and it has the breakdown of the full time manager coordinator full time transactional outreach workers, is that on top of what was listed in the previous report from the staffing perspective, or is this part in parcel?

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper. Thank you. Through you, Mr.

residing officer, it is part and parcel to that. So the outreach dollars that were identified in the previous report was to action this funding. Should counsel allow us to ratify the funding? That follow up, Council.

Thank you. And so when we refer to materials and supplies, where it has the 438,877 for 2526, is that again, on top of, because the allocation is, the justification is different than the justification in the previous report, as this one contains some additional items other than basic needs. So I’m just trying to figure out, is this basic needs plus these other things like personal hygiene and personal supplies? And I’m wondering if you can give me more information on personal supplies and staff and clothing participant meals.

It’s all kind of lumped into one, and I’m just wondering what’s the breakdown of what’s going towards meals? What’s the breakdown of what’s going towards other needs? Okay, Mr. Cooper, a breakdown, if you can.

Thank you. And through you, Mr. Presiding Officer, just to note these amounts in this report were part of the application that was submitted in November, and so they’re forecast, they’re expectations, like things that our community had identified at that time. Since then, the conversations we’ve had, we’re focusing on the meals, focusing on the water, focusing on the provision of the washrooms.

There’s obviously probably some delivery charges with meals, some of our outreach teams as part of agreements and contracts that we negotiate with them, do have needs for technology for staff, clothing, branded clothing, that kind of stuff. So the original proposal had worked that in. I don’t have the exact breakdown, the exact numbers yet, because we haven’t really negotiated that with the agencies yet. We’ve identified an upper limit that we’re going to hopefully stay within and council should a council approval.

That’s what the number will use. Follow up, Councilor? Thank you. Okay, so I’m still struggling with this a bit, and I’m happy to take this conversation offline to get more clarity as well.

But one of the things I’m not clear on is when I read some of the other submissions from other surrounding municipalities and places across the country. I’m struggling with how this supports harm reduction, because it’s not clear to me how it does in terms of our response. I agree, emergency support in basic needs are there, but how it actually ties to harm reduction is not as clearly defined for me in this. And just wondering if there was more to the submission around how that money will be directed to the emergency treatment portion of that, and how it ties into our approach on addiction.

Okay, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Dickens? Thank you.

And through you, Mr. Rosati and Officer, the work of the outreach teams is in that harm reduction philosophy, right? So the lock zone provision, different kits that that individuals may need, as well as the conversations and directions to get folks to treatment, right? So I think it’s the relationship building is a real key to some of the work that the outreach teams do.

And this funding allows us to expand outreach, which allows us to have those conversations, which allows us to potentially get people more into treatment and to recovery. Follow up, Councilor? Thank you. That’s helpful.

And how does this fit with the heart hubs in the, and our city receiving funding? Or is that still quite unknown right now? Because those, we’re still waiting to hear back from other levels on where those are all going. I’m just wondering, because the clarity for me that I’m looking for around this is this, to me, ties right into additional supports that we’re looking to get online in the community.

Right now we have such limited capacity to help get folks to treatment in the city and such a demand and need for it, that what’s here, I understand, absolutely the need for the lock zone treatment and other things. But I hope, I know this funding only goes until 2025, and I would hope that this would be something that we can scale up and use in our heart hub initiative. Good. Thank you.

Go ahead, staff on this. Through you, Chair, this type of service would be like an intake source. So one of the avenues into the heart hubs, and also recognizing, I know we don’t have a council decision yet, but on a report background, temporary warming spaces. Through the activation of chalk and of boil, we’re issuing the lock zone in those situations, right?

But the folks that are getting into those spaces are coming through the efforts of outreach workers and sort of allows us to get to people that are more dispersed and get them into those spaces as well. Okay. So looking to this side again, I believe it was a councilor Pribble. Do you want to put something forward?

Yes, I would like to place a motion actually, same as for 2.9, same for 2.10, which is going to stay to the civic administration be directed to present a report at a future meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee, providing the above-noted, executed contracts for information. Since I didn’t take last in 2.9, thank you. Okay. And need a seconder for that one.

Okay, Councillor Cudi. So this amendment is open for discussion. Any discussion? I’m just going to ask, Adakkirasti.

So with the last one, obviously, we’ve indicated that May timeline, any indication from staff when they could do it, whether they’d come at the same time or when we could see that. Through you, Chair, I think what we’ll do is we’ll follow the previous intent, which was the language was around when the next CAHPS meeting after the agreements are ratified and executed, assuming it’s not the same week of. Okay. Is that okay, timeline?

That’s perfect. Thank you. Any other discussion on this point? Okay, not seeing any.

We’ll open that amendment for voting. Posing the vote, the motion carries 3-1. Okay, so we are on the amended motion. Move it in a seconder for the amended motion.

Councillor Pribble, do you want to move it? Yes, I’m moving it. We’ve already done the vote. This is the motion that’s being amended.

Yes, moving it. And then Councillor Cudi. Okay. Same as before.

I know it’s repetitive. Here we are. Okay, so this is the amended motion. Any discussion?

Okay, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. For the public awareness, it talks about supplying harm reduction supplies and equipment. Could you give a list of what the public can expect to be delivered to the parks in that regard?

Staff, you want to comment on equipment? Through you, Chair, just to be clear, we are delivering these as needed to individuals, not just to parks in general. Mr. Cooper touched on what some of those harm reduction life-saving devices might be, such as naloxone or harm reduction kits.

I don’t know. I’m not sure beyond that, but naloxone kits and harm reduction kits, such as bandages and resource packages that are distributed by regional HIV/AIDS connection to reduce the sharing of needles and the possible spread of HIV. Okay, follow-up, Councillor? Yeah, thank you.

So just to be clear, would a harm reduction kit include needles? Staff. Chair, yes, I believe it does. Thank follow-up, Councillor?

No, I just, well, I’ll just assume in, it would also include pipes and straws and cookers and would foil that type of thing as well. Staff. Through you, Chair, it would include some of those items in terms of swabs and disinfectant wipes, gauze. There may be a cooker.

I’m not sure about pipes and straws, however, but what is typically in those kits are resources that hopefully allow an individual that has an active addiction that has not in the contemplative state of seeking treatment. We know that folks are either pre-contemplative, contemplative, or they’re not. So folks who are not actively seeking recovery and they’re actively using the harm reduction kits are meant to acknowledge that usage and try to provide them a way to do it safely. Naloxone, using with a friend, stuff like that, helps reverse or prevent overdoses.

The clean utensils or harm reduction kit is a public health measure that tries to reduce the spread of infectious disease throughout the community. Follow up, Councillor? Yes, just another. It talks about treatment and recovery services through existing community pathways.

Is there any clarity, and I don’t even know municipally whether we can get clarity on this, but is safer supply part of those recovery and treatment services? I think we’re kind of straying into territory that’s not specific to this. Well, no, but we’re funding 1.4 million to go out and let people know and bring them to services. If it’s bringing people to safer supply, which I know is being delivered to our encampments, I think that’s something the public needs to know.

Staff, do you want to respond? Through you, Chair, that service is not affiliated with municipality. We’re not involved in that. Yeah, so that’s not part of it.

So stick to what’s in front of us. Once again, you have three minutes for me. Okay, well, I understand, but right in front of us is this. So I think it is a big discussion in the city and what we’re…

See, the thing is, and I think maybe somebody can correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think we have funded anything but very, very basics in terms of the encampment strategy since last year. So this is going to be a huge investment in funding to outreach service. This is 2.6 million. If we add the 1.4 million from this and the 1.2 that we just did, what impact will Londoners or residents of London housed and housed see?

What are they going to notice at the end of this year from this 2.6 million dollar investment? Yes, really, Councillor Trosto’s point. Staff can’t predict the future. This is something they brought in front of us.

This is money that we have to make a decision on how it’s being used. We can’t predict the future. I don’t think staff can speculate on that. Obviously, you want to see positive outcomes, but I don’t know if staff want to comment on that, but I’ll leave that up to them.

The primary use of the funding is to help give people indoors. It is to meet them where they’re at, keep them alive so they can come indoors, but ultimately to get them indoors. And we have council direction that we were to seek federal funding. We didn’t stop at one source of federal funding.

We saw multiple sources of federal funding in our attempt to try and help with this crisis, but ultimately the direction from council, part of it was around transactional outreach services. And so what we expect to see is that people that have nowhere to live will have more frequent engagement and contact, more wellness checks. They will be provided the opportunity to try to come indoors. We build those relationships to get people on a path through the housing, helping them access services that maybe they haven’t accessed before, but ultimately we are trying to follow the guidelines of this federal funding source.

And ultimately, as it’s laid out here in the report, we’re aiming to support those that are on house and ultimately get them indoors. Part of the expectations of the organizations is that they’re able to articulate the impact that they’ve had. So we will know what the impact that they’ve had is when that time comes. Follow up, Councilor?

  • Yeah, thank you. And I’m in no way criticizing staff. I understand the council direction in the past. What I’m saying is we have a conversation to have with the public as spring comes and people look forward to their perks to see what is the impact of this going to be.

This is a huge amount of money to bring services to our perks. And it’s a conversation worth having, I think. I don’t have anything more to say. - Okay, if you’ve used for 40, so you’re the end there.

Any other speakers to this? Okay, not seeing any. We’re open this for voting. - Closing the vote.

The motion carries 4 to 0. - Okay, so we’re on 2.11 now. This is the additional emergency shelter and day drop in space update report. There’s a delegation, so I would ask that we deal with that first.

Can I get a motion to accept the delegation? Councilor Preble, Councilor Troso, thank you. And open that for voting. - Closing the vote.

The motion carries 4 to 0. - Okay, welcome Ms. Kelly. You have 5 minutes.

Go ahead when we’re ready. - Thank you through the chair for having me today. I just wanted to speak very briefly to the report. I’m very supportive of the overnight spaces that are being recommended and appreciate that council asked for looking into those.

We certainly need more space and listening to the debate this afternoon. I know that that’s not a foreign concept here at all. Stabilizing services is critical. And to that end, that was a really great recommendation.

I think additionally, however, the implications of reducing funding for other areas of services that need to be stabilized is something that you need to consider as you look at the implications. So I just wanted to raise the fact that reducing the amount of funding for day time drop in services at Arcade Street Mission will have direct service impacts. We’re looking at all available opportunities to see what that will be. And I know in the report it references negotiating.

I want to thank Civic Administration for the conversations that we’ve been having. But I think it’s very important for you as council members to understand that there is one door that is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week in our community for people when they are in crisis, when they are finding themselves in an encampment or anywhere else in our city, if they have a basic needs or they need support and they need to find a place to go, the arc is that door right now. With the changing to the funding, the arc will not be able to do that continuously. And we’re tapping into our fundraise dollars.

You’ve seen the reallocation of those fundraise dollars to do the best we can with that. We will continue to work at raising funds and working with our volunteers and staff to be as present as possible. But I just want to make it very clear that the changes in the budget will have implications. Thank you.

Thank you. I’m going to make a ruling on this now just because we saw this earlier. I’d like Ms. Campbell to stick around if we have questions.

If committee will allow for that, just verbal yes from committee members. Okay. Councilor Cuddy, I’m going to take that as a yes. Okay.

All right. So thank you for being in Ms. Campbell. There might be some questions, so just you’re aware.

Okay. So I need something on the floor for a motion and then we can have discussion. Mr. Trust?

Okay. I’ll move the staff report and seconded by Councillor Preble. Okay. So that is on the floor.

We do have Ms. Campbell here as well. So feel free to ask questions and looking for speakers. Any committee members?

Councillor Preble, did you want to go? Go ahead. Thank you. Thank you to the staff for the report.

I honestly, it’s the A and B. I think that’s I really have no questions and I will certainly support it. Question to see and maybe question to arcade. We discussed this before the drop in services.

We made certain decision in terms of the business district, etc. This would stay parent premises or is there a certain outlook to move these services to a different location? Go ahead, wherever you are ready. Thank you.

And through the chair, this is one of the largest implications of a reduction in the stable funding of our services. It’s very difficult to convince both the board of directors who own that building and potential landlords that we would have sustainability if we were to relocate our services without a base funding that we can that we can support. And so when we see the numbers change, we actually have been actively looking at locations, really seeking our opportunities, including some of the things you’ve been talking about today. How can we support more people indoors?

What are the opportunities? How can we augment? It’s really an impossibility if we don’t have consistency with funding and knowing what the demand is in our community. If it meets the current needs of our city, we’re only one door.

There’s many other organizations doing important work and I understand the constrained environment. So I want to be clear about that. But in terms of strategic planning and looking at building relocation, having consistent funding is a critical building block. So we will not be able to pursue any capital campaigns unless we are sure that we are able to deliver services from that location.

It would be inappropriate to ask donors to step up with significant funds for such things if we don’t know that we can actually deliver services continuously. Follow up, Councillor? Nothing right now. Thank you.

Okay. Looking at other committee members. Okay. Not seeing any Councillor Stevenson you wanted to add.

Thank you. I did circulate a question about whether C was a decided matter of council. Do we have an answer on that? I’m looking to the staff.

So in talking with the clerks, make a bit of a decision on this. It’s essentially up to us. Obviously staff have given their interpretation. Whether this is a decided matter of council.

We get to decide that. I will ask that C we voted on separately. Each of us might have different opinions on that. I have some comments on it as well.

But yes, I think staff have already previously given their response. But in terms of being decided by us, it’s up to us. Councillor Stevenson, do you have any other? I do.

Although I’m just a little confused. Usually that is clear and it needs a two thirds majority to move on or not. But I’m not voting at this committee anyway. So my issue with C is the same, right?

We had a nine to six six vote at council that said we would not fund resting spaces on the main street of a BIA in the winter. So now we’re heading into summer. I don’t see those votes changing. And the issues are still the same.

So there’s general support, I think, for having resting spaces and a place for people to go indoors. But there is not support for it on the main street of a business district. We’re talking about people in crisis. And we’re talking about competing interest here.

So since I’ve been on council, we have been talking. Sorry, point of order is being raised. My recollection a few seconds ago was the chair said we’re going to proceed with this. And if somebody wants to challenge that, the proper procedure is to challenge the rule of the chair and not reargue it.

I moved on. Can a visiting member challenge by rule? Okay. So yeah, that’s dealt with.

So let’s not rehash that. If you’d like to bring that off a council, you can. But I’ve made my ruling so we won’t be rehashing that. Thank you.

I wasn’t discussing that. I was just talking about the implications of this funding on that street. So this is the provision of resting spaces. And it’s daytime.

So to offer that on the main street of a business and remember that arcade has been there for 40 years and we used to fund them $10,000 a year. And it wasn’t the problem that it has become with the increased funding to that location. So I don’t hear anyone in all these village not wanting arcade to be there and to continue to do what they’ve always done. But maybe back at the funding levels that they used to do it at because to be feeding hundreds of people who don’t have anywhere to go or stay during the day on the main street of a business district is problematic.

And there are other interests. This we are not a council of social service agencies here. We get to meet the whole of community needs and all everyone else. So there have been it’s a known issue about the over saturation of services on all these village, especially given the fact that we just, you know, assuming the other two go through, we’re spending 2.6 million bringing basic needs to people in the parks.

Why is there a need to do this day space on the main street of a business district? So I would not be supporting C when it comes to council and I would be strongly encouraging all those who voted not to fund resting spaces on the main street of a BIA to continue with that, whether that here’s an opportunity to keep walking that out that this city has to find a place for people to have these services. And it can’t be on the main street of a district that pays additional property taxes because the city has said we’re committed to the business area there. And I’ve got people who feel like shut-ins in their apartments because of the level of drug addiction and drug dealing and other criminal activity that comes along with that.

It isn’t fair to the residents there. We’ve got apartment buildings full of families. We’ve got seniors. We’ve got people pushing oxygen tanks that are afraid to walk down the sidewalk because of the open drug use.

It is dangerous. And it’s something that we’re going to have to talk about. So I would really hope that this committee and council would vote no to see and then work on finding where can this be. Okay, Dr.

Brill, you wanted to go there. Thank you. I’m representing officer action. I have additional questions for Ms.

Campbell. And if she could answer to me or explain to me again the kind of the difference day service and resting spaces. Thank you. Go ahead, Ms.

Campbell. Thank you. And through the chair, our day services are a wide variety of basic needs service delivery. There’s showers, laundry, clothes where people can get a new change of clothes or have their clothes laundered.

Advocacy where people can use a phone or a computer. We help people connect to coordinated access or other health care services. There’s many referral locations within walking distance from our location. We do provide meals.

We also provide, I’m going to say community care, which is everything from having in space, you know, clinics, flu shots, vaccinations, all kinds of wound care. We have partners coming in. We use video conferencing to meet with people from Ontario Works or otherwise. It’s a hub of location where people can come both housed and unhoused to have basic needs met.

The numbers of people coming from an unhoused population has increased over years. It is not a resting space. There are no beds. There is nowhere to sleep.

It doesn’t mean that people don’t fall asleep sitting at the chairs, but that is not the intended purpose of our day services. Our day services are truly a front door for both relationship building, assessment, connection to other services, helping people into what available resting spaces do exist in our community. And resting spaces are characterized largely by the ability to rest. We have to have a place where people can recline or lay down.

We try to have, you know, quiet as much as possible, somewhat contained. We create our resting spaces so that people can actually sleep because it is a critical piece of both mental health and well-being for people. Well, Councilor, thank you. Oh, sorry.

I take you back, sort of, for signing officer. Is there any additional in terms of how we would say resting spaces besides you don’t provide beds? Is there anything specific that would be associated with resting spaces beyond that? I think the only thing through the chair, the only thing I can think of that would be additional to that is that resting spaces are filled and then full, right?

So if we have 35 resting spaces, once we’re filled, that’s a capacity. Whereas during the day services, we do have a capacity for our building, for bathrooms and, you know, size of the space and so on, but we’re able to continuously allow people to come through to get those basic needs met and have some support. So we see upwards of 200 to 300 unique individuals each day through our space, our daytime space. Whereas at night, when we do provide resting spaces on our own fundraise dollars, that is 35 people and there’s no more space.

We are capped at that point and so then we have to turn people away. Follow up, Councilor? Thank you very much. Nothing for, sorry.

I’m going to juggle the notes here. Looking for other members. Okay, so Councilor Stevenson spoken. I’m going to take this chance to speak.

I don’t know if other committee members want to speak, but put your hand up if you do. So the 18 beds, I’m really happy to see that with Salvation Army. I think that’s great. We absolutely need those women-only spaces with the arcade drop in spaces.

The way I’m viewing this and what Ms. Campbell said pretty much was where I was thinking anyways. I know in terms of semantics, obviously we made a past decision. I’m viewing this differently because as was indicated, resting spaces to me means that people are staying.

There’s a place for them to rest, to sleep, whatever. This is very much in line with what I see on my BIA, which is the Hamilton Road Coffee House. Their service has typically been the day drop in. A lot of folks come in, have their meals, do their laundry, use the washrooms.

We see a lot of people use that as well. So I’m viewing that. That’s how I’m making my decision. I think that’s very much in line with what I still have.

And obviously through my discussions with my BIA, they understand that. That’s the decision we had previously made. So having the day drop in, I know obviously people in the community don’t love everything that goes along with that, but I’ve seen better success with that in my area, to be perfectly honest. We have a very good program that runs in terms of community cleanup.

We’ve worked with Coffee House and members come in to help clean up the neighborhood. I think there could be more done in terms of community engagement and helping the area through the people who access services. But I’m just speaking from my own experience. This is what I’ve seen.

I understand the struggles that are going on in OAV. But I do think we all have to kind of work together on this. I don’t want to cut off services entirely because there are still people who are accessing them. They need them.

Those day drop in services are important. I literally see through the day, people will come and access services at the Coffee House on Hamilton Road and then go to the arc afterwards because we have limited services as well. So that’s where I am on that. I know we’ll make our decisions, but that’s where I am.

Is it? I’m looking for anyone else that they want to speak again. Just letting you know, Councillor Stevenson, you just have about one minute left. Thank you.

A question through you to the delegate. The description of day drop in spaces. Is that any different than what was funded August to December of last year? Go ahead, Ms.

Carol. For you, Chair, the only — I would have to go back and look at the contracts to see what was actually written specifically. But the only change I can say to our delivery of services would be the removal of any opportunity for people to have any type of rest in the daytime space because of the motion of council. So we’ve removed anything that can recline.

We do our very best to make it definitely not a daytime resting space because we know that that’s a risk right now. So even though there’s a need, certainly, for daytime space to be provided to people. And even though there’s not enough nighttime spaces for people to sleep and be well, we’ve been compliant to the motions of council. Go ahead, Councillor.

Thank you. I just want — I distributed this and I’ll add it to the council agenda. But on the staff report of July 18, 24, we funded from August 1st to December 31st, daytime resting spaces 16 to 24 hours per day. So in that council meeting, I said, my intention is that no new funding go to resting spaces day or overnight on the main street of a business improvement area.

And the word resting spaces came from the staff report which covered the arc age services from August to December of 2024. So I think we’re getting caught on semantics. The language matched the agreement to ensure that my amendment was the services being provided from August to December at 696 Dundas Street. I didn’t really hear a question, but do you have any other comments?

You got about five seconds left. Just that it isn’t about, you know, not having people have a chance to lay down their head. It’s the services that were provided August to December were not to continue day or night at 696 Dundas Street. So that’s my comment.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay.

Councillor Pribble, go ahead. You have only used about a minute, 30. I just want to ask you, excuse me, for signing officer, is this going to be split? Are we voting or I would like to have C separate, if possible?

Yeah, we’re already going to separate. Oh, we already did. Yeah. I just might just make a comment that for today, I will be voting no, because I do want to have two more conversations before council.

But for today, I will be voting no and C. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments?

Okay. Not seeing any, we will open this for voting and C will be called separately. He’s coming up first. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to two.

Okay. So we are now on to, oh, yeah, sorry, we’re major of the motion. Closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero. Okay.

We have already dealt with scheduled items. Oh, sorry, we’re not in this direction. We’re now into deferred matters, additional business. So this will be 5.1.

This is the short term rental enforcement fund. Okay, looking for a motion. Okay, Councillor Kiley is putting the staff recommendation on the floor. Looking for your seconder, Councillor Per bevel.

Okay. So that’s on the floor. Any discussion? Councillor Troso, go ahead.

Through the chair, I don’t have any objection to the funding agreement. I think it’s great. My concern is this being added to the added. I would prefer to see something like this come to a council agenda.

So the public is aware of what’s going on. I do have a number of questions about ongoing enforcement. And I guess I just, somebody just wants to assure me that today is not the day to bring that up and there will be another opportunity to do that. I don’t think I’ll need to extend this into a very long discussion.

Was it clear to me from what was presented? I guess the one question I would have, though, is what improvements in resident services and enforcement do you anticipate coming from this additional money? Oh, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I’d like to also answer the question about bringing this on the added. The funding has to be approved by this Thursday. So the agreement is signed by the City Manager and we received approval of this funding two weeks ago today.

So we had to put it on as an added item to receive this funding. Regarding improvements, this will allow for dedicated enforcement officers to identify short-term rentals, to take actions against short-term rentals that are not compliant with council’s regulations, specifically the residents of the owners. There are the restriction states that you have to be a permanent resident to to rent to your property. It’s not investment properties.

And we will be identifying baseline metrics. Some of these are identified in the report. We have around 200 licensed properties currently and we have taken actions against over 200 in compliant properties over $100,000 in fines. So we have those baseline metrics that we will be reporting out to the federal government.

Follow up, Councillor? So my ongoing concern about this program has been there has not been reporting to this City Council in a regular way. I’ve raised on a number of occasions that I am very much supportive of what the housing of the building division does in terms of the regular reports to you. Will this improve the reporting to this City Council?

Mr. Catolic? Through Mr. Presiding Officer, that question was asked about a year ago and we have improved reporting.

It’s online. It’s on our zoning map and we, as a student, as a property, is licensed as a SDA. Within a couple of weeks, it is posted publicly. Follow up, Councillor?

Yeah. So I want to approve this right now because I want this money. I want this money to come to you. You need it?

This is great. Thank you for doing the work on getting this grant. I don’t want to do anything to hold this up. I do think that this committee does need to have a further conversation about this program.

I don’t think it’s on the agenda for today. The only thing that’s on the agenda today is approving this request. Is that right? I guess to put it another way.

By approving this today, we’re not foreclosing the opportunity for this committee to ask for the questions and Mr. Mathers is kindly shaking his head no. That’s what I want to hear because I do want to bring this discussion back, maybe at a better hour. I feel like I can anticipate the answer would be yes.

It doesn’t include questions. Absolutely. Through the chair, happy to bring, have any other further discussion about municipal compliance and how we’re reporting out. This doesn’t preclude any other future conversation about that.

In that case, I don’t have any further questions. Congratulations for getting this money. I certainly hope it improves the enforcement situation. So thank you.

Thank you again. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Pribble.

Go ahead. Thank you. I sort of presiding officer to the staff. It was mentioned 200 license properties.

I missed the number. How many in compliance? I think it was 203, right? I’m sorry.

I still couldn’t hear it. Can I hear it from the staff? 203. Okay.

If you have 200 license and 203 in compliance, are we talking about properties? Are we talking about reports issues? Because right now we are talking about we have 200 license, but 203 in compliance. Are they in addition?

So we have all together 403 to have under license to three under license because otherwise it doesn’t make sense to me. I’m just reading from the report. Since October 2022, we have issued administrative monetary penalties to 203 properties totaling $100, $100, $500 in fines. I think the council was looking for how many short-term rentals, right?

That’s a total number. Oh, you got it? Okay. So out of the two, through the presiding officer, out of the 203, there could be potentially that there are five, seven of them, the same property, correct?

Oh, that’s very possible through the chair. And if they continue to be in compliance, we double the amps. Thank you and follow-up questions. So, again, great that we are getting this money from higher levels of government over three years.

And besides the enforcement and human resources, are we looking in terms of changing print bylaws to make it to give us, I guess, more power to actually take actions and foster stronger? Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Todd.

Through Mr. Presiding Officer, in addition to the funding for staffing, this will be used for technology. So, we use a AI-based software to identify the properties because short-term rentals are very difficult to identify and get this specific address without actually renting one. And we have done that in the past also.

So, this will improve identification of these properties and improve enforcement because we will have at least two dedicated officers that will be dealing with short-term rentals full-time basis. Follow-up, Councillor? Thank you. No more questions, and thank you once again from securing this money from higher levels.

Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on this one? Okay.

Not seeing any. I will open this room. Sorry. I have to cancel the vote.

I thought the Councillor wanted to speak. So, can we reopen the vote? Councillor Trozzo? I vote yes.

I don’t have anything else to say. Posing the vote, the motion carries 4-0. Okay. So, we are on 5.2.

This is the Interim Housing Assistance Program for costs incurred between April 1st and December 31st, 2024, looking for a motion. Also, looking for a seconder, Councillor Cuddy. Okay. So, that’s on the floor.

Any discussion? Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah. Thank you.

I mean, I appreciate us getting the money to offset the costs, but my concern is about the impact on the availability of space. So, I do notice that the number seems to be going down over time. I just wondered if we have a sense of this is not as much of a problem, or do we have any plans to, as the other motion said, increase shelter space to start ensuring that we’re not losing space for people who are suffering from homelessness? Mr.

Cooper. Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Mr.

Presenting, officer. All great questions. We have been seeing a reduction in asylum claimants accessing emergency shelter. We are working and having conversations with the IRCC about their 25-27 IHAP program, which may look to increase services across the board for asylum claimants, which may include additional housing, sheltering, transitional housing, as well as community services.

So, still early in that, we’re working through the application process with the federal government, but that’s sort of a next steps, if you will. Okay, follow-up? Okay, so don’t follow-up. Nope, we’re good.

Any other questions on this one? Okay, not seeing it. I’ll open this for voting. Toss-up votes, yes.

Closing the vote. The motion carries. 4-0. Okay, we made it.

5 o’clock, the adjournment. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Councillor Cudi, Councillor Trozzo. Okay, we’ll do this by hand.

All those in favor? We are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.