April 7, 2025, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting was called to order at 1:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That Items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

2.1   1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee

2025-03-27 ACAC Report

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the 1st Report of the Accessibility Community Advisory Committee, from the meeting held on March 27, 2025, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.2   London’s Designation as a Welcoming Francophone Community

2025-04-07 SR London

2025-04-07 SR London

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the staff report dated April 7, 2025, with respect to London’s Designation as a Welcoming Francophone Community, BE RECEIVED. (2025-R08)

Motion Passed

2.3   Approval of Single Source SS-2025-093 Contract Extension Equipment Rental with Operators - W12A Landfill

2025-04-07 SR Approval of SS Contract Extension Equipment Rental with Operators - W12A Landfill

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to the Approval of a Single Source Contract Extension for Equipment Rental with Operators for the W123A Landfill:

a)    a single source-SS-2025-093 extension of the contract summarized in Contract Record C20-072 with J.B.L. Construction for a period of one (1) year in accordance with Section 14.4(d) and (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy as outlined below, BE APPROVED:

i)    the existing Terms, Conditions and Specifications as outlined in Contract Record C20-072 will be in place through the one (1) year extension period commencing on August 1, 2025; and,

ii)    the contract extension will include a one-time payment not to exceed $200,000 to cover the cost to procure and install refurbished waste compactor wheels and crawler dozer tracks with undercarriage to ensure these pieces of equipment will continue to operate as specified for the duration of the contract extension period;

b)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with these recommendations;

c)    the approval given, herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, contract record and/or purchase order, whichever is determined appropriate; and,

d)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-E07/E07A)

Motion Passed

2.4   Request for Proposal 2025-389 - Consulting Services for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update

2025-04-07 SR RFP 2025-389 Parks and Rec Master Plan Update - Part 1

2025-04-07 SR RFP 2025-389 Parks and Rec Master Plan Update - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to Request for Proposal 2025-389 for Consulting Services for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update:

a)    the bid submitted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants, 302-219 Oxford Street West, London, Ontario N6H 1S5, for Consulting Services in accordance with RFP2025-389, at its bid price of $251,986.00 (excluding HST) BE ACCEPTED; it being noted that the bid submitted by Monteith Brown Planning Consultants meets the City’s specifications and requirements in all areas;

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report, as appended to the above-noted staff report;

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

d)    the Mayor and the City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations. (2025-R04)

Motion Passed

2.5   SS-2025-072 - London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories

2025-04-07 SR LFD SS Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories - Part 1

2025-04-07 SR LFD SS Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

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 April 7, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Procurement of Vehicle Tablet Mounts and Accessories:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with  Commercial Truck Equipment Co., 1005 Pattullo Ave, RR8, Woodstock, ON, N4V 1C8, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with three (3) option years for the provision of vehicle tablet mounts and accessories to the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a purchasing agreement with Commercial Truck Equipment Co. to provide vehicle tablet mounts and associated accessories 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)    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-V04)

Motion Passed

2.6   SS-2025-074 - London Fire Department Single Source Bunker Gear Renewal

2025-04-07 SR LFD SS Bunker Gear Renewal - Part 1

2025-04-07 SR LFD SS Bunker Gear Renewal - Part 2

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by H. McAlister

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 April 7, 2025, related to the London Fire Department Single Source Bunker Gear Renewal:

a)    in accordance with Section 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, Fire Administration BE AUTHORIZED to enter into negotiations with AJ Stone Company Ltd., 62 Bradwick Dr, Concord, ON L4K 1K8, for pricing for a single source contract for one (1) year with two (2) option years for the provision of bunker gear to the London Fire Department;

b)    the approval in a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon The Corporation of the City of London negotiating satisfactory prices, terms, conditions, and entering into a contract with AJ Stone Company Ltd. to provide bunker gear 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)    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-A14)

Motion Passed

2.7   Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”)

2025-04-07 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - 602 Queens - Part 1

2025-04-07 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - 602 Queens - Part 2

2025-04-07 SR Emergency Treatment Fund - 602 Queens - Part 3

That the following actions be taken with respect to the staff report, dated April 7, 2025, related to the Emergency Treatment Fund (ETF) Approval of Federal Contribution Agreement (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”):

a)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the above-noted staff report, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on April 22, 2025, to:

i)    severally delegated the authority to the City Manager and the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development to approve:

A)     amending agreements with Canada (Minister of Health) for the Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund (“SUAP-ETF”) (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”)Arrangement 2526-HQ-000038 (“Contribution Agreement”);

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

C)      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.

ii)  authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute agreements (including amending agreements) approved under subsection a) of this by-law;

iii)     severally delegated 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;

iv)     severally authorized the City Manager and Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, or their written designates, to execute the documents approved under subsection c) of this by-law.

v)    severally delegated 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 in section a) above.

vi)    ratify the Contribution Agreement, Arrangement 2526-HQ-000038, Substance Use and Addictions Program - Emergency Treatment Fund, (Reducing Substance Use Harms Through Basic Needs and Healthcare at 602 Queens “The Commons”) executed by the City Manager; and,

b)    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;

it being noted that a verbal delegation from M. McMahon, Thames Valley Family Health Team and M. Ritchie, Sisters of St. Joseph in Canada, with respect to this matter, was received. (2025-S14)

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the delegation request from M. McMahon and M. Ritchie BE APPROVED to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion be amended by adding a new part which reads 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 (4 to 1)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the main motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Watson Park

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

a)   the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the operation of the Watson Park depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible and that, in the interim period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living unhoused find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location; and,

c)    the attached letter from Councillor McAlister, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

Additional Votes:

That the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park:

a)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, and connect them, if possible, with service supports, including possible shelter options;

b)         the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to cease the operation of the Watson Park depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible; and that in the interim period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living unhoused find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location; and,

c)         the attached letter from Councillor McAlister, with respect to this matter, BE RECEIVED.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That part a) of the motion be amended to read as follows:

the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park, and connect them with appropriate service supports, including possible shelter options;

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part a) of the motion, as amended, be approved.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) of the motion be approved.

Motion Passed (3 to 2)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) of the motion be approved.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:16 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (1 hour, 38 minutes)

All right, everybody. I will be calling this meeting to order. Welcome to the seventh meeting of the Community Protective Services Committee. I’d like to welcome everybody in council chambers, in the gallery members and visiting members.

City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishnabek, Haudenosaunee, Lina Peiwa, Kanata Wanda. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. 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.

City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon requests. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact cpsc@london.ca or call 519-661-2489, extension 2425. I’d like to recognize members of the committee. We have Councilor McAllister to my right, Ward 1, Councillor Pribble to my right, Ward 5, and visiting members.

We have Councillor Stevenson to my right, Ward 4, and Councillor Peter Cuddy to my right, Ward 3, visiting member. Oh, he’s a member, that’s right, sorry, sorry. I’m sorry, I’m sorry, Councillor Cuddy. You are a member, that’s correct.

I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. We have three, four members of the committee in chambers today. Looking to committee members for any disclosures of interest? None.

I have consent items, 2.1 to 2.7. I’ve had a poll request for item 2.7. That’s the emergency treatment fund approval of federal contribution agreement. Reducing substance use harms through basic needs and healthcare at 602-queens the comments.

Looking to committee for any other poll requests? I have none, looking for a motion to move 2.1 to 2.6. That’s moved by Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAllister. And looking now to committee for any comments or questions, Councillor Pribble, please go ahead.

Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. I have a question regarding 2.3 for the landfill. And I just had a question. We are doing the extension for one year, 200,000.

It’s within the multi-year budget. What is the plan next year when this extension expires? Thank you, Councillor, Mr. Chair, Mr.

Chair. Thank you, through the chair. We plan on pulling together the traditional tender document to be released, that will be sometime later this year. So we just need a one year extension.

So we received the complete information from the provincial government on what our expansion processes look like and the needs for that. That will be then built into the next tender, which is usually for a three to five year period. So this is just to get us through that little period of time. And as you see in the report, the contractors agreed to the same level of work, the same understanding and requirements to do with the landfill operation.

And at the essentially the same price, except for a minor amount that is required to basically just to repair a few of the pieces of equipment with some additional compaction cleats that are required for landfill operations. Thank you, Mr. Stanford, Councillor Preble. Thank you for the opportunity, Chair.

When I look at the full amount of the contract, this is actually a kind of a reasonable amount. Is there an opportunity potentially to extend it more or there is only one year extension or is there potential, if it shows savings, that instead of going out, we would extend for another year, Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, working with our colleagues in procurement, this is the appropriate length for an extension of this type.

It is something that really should be out in the competitive marketplace ‘cause there are betters that would wish to do this business as well. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, thank you, no more questions from that. And then the other question I have on 2.5.

And I wanted to ask regarding, because it says we are entering it to three plus one year agreement. And then in the summary, it states purchase, I think it was $95,000. So I just want to do a kind of clarification if it’s a purchase or if it’s at least, what is in regards to this equipment? Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor, Ms. Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, you’re correct. This is a purchase, a one-time purchase of equipment.

Hopefully, whether there’s any required purchases afterwards as we continue to increase the number of vehicles and apparatus on our fleet. But this is a one-time purchase of mounts to support, allow us to put iPads in all our vehicles. So the length of time is due to the purchase of new vehicles in the future as per the multi-year budget. Thank you, Councillor.

Okay, thank you for that. So if I go into recommendation A, which I understand now it’s a purchase that the contract for one year, this two option years for the provision of bunker gear. So is it beyond the tablets or is it because of the warranty? I’m just trying to figure out if you are purchasing it, what is the one plus two, Councillor, Ms.

Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, this is as per our procurement policy. And this allows us to purchase what we need now in year one. And then our option if we need to continue to purchase for the following three years.

And then as per procurement, similar to Mr. Stanford, we would have to go out again to procure and get the best bid. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, no more questions.

Thank you, Councillor. I have Councillor McAllister next on the speaker’s list. I just want to recognize Councillor Sam Troso has joined the committee. Councillor McAllister, please go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. With regards to item 2.4, the consultant service reparts in rec master plan. I’m just wondering, obviously, there’s a cost with the consultancy. Will we be seeing any other costs associated with the master plan?

Or is the attention to go out, get the plan updated, and then the lion’s share of this would probably be the next multi-year budget. I just want to confirm that. Thank you, Councillor. I see Mr.

Yeoman is online, so I’ll go to him. Thank you, through you, Mr. Chair. So yes, this is consulting for the actual engagement to put together the master plan.

It’s comprehensive, so it handles the actual preparation, the background research, scans from other municipalities, as well as public consultation, of course, as well. So the actual additional costs, potentially, that would be coming forward, would be through the identified capital needs that would flow into the multi-year budget. Thank you, Mr. Yeoman.

Councillor, oh, that’s it. Okay, just looking for any other questions or comments. This is items 2.1 to 2.6. Members or visiting members?

I have none. Okay, let’s call the question. Yes. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero.

Okay, that’s it for consent. That leaves us to schedule items. I have none, items for direction. We have 2.7 from the consent that we moved down.

We have a delegation request from Mike McMahon and Margot Ritchie, who I see are in the gallery right now. We just need to look to committee for a vote to approve the delegation, and then once we go there, I’ll ask you to step up to the mic to the front. So looking for a motion, thank you, Councillor Truso, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Okay, let’s call the question on that.

Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to zero. Okay, we’re ready for you. I know we have two speakers for the five minutes, so I’ll give you five minutes. Please, just before you speak, just state your name, and I’ll leave it to you.

Your five minutes begins now. Okay, Margot Ritchie with the Sisters of St. Joseph. And Mike McMahon from the Thames Valley family health team.

So quite simply, Mike and I come today as partners of the 602 Queens Ave, asking that the $900,000 of federal funding allocated to the Commons, which will keep the space open for the next two years. You know, and as we were thinking about this, I was thinking perhaps you woke up this morning thinking, here we go again, a group asking for basic funding. Is this getting us anywhere? Is this really the best use of government dollars?

Hasn’t this area of London born enough of the challenges of the impacts of homelessness? Actually, we understand this point of view. We are not naive. To be clear, though, I know of no outreach worker or staff of any organization that gets up in the morning and says, oh good, today I will meet only basic human needs, although I will do that.

And then I will do it again and the next day till the end of my working life. On the contrary, every outreach worker I know has an image and experience of entering the doorway of basic human needs to create more safety, security, and stability. I want to link just a little bit the hub model of the whole of community and basic human needs. Many of us have been impatient with the slow pace of the hub model, and I think what that does, of course, it puts more pressure on basic human needs.

So what we are asking and hoping is that we could be funded for two more years at our common space as we await more of the funding to come online for the hub system and more hubs to actually open. We think that will create something quite different. And I’m going to pass the mic now to Mike to talk about his part in the partnership. Thanks, Marco.

Again, Mike McMahon, good afternoon, chairs, members of the committee. And I’m really pleased to have the opportunity to speak. We’ve been working with the partners at 602, forming our tenancy at that site, as we were successful in funding from the provincial government to offer team-based primary care resources at 602 Queens Ave, along with a couple of other sites downtown. And that’s part of the expansion of primary care that happened in 2024.

Like I said, we’re proud tenant at 602 Queens Ave, where we provide essential team-based care primary health care to those folks experiencing homelessness in London, and who attend at Queen’s Ave. We need to be there when people arrive. It’s not a place where you make an appointment and see people in that way. Every day, our staff, our team, along with our collaborating organizations, see the impact of inaccessible health care for, in this case, the city of London’s most vulnerable citizens.

We’ve been able to renovate, spend, you know, approximately $350,000 to get proper clinical spaces fit out, and then to a station, a nurse practitioner and registered nurse, along with others from our team who will attend on-site, like dietitians, pharmacists, and physiotherapists, as just an example. Speaking of our nurse practitioner and registered nurse, they’re supporting people who live with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart disease, and who benefit from mental health support and medication management. Treating these injuries and infections would otherwise go attended, helps folks at where they are, but also that without our care could become life-threatening or cause a visit to the emergency departments locally. Primary care is often the first point of contact that helps people rebuild their lives when people can receive excellent health care from a place that they trust, and then move on to the next steps in primary care, where probably people don’t envision getting primary care at 602-queens hour for their entire life, but because of the nature of our organization, once stabilized, we can move them on to other nodes of service across the city, maybe closer to where they grew up.

As a service provider, I can say with confidence that this is a safe and well-managed environment, which is necessary for both our staff and the people that we serve. Our team works here regularly, and we feel secure in the space. Approving the ratification of these funds, which I believe is the exercise today, and I’m here to support our partners, ensures that people will continue to have access to quality health care that they need to survive. This is investment in primary care, community stability, and a future where fewer people fall through the cracks of this provincial health care system, which I’m a steward of here today.

I urge you to support the funding, and we would love to continue providing the support on site. And I think I just want to add one point that is the key thread of what we’re saying. Not only are we present needs oriented, we are very future oriented, and so this is another good reason to please fund us. Thank you.

Okay, looking to, so before we can get to any discussion, I would need something on the floor. Move by council, sir. Are you looking to move the staff recommendation? Okay, move by councilor Trusso, seconded by councilor McAllister.

All right, looking to committee members first for any questions or comments, councilor Trusso. I’m gonna keep my opening comments brief, in case I need to come back to this. We’re always asking senior levels of government to support us always. We often say we’d love to do this, but we can’t do it.

We need to get assistance from senior levels of government. Well, here we are, and I must say, having gone through the very meticulous work, including the schedules and the contract, I really have to commend staff for their diligence here, for their very thorough attention to detail. And I also wanna thank the delegates for adding a little bit of extra support for this. So I think we have federal money on the table.

I think it would not be, and I support it. I’ll just leave it at that for now, thank you. Thank you, councilor, councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair, similar to what Councilor Trusso said.

Often lobbying the federal government, provincial government, especially when it comes to healthcare needs. I’ve heard in terms of the impact the service has, and I’m willing to support it. I do just wanna put as a caveat that, I know not everyone will agree with federal policy. This is not Ottawa, and I can’t change federal criteria.

So, I mean, there’s a federal election going on, ample opportunities to voice your objections in terms of what’s going on. But I think a lot of the services that are part of this are incredibly important. I wanna see these services continue into the delegates point. As we see more hubs come online, we’re still awaiting, obviously, finalization of the provincial agreement for the hard hub, which they announced.

But there are a lot of moving parts. I know a lot of people in the community wanna see this happen faster, but I do think as we get more hubs online and more services, that will relieve a lot of the pressure that we’re seeing in the healthcare system. And I’m very hopeful for that. And I hope in the coming years that we see more of that, because we absolutely need it in the community.

So I will support this. Thank you, councilor. Members, committee, councilor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff.

I just have a few questions. Is this a seven days a week service, or is it Monday through Friday? Thank you, councilor, Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, it’s a five day a week service. Thank you, councilor. The service that’s in front of us and the amount, this, I don’t know if there was anything else you want to ask this question.

This amount, is it fully funding these services, or is there additional funding associated for them, for this organization to deliver these services? Thank you, councilor, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through you, Mr.

Chair, clarification on the previous question, it’s six days a week, sorry, not five days a week, six days a week, and the funding is to help support and augment some additional funding that council had approved last November through our life stabilization team. That funding supported this location from about November till May, and then this funding will then extend that services as outlined in the contribution agreement from May until March 30th, 2026, March 31st, 2026. Thank you, councilor. Thank you, we approved last week the ETF funding, and I wanted to ask, is this part of it, because last week is when we did the social agencies or the agencies, they were not specified.

Is this part of it, or is this in addition? Because the ETF accounts, they have two different accounts last week, and this week, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

Thank you, and through you, Chair, as outlined here, these are two separate applications. So staff made two separate submissions to the federal government. This is separate and apart from that. And as we note in the report, when you talk about funding and funding sources, what we’re really trying to do here is leverage provincial funding through Ontario Health, which is direct funding to family, sorry, Thames Valley family health team.

They receive about 1.6 million in provincial health funding to operate their health clinics. So what this does in this report, is it creates a way to put all systems together and leverage other orders of government funding to bring people in through the doors. And once inside those doors, they can gain access to all kinds of primary care treatment and supports and referral pathways. We here at the City of London have city staff that work in those spaces as well to help people with social assistance supports as well.

Thank you, Council. Thank you for that. Service matrix, have they been established and will they be provided to us? Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, the contribution agreement does outline some quantitative and qualitative high level outcomes. We’re working right now with the federal government to submit our annual plan, which will have additional details.

And that is due to the federal government at the end of April. So we will be able to return to committee at a later date to outline those details. Thank you, Council. Thank you.

Harm reduction services into the encampments. And we talked about it last week. Is this part of it as well? Or this will not be part of it.

Thank you, Councilor, Mr. Cooper. Yes, thank you and through you, Mr. Chair, the application was focused on providing individuals with basic needs and access to healthcare services.

Addiction services, both treatments, recovery, harm reduction, a number of those will be offered to individuals should that be part of their individualized planning. So although they’re not funded under this application, they would be available from a community perspective to individuals who access these services. Thank you, Councilor. Thank you.

Thank you to the staff for doing all this work and kind of securing the amounts from higher levels of government, which is very helpful, which is great. Thank you for that. My issue, what I was talking last week, I really in terms of the encampments. And I do have a, I’m not support of that part.

On the other hand, if I look at this, we certainly need these services. I do think that we are talking about the hubs and even the delegation mentioned that the hubs are not here and they will not be here tomorrow. Having said that, we are still into the hubs and then the basic needs. And I really believe that we need to start addressing something in the middle, some other initiatives, which we mentioned.

And I hope we come back to it. I will, at this committee, I will support what’s in front of us, but I really think we need to focus on additional things, not just the basics, which I consider this basics, I must, and also the hubs. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

Looking for other members of committee. All right, I’ll just make some quick comments and then I’ll go to visiting members. So I do appreciate the work that staff has done here. I do appreciate you reaching out to the upper levels of government and securing that funding.

I do also appreciate how we’re leveraging that funding with other services that are provided. In the report, I would just make note that the operators at the Commons, we have Thames Valley Family Health. They’re operating onsite, primary care, Sisters St. Joe’s, providing meals and other provisions like that.

London Cares themselves offering outreach and system navigation for housing, which is a fabulous thing that we need to do. And the Ontario work staff providing social assistance connections. So all of those services are very essential for what we need in our role and our work that we’re trying to do in this space. I do like to see that we are leveraging that provincial health funding as well.

I think that’s, like I said, that is a big deal for me. And I do feel like if we did not have this federal support, we would be at risk of a gap in services there. And the fact that we are getting that and we’re not going to be putting that on the taxpayer base, I think is a very big deal. It’s exactly what this council is asking for all the time.

So I will be in support of the motion as it is in front of me myself. I’ll leave my comments there for now. I do have a visiting member who would like to speak. That’s correct.

So I’m going to go to Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. I appreciate the chance to speak. My concern with this one is that it was only last Tuesday that council made a lot of decisions in terms of this kind of funding.

And one of them, one of the concerns was the oversaturation of services. And I’m wondering why there wasn’t an opportunity for council to be made aware that this funding was coming forward, given that the contract was signed March 21st, so that we could have had the bigger picture when we made that decision. I’m not sure it wouldn’t have possibly impacted our decision on arcade knowing that there was this funding going a block and a half away. Thank you, Councillor, Mr.

Dickens. Through you, Chair, I believe we were actually in a position where we did have to disclose that there was some other ETF funding coming forward as part of the dialogue at the last meeting. And while we signed the contribution agreement, we were not going to make the cutoff time for the council agendas, and we actually still had some back and forth with the federal government. We were not in a position to bring this forward to the last cap cycle, and we missed those deadlines.

Having an open floor discussion about a report that hadn’t come to committee yet felt like something would be inappropriate on our part to do. We again are bringing back, previous council direction was to go out and seek funding for these type of services from other orders of government, and so we were able to line up this report with this cap cycle. Had everything been okayed at the federal level more expeditiously than we could have absolutely combined everything together and filled that agenda at the last cycle. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, just as a follow up, one of the concerns that I have is the inability for council to get information that isn’t already made public. So we do get it 24 hours early, but is there any opportunity to get briefing notes or anything that would be confidential that would help us make these important decisions? Thank you, Councillor Bader’s there. Thank you, through you, Chair, to committee members.

I certainly appreciate the request for information. We try as best as we can to share the information with council as soon as we can, and as soon as we’re available to do so. We do, though, have to respect the process of the clerk. The city clerk puts in place for us and the work that’s done around agendas, but happy to take any advice or feedback as to how to improve the information that council gets and through what process.

Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, yeah, I’ll be following up on this after because this, you know, council just seems to get this puzzle piece by piece. And there’s the desire for myself, and I don’t know about my colleagues to have a bigger picture to see what’s coming to be able to make decisions, you know, where I can see more than just one step in front of me. The other issue I have with this one is council used 500,000 in reaching home dollars back in 2021.

It was allocated as capital funds for this location. And my understanding was that to allocate funds for capital projects through reaching home, there was required to be five years of committed ongoing funding, ‘cause it makes sense you wouldn’t want to invest in property if you didn’t know you had the operational money to support that. So I just wondered if we could get an update on that. What has been the, am I correct in that, first of all?

And what is the ongoing funding for this service? We’ve heard from the delegation, a request for two years of funding, and this is only one. So just wondering how it is that we’re ensuring the operations of this location. Thank you, councilor, Mr.

Cooper. Yes, thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the question from the councilor. The reaching home capital investment, as noted, was to support the broader work that you’re seeing come to fruition today.

The partnerships were what was being provided as the operating piece of that ask. We recognize that London Cares had existing contracts with the city at that time for a variety of services with their home base, the administrative aspect operating at this location. But we also knew as part of the work that they had been doing behind the scenes within the 602 Queen’s Commons location, the partnerships with the sisters of St. Joseph’s, as well as the health team as the delegates noted today.

Looking at those as a complete package, that’s meeting the intent of that capital funding. And I believe we’re coming very close to the five-year aspect for the federal government. Mr. Dickinson.

Thank you, Chair. And if I may add, you referenced the comment the delegate mentioned that this is one year’s worth of funding as the report states. So roughly $444,000 for the one-year operating which takes us into 2026, which would be the five years from the reaching home contribution agreement. We will also have services that are funded.

As you see, the Thames Valley Family Health Team has funding to provide primary care service. We will have funded city services in that space as well. So as Mr. Cooper referenced, the one-time capital investment that the federal government made in that space, we were able to honor that through the provision of ongoing services.

Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, so just to confirm then, so the allocation of the $500,000 for capital, there’s no requirement at that time, just a commitment to ongoing funding, but no requirement to have that solidified. Thank you. Thank you and through you, Mr.

Chair. The commitment we had was existing agreements with London Cares. And at that time, there were a number of programs that were intended to operate out of this location, primarily as noted, the administrative aspects of the London Cares work, but also any one-time funding, which came through from a winter response or a cold weather response, or at that time, additional COVID funding. Thank you, Mr.

Dickets. Okay, Councilor. Yeah, just one more on that topic, I guess. You’d mentioned that we’re coming close to the five years, and I wondered, I don’t believe that location opened up until maybe January 2023, I could have the date wrong, but are we five years of operating that we’re committed to, or is this gonna be shorter than that?

Thank you, Councilor, Mr. Dickets. Through you, Chair, while I understand these questions are related to the operating assets in front of you, we would need time to go back and look at a 2021 contribution agreement with the federal government. We understand at the time we signed that good faith, that funding was made in good faith, and we have not violated any agreement with the federal government to this point.

Thank you, Mr. Dickets, Council. That’s all for now, thanks. Thank you, Councilor.

I have Councilor Pribble next. Thank you, and to the Chair, just as we passed last time to the other organizations, agencies, the motion, so it was sent to the clerk, and the motion would state, the civic administration be directed to present a report at a future meeting of community and protective service committee, providing the above-noted, executed contracts for information. So just for the committee’s information, we did this with the other agencies. So I would like to do this for this organization and this funding as well.

You’re looking to move that, Councillor? Yes. And by the way, thank you very much for the delegation and also for the services provided to our community. Thank you, Councillor.

Looking for a seconder? Seconded by Councillor, cutting. All right, let’s for questions, comments for the amended motion. There it is, it’s on the ascribe.

So questions or comments for the amended amendment to the motion? Okay, let’s call all the questions. Willing the vote, the motion carries four to one. We are back to the motion as amended.

So looking back to committee, I will just ask one question from the chair. I do see that the funding agreement for this ETF funding comes to an end on March 31st, 2026. I also know that there’s some extra funding that we did with the ARC services that also comes to an end, I believe, on the same date for March in 2026, is that correct? Just thank you and three, Mr.

Chair, for a point of clarification, are you referring to the Life Stabilization Funding that Council approved late in 2024? I’m referring to the, and I know this is a little bit far from the topic, I just wanted to just clarify, the funding that we approved at the last council meeting, when is the date, the end date for that fund? Sorry, thank you, through you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate the clarification.

The previous agreement operates until December 31st, 2025, and this ETF funding would go through until March 31st, 2026. Okay, thank you, that’s the only question that I have there. Okay, I’ll look one more time to members of committee, visiting members, okay, let’s call the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

All right, that’s it for items for direction. That leaves us to defer matters in additional business. I do have a motion that was submitted by Councillor McAllister, so I’m gonna look to the Councillor for that motion. Okay, thank you and through the Chair, while the clerks are getting it up, I can read out the wording.

So that the following actions be taken with respect to Watson Park. A, the civic administration be directed to assist with the relocation of those living on house in Watson Park and connect them if possible with service depots, including possible shelter options. B, the civic administration be directed to cease the operation of the Watson Park Depot and move to the recently approved mobile service model as soon as possible. And then the intern period, depot resources be reallocated to assist those living on house to find shelter or relocate them to an alternate location.

I see the attached letter from Councillor McAllister with respect to this matter be received. And apologies if folks didn’t get a chance to see that, but there is a letter attached to this which would go to council. But committee members have been provided that letter in advance. Thank you, Councillor.

I’m looking for a seconder by Councillor Cuddy. All right, looking to committee members first for speakers, let’s go back to Councillor McAllister. Please go ahead. Thank you and through the Chair.

I appreciate the committee allowing me to put this forward. This did just occur last night at Watson Park. There was a fire. Thankfully, no injuries have been reported, but there were some propane tanks that exploded.

I’m doing my best in terms of trying to manage the situation, understanding I got a lot of calls from residents last night into today concerning the situation. And really, this is an acknowledgement of all parties and involved and I’m trying to be respectful of everyone, but also acknowledging that there are public safety concerns. And this is to both those living in the depot and also those who live adjacent to it. So I’m happy to have the discussion with committee if they would like for their details, recognizing that there is an ongoing police investigation and I can’t really provide, there’s no further details really to provide at this point, but I am trying to respond to this situation and ensure that everyone is safe.

If we can find shelter, that’s great. If there are services that can be provided, but ultimately we do need to relocate this encampment because there are serious safety concerns currently. So I’ll leave it there and I’ll look to my colleagues if they have questions or would like to discuss this further. Thank you, Councillor.

Looking to committee. Councillor Trussell, please go ahead. Thank you and through the chair. Thank you for bringing this forward.

I know it was late, but it’s an emergency motion. So that’s why it was late. So who problem with that? My question is to the staff, is it feasible to do this in a way that respects the reasonable needs of the residents who are going to be relocated?

Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Dickon. Thank you and through you, chair.

I think our staff and the community partners will take every step possible to ensure that this happens in an efficient, but safe manner and be as respectful as we can be for sure. Our teams have been on site since very early this morning and working with those that are nearby and having to post notice for something to relocate. We’ve been working closely with the fire department and LPS not only on their active investigation, but also just ensuring the safety of those that still remain in that space and safety for the surrounding community. So that work has already started in terms of some high priority areas that may have to relocate quicker than others.

If this is past and enacted, what we would do is we would work as quick as possible with community partners leading up to council and following any council full of council decision to make sure we support individuals in a very individualized way. We will have to take a little bit of time to work with organizations to ensure that people can physically assist with the relocation efforts. If that means loading personal effects or transporting personal effects, we would have to really iron out those details through community agencies on what they would do. But there are folks that support individuals to find access to housing and outreach workers that help people transition into shelter on a regular basis.

We wouldn’t see that as being overly different from what’s being asked here. Are those shelter spaces always available? Not necessarily. We did benefit from additional spaces being accessed last night overnight for some individuals that had to vacate K Watson.

Thank you, councilor. Finally, you’ll be, I assume you’ll be able to come back to council with a more complete update that you’ll have in a few days to help us understand exactly how this is going to unfold. Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

Through you, chair, if the decision of committee is to move ahead with this, then our team would wanna start working as quick as possible to start engaging with community partners and looking at what services would stop when and how we would facilitate this move. Reporting back with a detailed operational plan, I’m not sure we’ll hit the next council site or ahead of the next council meeting for you to be fully informed. But just know that this is the operational work that community organizations have to do on a regular basis. If we post notice to an encampment when there’s a flood morning or if there’s safety concerns today, we work with those individuals to help encourage them to relocate as it is.

So I’m not sure I would have a detailed plan that council would debate or consider or amend. This would be put on to the city staff and the community organizations to be fun, to do this work as effectively as possible. Thank you, councilor. Thank you.

I have councilor Cutty next. Thank you, chair and through you. And first of all, chair, I’d like to thank staff for giving us current and up-to-date statements starting last night and through the night and this morning. So I really, really appreciate it.

I think I can speak for all of council for that. And chair through staff, through you and two staff, I’m curious to know how many people that were displaced if they know. Thank you. Thank you, councilor.

I will go to Mr. Dickens. Thank you, chair, because this is an act of police investigation, I’ll keep the details very limited. It’s our understanding that there were three individuals that were displaced last night.

Thank you, councilor. Thank you, chair. You know, Saturday, I was not entirely unrelated. Saturday was at an encampment in my ward.

And, you know, not necessarily checking for safety hazards, but this is something that we always have to be cognizant of because it’s going to happen. And we’re just grateful, as councilor McAllister has said that there were no fatalities and no injuries to speak of. And, but we can’t always expect to be that lucky in that fortune. So thank you.

Thank you, councilor. I have, councilor Pribble, next. Thank you. And so the question is just a comment through the chair to the staff.

I think it was last October. Councilor Frank and myself, we made a motion into self-exploring other opportunities. Unfortunately, we missed the deadline for this meeting, but it will be at that next CAHPS meeting that we’ll be requesting an update. And I believe that it went to a certain reference table.

But again, going back to it, you know, spring, this is the time when we know that kind of April 1st is the one, the utilities and the owners are more stricter in terms of people who don’t pay their bills. And it seems like this spring, this time, is the harsh, the most harsh for people ended up being on the street in the encampments. And I really would like us to explore other opportunities, which I mentioned already earlier today, not just waiting for the hubs and not just doing the basics and the musts for people to survive in the encampments. I truly believe we have to look outside the box and deliver other options, or if we don’t deliver, we really have to explore them to the fullest, to provide the best possible options for the people who are homeless, but also for the safety of our residents.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I guess, you know, of course, we’re all very grateful.

No one was injured yesterday. There is a lot of concern about these encampments. Last week, we just council approved 2.6 million in outreach support to these encampments. And now this devastating fire last night, when you go to our get involved London site, there’s nothing on here about encampments anymore.

It just talks about hubs and highly supportive housing. And I believe that may be because we did not actually endorse the detailed community encampment response plan. And so I’m wondering through you to staff, is that going to be coming forward to us, a new detailed response plan for council to endorse? Or is that something that we would need to ask for?

Thank you, Councillor. I would just like to keep the questions and commentary as close as you can to the item. I will go to staff for this one, but if you can just keep it tight to the item. Thank you, through you, Chair.

We didn’t get the opportunity to actually correct this at the council meeting, but it was 1.4 million. That was approved, not the 2.6. Those were the two reports, one funding source, just to clarify that. Council did not endorse the entirety of the encampment plan.

There were some items that were approved. Those were put into operations in terms of the proximity measures and things like that. At this point, there would not be a requirement to bring back a new encampment plan. What council has endorsed throughout this process is, where and how and to what extent we can provide basic needs to those living on shelter.

That is, in essence, council’s approved encampment outreach plan. Thank you, Councillor. Yeah, thank you for that. It’s good to know the outreach support that we approved at council was 1.2 million through one set of funding and 1.4 through the SEW app.

So I’ve been adding the two together. The other is, that’s good to know because there are details, a lot of details in that plan that we didn’t endorse. So I’ll be looking into that so that we have a document that the public can look at so that they can see what kind of supports are happening and I can see the look and I appreciate I’m off topic. So I’ll keep it to this.

In terms of fire safety, fire safety was part of that plan. And so the public is very interested in what measures are being taken as our outreach goes through next winter. How are we keeping those who are living unsheltered and the surrounding community safe? So thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. I am going to ask just some questions from the chair. I would hand it over to Councillor McCousler who has moved this motion. So just bear with me.

I just wanted to ask staff, from your recent numbers, how many individuals do we have at Watson Park at the moment, Ball Park? Through you, Chair, if I may, Ms. Kramer’s is on the Zoom call and she may have those numbers handy. Thank you.

Thank you. Through you, the chair, we have 39 individuals as of last night 36 and 19 pets at Watson. Thank you. And I understand that the depot services are supposed to be coming to an end.

When is it scheduled for our depot services to come to an end? When is that scheduled? Take that again, sorry. Through you, the chair, it is scheduled to go mobile as of May 1st.

Thank you for that. I do see that with the cycle that we have here, the next council meeting is April 22nd. So depending on how this committee were to vote, that would have to be approved and ratified at Council April 22nd, which puts us very close to the end of the depot services. So I understand what the Councillor is bringing forward and I do know exactly what the Councillor is speaking to ‘cause I have certain situations in my ward as well.

I just wanted to make sure that we are not overlapping certain directions with other directions. I just wanted to ask, I got some more questions here. If reading this motion, the way it is, I see that part A anyways, to assist with the relocation of those living unhoused in Watson Park. And if possible, providing service supports, including possible shelter locations, how would that be interpreted?

How would that be operationalized outside? Specifically with the actual locations that we have available? How would staff operationalize this part of the motion? Through you, Chair, I’ll start this answer and then pass it over to Ms.

Creamers as well. So typically what we would do is service providers are part of the hyphus system, which our shelters can also produce their bed vacancies. So if there’s open beds, that can be identified through this process. What we would do, for example, is Council’s recently approved 18 additional beds for women at Salvation Army.

So Ms. Creamers and her team, along with the outreach organizations, including London Cares, may go into Watson and engage some females, female identified individuals, to see if we can actually help transition them into a vacant female bed that might be available. We would work with shelter providers to see if there is any shelter occupancy space, be it through the Arc, who received some individuals last night overnight for us, which was greatly appreciated. And barring any matching that can happen between the individuals and any available shelter space, should there be some, we would continue to rely on the outreach workers to look at are there any housing units that this person may be paper ready for.

Part of the outreach work, thank goodness, is not just the delivery of sandwiches and water. It is the development of getting people paper ready for housing. It’s not easy to do. But that work happens on a daily basis so that should housing open, we’ve got people who are on our by name list that we’re sometimes searching for to get them matched into housing.

And that may be the case for some of the individuals here at Watson, I don’t know them, and I haven’t ran the reports with the teams, but typically on an operational perspective, you’re working with the organizations that might have the beds in the spaces, you’re working through the outreach organizations that do that transition and that support and help those people relocate into indoor spaces. Barring that, it’s going to be a typical procedure of posting notice, letting people know they have X amount of time to vacate that space for whatever reason, this would be the reason, and they would start to pack up their belongings and relocate, and Ms. Kramer’s is nodding, so I don’t know if there’s anything else to add. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so I appreciate the answer. It does sound like we don’t have enough indoor capacity to assist with everybody in the encampment from the answer that I got and from what I know. So I guess my next question would be regarding the 100 meter boundary restriction from residential properties.

And I understand that we had a committee report not too long ago showing that with that 100 meter restriction, we would see really the only open areas kind of identify themselves within the east end of the city. So my question would be for those that we don’t have enough capacity for to bring them inside, if we were to be shutting down or winding down the encampment as it is, those individuals, where would they go? Would they be within that restriction of the 100 meter boundary? Would we see individuals move to the east end of the city?

Through you, Chair. Yes, so with the encampment locations, there are different proximity measures depending on the criteria that we’re measuring against. So 25 meters from residential property lines that have a habitable dwelling. It’s 100 meters from a school playground, those sorts of things.

We would still have to follow those proximity measures, which means people would be forced to go to a space that would comply with those proximity measures. I may go to Ms. Kramer’s on this, that would leave some parks that currently have folks temporarily residing in them that may bring more people to those spaces, which we will then manage that impact and it may drive people further throughout the community. But I mean, go to Ms.

Kramer’s to expand. Thank you, Ms. Kramer. Thank you, and through the chair, that’s correct.

We would allow for choice first and foremost. We don’t actually direct where people are to relocate, but we do enforce where they are not permitted to relocate. So John leaves Watson Street Park. He chooses to go to another park, providing he is within the safe boundaries of those proximity teams, outreach teams and CIR with both assist for that move to happen for the relocation.

Thank you. So like with that, I do have my concerns. Like I understand what the counselor is saying and I can empathize with the counselor for sure. With the not enough extra information, ‘cause we did get this report late in mind you, I do understand that this was an occurrence happened over the weekend.

I would like to see some more locations and I always see that when it comes down to it, we do talk about money and where the sources of funding come from, but we are getting monies from other levels of government. And this is the real issue, the real crux that we always run into. And that’s the location, especially when we have a lack of capacity or no indoor capacity and we have people outside and where do people end up going? When we direct staff with certain situations, I fear that because we have that lack, where would individuals end up going?

And I fear that just from the last committee reports and other analysis that staff has brought forward, there will be individuals moving to certain areas of the city and I would just like to have more information on the location. I would need something more, just so as I see this, like I’m very close to support A, but I do have my issues with A because I don’t see, I don’t see the alternative indoor options. Like I wanna see people inside, but I also don’t wanna be pushing things out and I don’t wanna be having directions like this without the other side of the work. I do need to see where the locations would be.

I do need to see what indoor options we have with this type of motion because for me, I would need to see that motion include some locations. And I know that would be a big discussion here at this council. So with that, because I need more information, I wouldn’t be able to support A or B at this time. And that’s just because I don’t have the alternative locations where people are supposed to go.

Like I do understand that concentration of people, concentration of encampments or concentrations are not good, they are not working. And this is a discussion that we’ve had many times over here in this chambers. And I see that the issues that reside within concentrations when we concentrate people outdoors, we are gonna run into issues. But in this situation, if we don’t have the alternate locations, I feel like we will be moving certain concentrations to other areas.

And I just don’t wanna see that. I would like to see no concentration of anybody. I would like to see more indoor options available. And I would like to see alternate locations provided with a motion like this before I’d be able to support it.

So I wouldn’t be able to support it at this time without more information. That being said, I also see that the next council meeting is happening on April 22nd. And a part of this motion here does overlap with that because we are gonna be winding down those services, those depot services to locations by the end of the month. So with that, I also have that issue arising in front of me as well, so I wouldn’t be able to support either one.

Again, I see where the council is coming from. I did see, read the news. I did see what’s going on. And I totally feel for individuals living in the surrounding area, individuals within the encampment themselves.

I also can totally understand where the council is coming from. But without those extra locations added to this, I wouldn’t be able to support this at this time. Before I go to Councilor McAllister, I just wanna know, does anybody wanna call these items separately or do you want them all together? Yes, okay, if we can just split up those items.

I have Councilor McAllister next. You have two minutes and 40 seconds. Thank you and through the chair. I’m recognizing your concerns, but this was something that happened yesterday.

I’m trying to afford staff the ability to have options. First and foremost, I would also like to see people shelter, but recognizing the safety concerns, I do think we have to look at alternative locations. My issue with identifying specific locations is I think that also raises safety concerns for those who are living in encampments. I think if you start identifying them on a map, that causes a whole another set of problems in terms of public and issues that could arise from that.

So I mean, I also wanna be respectful of, you know, privacy and safety concerns on that front. But I do think we have to take some action. I’m asking for support on this because yes, Council does meet again on the 22nd, but I would like this work needs to start. Like we need to start putting in the groundwork now.

I had previously under protests that, you know, extending this to April could have caused problems. And here we are. Originally the depot is meant to go until the end of March. We extended it to April to afford more time for the mobile service to get up and running, but we absolutely need to get that service going.

And the safety concerns cannot be ignored at this point. I have to take some action. I’m happy in terms of what the committee said so far. I think we are all on the same page in that regard.

And to Councilor Stevenson’s point about the fire safety, I really do hope, especially going into the warmer weather, that we have those regular inspections of sites because whenever I hear about propane tanks, absolutely worries me because once those ignite, we can cause multiple explosions and I don’t want to see anyone hurt or loss of life. So appreciate the conversation that’s going on today. I’m sure it’ll continue at Council, but don’t have those options unfortunately for you. This was something that happened yesterday, and I’m really just trying to respond to a very fluid situation.

So I hope this will still move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Trussell, you have four minutes and 15 seconds.

Thank you very much through the chair. My question is, is it possible to change the language in A to tie it in more directly with the event that just occurred and not people in Watson Park more generally? Because I think if it’s the Councilor’s intention, which I support, to do something immediate to the people who were affected directly by the fire, that’s a little different. And now that I listen to this conversation unfold, I think I think A might be a little broader than it needs to be.

B definitely seems broader than it needs to be. So I’ll be probably voting against part B, but I’m wondering, can we put something in part A to save that? Thank you, Councilor. I believe that would be the mover, but I could go to staff.

I’m sure we could add that in, but let me just go to the mover first. Well, through the chair, sorry. This is in response to an event that occurred. Like that’s why it’s directly being tied.

I mean, regardless any direction we give, I obviously would like staff to start working on it, but as the Councilor, as Councilor Ferrer pointed out, he’s gonna take a couple of weeks anyways. The unfortunate reality is we can’t, outside of our current response, none of our direction, unfortunately, will be acted on. It’s what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to lay the groundwork for a couple of weeks that we immediately switch, but putting additional wording, I don’t think is going to matter to be quite honest, because it’s directly in response to what occurred yesterday.

Thank you. I’m gonna go to Mr. Dickens real quick. Thank you, Chair, and through you, in terms of those that were directly impacted by the events of last night, those three individuals we referenced earlier, those three individuals have already been relocated, or relocated to other spaces.

So that if we’re to tie in language specific to the event, those impacted by the event have already been relocated. Thank you. Councilor Trussel. In which case isn’t this motion moved?

Okay, I’m gonna go to Mr. Dickens. Through you, Chair, it would be civic administration’s understanding that this motion is for the 36 remaining individuals at Watson Park, and not just the three that have already been relocated. Thank you, Councilor.

I’m really through the chair, and this is committee. So I think it’s fine for us to just workshop this a little bit and think carefully about the language. I really would like to save as much of this as we can. Would it be possible consistent with the mover’s intention?

I guess this is directed to the mover. To remove the words if possible, and add the words and connect them with appropriate. Councilor, you can move an amendment to this, if you’d like, but if you’d like the mover or the seconder, I guess. Yeah, I guess my question is, would it be okay with the mover if this said, those living unhoused in Watson Park, and connect them with appropriate service supports, instead of what’s written there.

Thank you, Councilor. Let’s give the mover and the seconder just a second. And they can choose to answer, or none, if they choose. The reason why, sorry, and through the chair, the reason why I put it if possible is because it’s meant to speak to the capacity, in terms of if it’s possible for those services to be provided and if shelter is available.

Thank you, Councilor. Trustee. I think that is a no. Okay, in that case, I’m going to, I’m going to vote against the language that’s there, but I do want to note that I very much hope that something can come back to us, that Council with some further detail, I don’t want to vote against this, because I appreciate the Councilor’s intention here.

In fact, I earlier indicated I’d be happy to second this, but I think what the chair has said is very persuasive, and it’s the words if possible. It’s a combination of the words if possible, coupled with this isn’t just for the people who were just affected, but everyone there. It’s a combination of those two things that still has me a little bit worried, because technically, and I don’t want to open up a whole can of worms here in a legal discussion, but it goes without saying that any moves we make to displace people are going to be, based on reasonable accommodations. And I just want to make sure that this is not a departure from that.

Thank you, Councilor. Great, just looking for any other comments, questions? Councillor McAllister, you have 30 seconds. Thank you and through the chair.

Recognizing what happened yesterday, but to be honest with you, the reason why we had that debate previously, and the reason why I was resistant to the change. And I’m kind of surprised coming from Councillor Faire, considering he had a depot. I think Evergreen, there’s been a bit more success in terms of relocating people, but with Watson Park, I think there’s been a litany of issues. We’ve done our best to manage it, but this is to move a problem that has kind of come to a head, and it does need addressing.

I’ve tried my best in terms of working with our CRRT, like this is a long time coming in terms of the issues we’ve dealt with. Fully recognizing that obviously we want to get people housed, we want to be able to fry these services, but in the absence of that, serious safety concerns have been raised on many occasions, and unfortunately have not been acted upon, and therefore I urge my colleagues to reconsider in terms of respecting the issues that have been raised, and that would need to be addressed as soon as possible. And I have been very accommodating to both Committee and Council in the past, in terms of allowing a lot of these issues to not be addressed, and now I am asking that we need to do something. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I’ll just respond before that. For me, it comes down to previous directions and knowing the restrictions, considering the 100-meter boundary and how that materializes outside. I do have my own service depots.

I am trying my best to find the appropriate accommodations for individuals in those depots, whether it’s housing or at some sort of shelter. I’ve been, and I totally understand where the Council is coming from. But for me, it does come down to that 100-meter boundary restriction, because I do know that that will have available locations for anybody who’s not able to secure housing. It would basically, the open areas that are available are in the locations that were identified in that report a few months back.

So that’s kind of how I’m approaching this, but I do understand where the Council is coming from. So I do wanna see something. I just would like to see, connected to this, an option of where it can go. And also my experience from the past with finding locations and identifying locations at this horseshoe.

I know is one of the most contentious things that we talk about here. And just knowing those and the experience that I have, that’s why I would like to see a motion like this have that accommodation. But I understand the barriers that exist with that. So that would be kind of my response to that.

I’ll go to Councilor Trussell, you have a minute and 27 seconds. In which case, through the chair, I would like to make a motion to amend this to start starting with the words and connect them, ‘cause everything is spine up to them, up to there, and connect them with appropriate service supports, which is adding the word appropriate and deleting the two words if possible. And again, and connect them with appropriate service supports. And if we make that motion, I would be willing to support Part A for now.

Thank you, Councillor, so are you moving an amendment? Yes. Okay, I’ll second that. And I would like to go to Mr.

Dickens really quick for commentary on this or anything else that you’d like to add. Thank you, Chair, and just for clarifying the question, last week at Council, there was a motion regarding McCormick Park. And while the language is different in this motion, we just, for clarity perspective, it reads very similar cease at reach or services in that space and not permit encampments in that space. So from a civic administration standpoint, we would approach Watson Park as we would McCormick motion, which was no more service, no more encampments.

The clarifying question we have so that we understand this is that is the expectation then, if Watson Park were to be decanted, that it becomes proactively enforced, and we prevent any further encampments from popping up in that space. That’s just the clarifying piece we’re looking for. Thank you, Mr. Dickens.

That’s a good clarifying question. I’ll just look to, okay, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair, I’m not sure if I have time to respond, but I will try to. So my intention, and this is a recognition that from what I have heard and seen, that a lot of these issues stem from the depot operations themselves.

What I’ve seen elsewhere in other areas where I’m dealing with encampments is, they have not led to the same sort of concentration. There are encampments throughout my ward, but this one, because typically of being, I would say 30 to 40 individuals, they know in terms of the services that are provided, that’s why they’re there. My intention is not to, in any way, block people from being able to encamp, but the depot model, which we have already stated, is coming to an end. That’s where I’m coming from with this.

It is not the same in terms of what we passed last week with McCormick being off-limits. This is a recognition that the concentration and the providing of services through the depot model have become problematic, and that is where I’m having the issue. And to Councillor Trosto’s point, which he often brings up, I’m not trying to raise any sort of legal issues in terms of stopping people, and also a recognition to, I believe it was Ms. Kramer’s, or perhaps Mr.

Dickens, we actually cannot, in terms of, enforce people to go against their will. We obviously have areas that are off-limits, and that rule is enforced, but my intention with this is to engage, as the Councillor has said, and I’m willing to support that language change, if he wants, to engage with the individuals, to connect them with services, or find shelter. I don’t want to prevent people from being able to be in the park, it’s a park, it’s a public place, but the issue, and this is why I was explicit with this language, is referring to the depot itself. Thank you, Councillor.

I will look to committee for any questions. I see none. All right, let’s call the question for the amendment. Councillor Perkle posing the vote.

The motion carries five to zero. Great, thank you. Okay, with that, we have the motion as amended, so I will look one more time to committee, or visiting members, see none. Okay, some comments just for me.

With the change for part one, and with knowing council direction, and what the 31st of April date will be, the May 1st date of April will come. I will support part A, just hearing from what Councillor McAllister has said with the intent. I will not be supporting part B, because I do see that overlap. So those are just my support on how I will go.

And if anybody doesn’t have any questions or comments, I will call the question, so looking one more time. Okay, let’s call the question, we’re doing it separately. This is part A, as amended. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Next up will be part B. Okay, it’ll be part B without the letter from Councillor being received, ‘cause it’s all ready to go. So this would be part B, calling the question. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to two.

And part C to receive the communication from Councillor, from Councillor McAllister, okay, calling the question. Councillor Trosto. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, that is it for the deferred matters or additional business that leads us to adjournment.

So looking to a committee for a motion to adjourn, moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Pribble. This is all by hand, all those in favor? All those opposed? This motion is carried.

Meeting adjourned.