Community and Protective Services Committee Meeting

Note: Official minutes for this meeting have not yet been published. This page currently shows the meeting transcript only. Once official minutes are available, this page will be updated with full meeting details including agenda items, motions, and votes.

---

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 (5 hours, 19 minutes)

Okay, good afternoon everyone. This is the fourth meeting of community and protective services. We will begin with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, Lenapawik, 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. Just some other housekeeping.

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 at london.ca or 509-661-899-extension-2425. With that, we will look for any disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, seeing none, I should mention that we are here at the community protective services committee with members of the committee all present.

That’s myself as chair, Councillor Pribble, who’s the vice chair, Councillor Troso, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ferrera. We’re joined by visiting Councillors, Councillor Frank, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor McAllister, and online. We have Councillor Cuddy and Councillor Palosa. Oh, and Councillor and Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you all for joining us. And with that, we’ll move on to our consent items. At this time, I’ve had no request to pull any of these items, but I will look to committee to see if there are any requests. Okay, we’ll deal with all items and consent all at once.

I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for the consent items to put them on the floor. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Pribble, thank you. We will begin discussion, looking for any discussion on these items. Councillor Ferrera, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair, and welcome. So I’m gonna, I guess I got some questions about 2.5, the Negotiator Request for Proposal for 1364-1408, Hyde Park Road, I have been speaking with staff on this. And I understand there are some, I guess nuances here, but my question and my concerns would be regarding block A. And first, I would say, good job, good work on this.

But I just wanted to know, I do see that as originally proposed specifically for block A, the permitted height is six stories. And I know you speak it to it in meters, but six stories is kind of how I read it. And then with the conceptual design that’s coming back here, we’re looking for a building that is three stories high. And I do see that we are kind of hitting the density for that site, but I just wanted to ask, what is the permitted density for the block A site?

And then what is the density that is being proposed here in this report? Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Felberg and team. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So I’d like to introduce Ms. Espinoza and Ms. Sondercock, who can answer some of those very detailed questions. Thank you, go ahead.

Thank you to the Chair. The density permitted on this site is 150 units per hectare. The proposed is currently 156. The R9 zone specifically has a density bonus provision, not to be confused with the former section 37, balancing provisions that allows for additional density in exchange for additional landscape open space.

In this case, this property would need to take advantage of that density bonus provision in order to kind of meet that 156 units per hectare as proposed. So it is technically over what it is permitted in the zone. Councillor Ferrera. Thank you for that.

And I do see that with that density we’re below the maximum height permitted on the block itself. And the reason I asked the question is, I do see that we’re above what the density requires. And I have specific interest on the affordable units in that block, ‘cause that is our land that we are looking to transfer ownership to the proponent. But my issue with, when it comes with respect to affordable units is I see a lot of single and studios, but I do not see very many family sized affordable units.

That’s the two and three bedrooms. And I do feel that because we do own the land and we can negotiate and then negotiate a request for proposal, we do have a little bit of leverage to maybe push for more family sized units. And I understand we’re using that census data. I know that is what we’re required to do, but most of the calls that I get when it comes to people seeking affordable units are families of low income who need to support and house their family.

So that’s the reason I’m asking the question. So I wanted to know, I guess for the total amount of affordable units on block A, can you break down the studio one bedroom two and three that is proposed for block A? Thank you, I’ll go to staff. Thank you, Madam Chair.

For the studio apartments on block A, we have two low rent, six affordable rent and 18 market. And for one bedrooms, we have one low rent, 10 affordable and 20 market units on that site. Councillor Ferrer. I’m sorry, I’m for the twos and threes.

For the two bedroom, we have one low rent, five affordable and 13 market. And 12, three bedrooms, which are one low rent, four affordable and seven market. Councillor. Thank you for that.

So that’s where my concern is, because I do feel that, ‘cause we’re not bringing up the building to the maximum permitted height, we can still have the density. And I see the density is, like I said, is higher than what is permitted. But we do have the ability here to request more family sized affordable units. And that’s kind of where my concerns are with this.

And I just wanted to know, like at what point could we maybe request that ability? Thank you, I’ll go to Stan. Thank you and three, Madam Chair. So we based a lot of the decision making and the type of units on the housing needs assessment that we undertook for the housing accelerator fund.

In that assessment, they identified a significant shortage of bachelor and one bedroom units, which this project is going to be able to help us fill some of that gap. But as you’ll know, there’s also some two bedrooms and three bedrooms as well, which is some of those larger size units that we’re looking to bring on. The housing needs assessment also identified it, that there were a series of extra large units, there was a shortage of those extra large units as well. For the location, given that it’s close proximity to the higher density node like a civic boulevard or a main street, not a main street, but a civic boulevard like Harry Park is.

This is the type of development that you’d expect to see along that type of road. For the other projects that we have like Duluth or Fairmont, those would be opportunities for us to go and create some of those single family homes, like town homes and things like that, or some of those that lower density form with the larger units. So that’s where we’re focusing. And if you go back to some of the concepts that we brought forward for the Fairmont rezoning and the Duluth rezoning, you’ll see that type of development coming forward in the future.

Councillor. Thank you for that. I appreciate the answer. I still do wanna see those larger size affordable family units.

And because we own that land and we are transferring the ownership, we do have that leverage. This is not like another proposal that comes forward where we don’t own the land and we’re looking to rezone or something like that. And I just think that because we do have that height that we can still reach three stories, there is that room there to do that. It’s permitted to do that.

And like I said, with the own land, we have that leverage as well. So when it comes to, I guess, like seeing if this is an option, this is a site plan, I guess, discussion really from what I understand. Is it possible that you can go back and just kind of pitch that to the proponent and see at this stage if I were to approve this conceptual site plan, which I’ve not, I don’t really wanna approve. And then maybe we could reconvene at council and I don’t wanna do committee work at council, but I really wanna see if this is a possibility.

I really think we should be pushing for more affordable-sized family units is really what I’m saying. And I feel like we do have an opportunity here because we own the land and we can leverage that. We have way more leverage here than on any other proposal. So is that a possibility?

Thank you, I’ll go to staff. Thank you, through you, Madam Chair. So what we’re recommending today is the award of the project to the two proponents. So we’ve gone through the procurement process and we’ve identified that these are the best two proposals that were submitted at the time.

As to how we might move forward in the future, what we can do is as the development performers are developed over the next period of time, depending on what the construction value comes back as and what they’re able to get from a financing perspective, what the rates they’re able to achieve through CMHC or other private lenders, there may be opportunities to add units to the property, but that’s not something we can do until we move through the development approvals process. Really understand what they are and get ready to actually start construction. So it’s something we can approach in the future, but for today, what we need to do is award the contract so that we can start and get into that process and solidify the development of this location. Councillor?

Okay, thank you for that. Then I’ll tentatively approve a committee here, but I guess we’ll have a conversation offline and see what we can do. I’m obviously, like I understand— 30 seconds. You’re speaking about some future developments, but I do want to speak about those, I want to speak with this one too.

So I guess I’ll yield and thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, next. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to Community and Protective Services. I do have a comment on 2.4 and 2.5, 2.4, the Community Safety and Wellbeing Plan update.

I read the comment about it is a plan of plans, and I truly believe in that. I’m going to thank staff for their engagement going forward and the best practices. I definitely support the five proposed priority risks that are mentioned in the recommendation, mental health, housing, substance abuse, crime, and gender-based violence. That was the priorities that we heard as we engaged and sent off surveys.

Many thanks to the federal government for giving us 2.78 million to municipalities and indigenous communities as we deal with safety in our communities and protecting children and young adults. I do want to just bring, getting back to the plan of plans, one of the plans I want to bring attention to is the Reconciliation Plan. And to me, that is really important when we deal with the challenges and how it aligns with this plan. It really is helpful that we are able as a city to take upon the actions 155 in the next 10 years to work within the Reconciliation Plan.

And for me, one of the big, big importance is the housing and homelessness part of that plan. So looking forward to the next steps. I know there’s five, and definitely supportive of that engagement with communities on 2.0. So that would be 2.5, the municipal land for affordable housing on Hyde Park.

I think this is a good news story. I, regardless of how many units, the more the better, but the affordable housing units, the more we can put into our city stocks, the better we will be as a city. I do have a quick question through you, Madam Chair, to staff about the learnings that we’ve learned from the RFP process. I wonder if staff can sort of maybe make a comment, just a bit of an update.

Thank you. I’ll go to Mr. Felberg. Through you, Madam Chair, some of the learnings through the negotiated process is that actually having those conversations with the proponents to really get their vision and then be able to negotiate from there.

So it’s really understanding, instead of picking a proposal that you’ve just read, you’re able to get a lot deeper into the negotiation and really see what they envision for the sites and what their true interests are. That part of that negotiation process, just like getting an extra 32 units, but understanding why, because at first we didn’t want to change the built form, but instead, after learning of why they wanted to look at apartments rather than just town homes, it changed the way that we were able to look at the RFP. So I would say that negotiated process was key to ensuring a successful build. Council applicants?

Yeah, thank you for that. And I know as we undertake other applications, those learnings, I think are going to be very, very valuable. And thanks to the two applicants that put their names forward. I know we had a number of applicants, but not everyone is able to do this kind of housing.

So yeah, good work. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councilor Perbal next.

Thank you, 2.5, very happy to see this initiative in front of us. So thank you for that 2.2. The committee is asking or requesting our civic administration to respond to some of the questions concerns they had. And my question is, if it has been done, or what will be the process of getting this point completed, thank you.

Thank you. I will go to staff on that question, but I believe that’s, Ms. Pfeffer? It’s just regarding— And I’m gonna— Yes, CAC, the committee and just the next steps on the questions that they had proposed in the report.

Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, I’m sorry. I was focused on another matter. Could you have the Councilor repeat his question for me? Absolutely, Councilor Perbal.

Thank you, and through the chair to the staff, it was under 2.2, the Environmental Committee. They requested answers to some of their questions concerns. I was just wondering if it was completed or what will be the process to complete it? Thank you.

Thank you, and through you, Chair. Yes, so we attended the most recent meeting of the committee to discuss their questions, and we will be providing written answers to all of the questions that were included there. Thank you, Councillor, go ahead. Thank you very much, there’s no more questions.

Thank you, Councillor Perbal, will you take the chair? I have the chair, and I recognize Councillor Raman. Thank you, and through you on the consent items. I wanted to start with 2.4, which is the community safety and wellbeing plan update.

So I wanted to start by first thanking staff for the update. I found it very helpful to be able to go through this information, get a sense of what the priorities that we’ve been working on one first, how things have went, what kind of engagement has happened. But secondly, with respect to the plans that align with all the plans, the plan of all plans, I like that expression as well. But also where we’re heading.

And so I wanted to talk a little bit about the substance use portion of that conversation. Sorry, I’m just looking for my notes. So I was really interested in some of the language that was used in this section, and was hoping that maybe it could be broadened. And just looking at some of the recent work by CAMH, I’m wondering if there’s a way to introduce some additional measurable outcomes and overarching strategies.

And those particularly would be around expanding access to evidence-based treatment services through straightforward pathways to voluntary substance treatment. This is, again, part of the language that we see coming from CAMH, specifically around how to better create opportunities for people to find those pathways. And second to that is looking at an overarching strategy to reduce the wait times for publicly funded drug treatment services. Right now in Ontario, we’re seeing about a 16-day lead time for assessments, and then for admissions, we’re looking at a 72-day wait time as reported by the province of Ontario.

So we’ve got work to do. And I think it would show good alignment for us to include those in that section on substance use. But I’ll go to staff for comment. Thank you, and going into the staff.

Thank you, and through the chair, thank you for those suggestions. So at a high level conversation with my evaluation team at the city because they’re experts on evaluation, they have suggested that we look at the addition you have expand access to evidence-based treatment services through straightforward pathways to voluntary substance use treatment and supportive housing would probably fit best under on overarching strategy, because then the strategies go to the action tables and the action tables create actions to implement the strategies, and then decrease the wait time for publicly funded drug treatment services below the 16 days for assessment and 72 days for admission, average in Ontario is an outcome. And I would want to go back to the team and make sure that it’s data that we can collect and it’s an outcome that we can measure because the outcomes that we have, the measurable outcomes that we have currently right now are those that we have data for and that we also share on our dashboard. So I’d be more than happy to take these back, just confirm them with the tables and the community partners, and then we can make these additions to the plan and bring it to the council meeting on March 31st.

Councilor? Thank you, thanks for that feedback. I just wanted to move on to you with my limited time. I want to move on to item 2.5, which is the award of the municipal lands for affordable housing in Hyde Park.

So I wanted to thank staff for their continued engagement on this. It’s helpful to have what’s in front of us here for discussion. It’s been a good starting point for conversations, continued conversations with the community. Can you just maybe just provide a little bit more about next steps?

For the staff? Thank you, and through you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So after committee, it’ll go to council, assuming council endorses the agreement in the report.

We’ll then work with the proponents to sign that. After that, we’ll get into the development approvals process. And once we’ve actually received a formal site plan application, we’ll be able to provide that to councilors yourself and others if they’re interested in seeing what the concepts, the final concepts look like. And then through that development process, once they get to the building, those will all be things that we’ll be able to share potentially on a, some page or through working with councilors as well.

And then hopefully probably about 18 months for construction for each of the two blocks. And we’ll have some coordination around that before we actually occupy. Councilor? Thank you, that’s very helpful.

Much appreciated for the work that’s done and continued conversation. And I know my word’s very interested. So thank you, that’s all my comments. Thank you, and I’m returning to chair to you.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you very much. I’ve got a couple of questions on 2.3 and 2.4. 2.3 is about, as I read it anyway, is about limiting the choice of parents with kids between the ages of eight and 10 in terms of keeping them with them in gender-specific change rooms in our outdoor pools.

And so it says at the top that there’s regular feedback and this change was requested. And I’d just like to hear more about that, what the feedback was and how this change was requested. Thank you, and I’ll go to Ms. Smith.

Oh, sorry. Thank you, and through the chair, we regularly get feedback either directly from residents through our email webpage, through Councillors on our service at our recreation and sport facilities. And this was one of them that we got some feedback from. And as usual, that when we did our research on this, we saw that the majority of municipalities now have an age zero to seven.

And this goes beyond pools, but in all of our change rooms and our washroom facilities. And as we looked at that with the building, for example, at East Lions Community Center and the building we do, we have a number of universal washrooms and change rooms and facilities so that there’s options for people to use. So that also took us into account when we looked at this. But basically it was when we did our scan of what other cities are doing all across Ontario and facilities in our own municipality.

This we realized that they’ve all changed to the age of seven. So we came forward with an update to our current bylaw. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just to follow up.

I’m wondering what the concerns were, what was the feedback that you heard that prompted this? Thank you and through the chair, the concern was specifically in our aquatic facilities with in our gender specific change rooms and in aquatic facilities, people tend to change down to nothing as they change out of their swim facilities. And it was just being uncomfortable with children at the age of 10 in a segregated or women only or men only change rooms. Councillor?

Thank you. And was there any reach out for general public comment, feedback around that to know that this is a direction that parents are looking for? Ms. Smith.

Thank you. No, we didn’t do a public participation meeting or go out in general. No, we didn’t. Councillor Stevenson.

And can I just ask how long has the bylaw been at the age of 10, I didn’t see how long this existing bylaw had been in place. Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair, it’s been in existence for 10 years.

Councillor? Okay, thank you. I might do some of my own public engagement just to see what the thoughts are on that. The other thing is around the community safety and well-being plan and mine is around the substance use as well.

I noticed that the goal states, individuals and families are supported to reduce the impacts of substance use and achieve greater stability, health and well-being. And I just wondered, there’s nothing here about reducing substance use, reducing addiction, the level of addiction, nor the community impacts of substance use in neighborhood parks and business districts and that kind of thing. So I’m just looking through you to staff around how we narrow down to what seems to be more of a medical office of health type thing versus maybe the larger community concerns. Ms.

Smith. Thank you and through the chair, so the community safety and well-being plan or framework is a high level plan as we heard in our report. And with the other Councillors, it’s a plan of plans. So when we get into the specifics, we would assume that they would be in the plans and the implementation plans of the critical network or tables.

If there are specific plans or strategies that are not in any of the plans that are identified as part of the community safety and well-being plan, our staff and partners would look to see if there’s plans that cover this already in the community. And if not, we have an emerging priority strategy where if this is a big issue with the community and with Londoners and there’s no plans that cover this, then it would go through our emerging priorities process, which is part of the community safety and well-being framework. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you.

I guess my concern too is we use the word community a lot and I never know whether it means community like our residents or community of agencies. And there’s sometimes a bit of a difference here ‘cause the measurable outcomes, all three of them relate to poisonings and toxicity and not around the level of addiction. And I do think there’s a disconnect between what some of our agencies are focused on and what the average Londoner is concerned about. And so I really see that here in the community.

I’m gonna do some looking into it because the community safety and well-being plan, like this is a big issue, it’s a big issue. And I feel like what’s here is more of a Middlesex London health unit type thing decreasing emergency departments, hospitalizations and deaths, rather than improved safety of neighborhoods, public housing, business districts, workplaces even, like this extends so far and this is such a narrow bit. So maybe just one last question through you to staff around, can you just explain for the public as to how we come up with this overall goal and these outcomes, who is it that’s making these decisions and how does it come to council like this? Thank you, I’ll go to Ms.

Smith. Thank you and through the chair. So the community safety and well-being plan comes to us through the province. It’s a required plan of all municipalities that they have one of these plans and it outlines the provincial requirements.

So when we first developed our first plan, the broad community engagement on what those priorities are, the province outlines those key priorities as you saw in the report and then looks to municipalities for prioritizing those priorities. So when we were asked to update as per the province, our plan, we looked at those and you’re at community means all of community, everybody living, it’s a plan for London. So as part of this, we looked at all of, what are our current plans that are already in it? What are they addressing?

And then we went out to ask our community partners and interested community partners on what are the priorities they have and what priorities they are addressing. So the priorities we’re looking at and addressing in the community safety and well-being plan are ones that we have plans that we are able to support and implement. If there are priorities that don’t currently have a plan in London, a community plan that addresses them, that’s where we would look at prioritizing it through an emerging priority. Okay, thank you.

So I’ll just, you know, we’re gonna be talking about this later as well, but I do really, I’m seeing more and more a disconnect, a disconnect between a focus on helping people use drugs safer and not dying of that drug use which, you know, there’s general support for that goal, but it seems to be all we’re focused on and we’re not talking about where that can happen in such a way that it doesn’t impact communities and how we can keep communities safe, support prevention in terms of our children not seeing this, not normalizing it in that way. And so I’m seeing the missed opportunity here or maybe an opportunity for discussion later, but I appreciate the report. Thank you, looking for any other speakers on the items for consent. Okay, seeing none in chambers, checking online, seeing none online, we will open the vote.

Opposed the vote, yes. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. We’ll move on to our scheduled items.

That’s item 3.1, which includes a public participation meeting. This is related to our short-term accommodation, licensing and penalties. I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for this item. Councillor Ferreira, Councillor Pribble, thank you.

With that, I will look to start the public participation meeting first and then we’ll take any further conversation on this item. So I will look for a motion to open the public participation meeting. I’ve Councillor Ferreira and Councillor Hopkins, thank you. So with that, anyone that’s looking to speak on this item, you may make your way to the microphone.

Sorry, first of all vote, and then we’ll do that, hold on. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, thank you. Now, anyone that wants to speak on this item, we will now hear from members of the public who wish to speak on this matter.

Hey, thank you. So anyone in attendance who would like to speak will have five minutes to do so. Please ensure your comments remain respectful and directly related to the item on the agenda to help maintain decorum and ensure that everyone feels safe today. I’d like to remind everyone that there is no clapping, cheering or booing in the gallery when someone is presenting or following.

If you need more information about the rules of decorum, there are placards on the wall as well. And if you wish to speak, like I said, make your way to the microphones to do so. For the speakers, I will let you know when there’s about 30 seconds left just to help you wrap up your comments. And when you begin, please start by stating your name.

Thank you. Hi there, I’m Jordan Klossen. I also submitted a letter, so I won’t belabor the point, but I live in Old South. I’m on Baseline Road with my wife and two kids.

And we have a property with an Airbnb in the back. And during the pandemic towards the end of that, we wanted a place with a bigger yard. And so this place was available, it was still in the neighborhood, but the way that we could afford it was, and make the numbers work, was by using the addition that was on the building as an Airbnb. And so we’ve been doing that for four years since before this was licensed and have participated in the licensing program since the beginning.

So I do appreciate that the city is allowing Airbnb’s and licensing them. And I understand that with the regulations need to change and be tweaked over time to make sure that it works for the neighborhood. That’s that I had a couple of concerns, which I’ve outlined in my letter, but I wanted to just quickly summarize. And they come down to the idea that it seems to be treating whole home, large group, Airbnb’s the same way as they’re treating add-ons, small units that might have one bedroom and be part of an existing house and support like two to four people.

And so one of the rules that was proposed was limiting the number of guests to two people per bedroom. Now, if you have a hotel-style unit with, say, two queen beds in the same room, my understanding of the proposed changes is that would still be limited to two people instead of four, which would seem reasonable for that size space. So what I would suggest is that possibly the two people per bedroom limit only apply for units that were attempting to rent out to more than, say, four or some number of guests. I’m not sure what the solution is, but we have a unit like this, and we went to a lot of young families and they’re usually visiting other people in the neighborhood.

And these families that come back to us every year would not be able to rent it if the parents and their two kids can’t rent the unit anymore because it’s barred because of the floor plan. So that’s my first concern. And then the second concern is the increase proposed in the rate. It’s more than doubling.

It’s already gone up every year. The current rate is reasonable, we think, but the proposed increase seems, again, to be treating whole home rentals that take in a lot more revenue with people who are just renting out an additional room on their property or a small space. And for those smaller renters that have not nearly the revenue, raising the price to over $500 a year is extremely onerous for them. And so I would prefer if the rate stayed the same or only increased with the rate of inflation.

But if it has to go up, perhaps differentiate between the type of unit, so separating whole home rentals from add-on units as some other municipalities do. So if those things could be done, I think with some small tweaks, I’ve no other issues with it. I continue to support this program and I really appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Looking for any other speakers from the gallery, just checking with the clerk to see if there’s any speakers online. Okay, seeing none online and none in the gallery, we will look to close the public participation meeting. Looking for motion, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Hopkins, thank you.

We will open the vote. Posing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Okay, I will look for speakers on this item. And I know that there is also an amendment that’s been prepared, but I’ll await speakers, but just a reminder to everybody to move your amendments on your first time speaking.

Councillor Hopkins, you’re on your hand up first, followed by Councillor Trossen. Yeah, thank you. Just have a quick question through you to staff. Maybe it’s a technical question, but wondering if notices were sent out to the public on this public meeting.

I just wanna have a better understanding if that was done. Thank you. I will go to Ms. Feffer.

Thank you and through you. Yes, we did send out emails notifying all current license holders of the public participation meeting and when they could expect to review the proposed changes. We did also post the notice on the city’s website indicating that there would be a public participation meeting in relation to this. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you for that. I’ll wait for the amendment to come forward. Thank you. I will go to Councillor Trossen next.

Thank you, thank you very much. And I’ll save my main comments for the discussion on the motion and the amendment. One question, I would have liked to have seen more information on not doing the density part of this. I know we do that for some massage parlors.

Given the demonstrated negative effects that many of these units have on the surrounding neighborhood, and I’m sure I’m not talking about anybody in the audience, but there have been owners who have abused this. I would like to probe this further, because I think under your licensing authorities, you can discriminate between different types of units. And I think particularly in the near-campus neighborhood, there are density, there are density problems, and I would like to spread these out. So are you open to discussing this more, or are you really solid on eliminating that as an additional requirement?

Thank you. Over to Ms. Beffer. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair.

We did contemplate the issue of density controls in relation to the improvements or recommended improvements to this by-law. We believe that in the principal residence clause, that really does speak to density controls, because as the primary resident requirement lists, you cannot own more than one short-term accommodation. And so this was looked at as a form of density control, but certainly if we were to receive direction to review this again, we would do so. Would we be able to approve, in my mind, the very sensible measures that you put forward, but reserving that other issue for a non-immediate, but future report?

Ms. Beffer. Thank you, and through you, Chair, I think that’s possible, yes? Yes, so I’ll bring that up when we get to further amendments.

I was under the impression that there already is a principal residency requirement. Now, the problem with principal residency requirements is there are all sorts of ways of getting around that. And I think the people who are operating these legitimately have to understand that to the extent some of us may seem judgmental about this industry, there are some very bad players out there. And I think there is a industry, there’s a website, it’s been called to my attention that there are players in London who are doing this many, many, many times.

And my problem isn’t so much the bylaw that we have right now, it’s the enforcement. So I really appreciate the attempt that you’ve made to do this, I’ll save that for the motion, but my other question is, like a people don’t register, how do we know they didn’t register other than incidental complaints from neighbors? And we’re relying on the occupancy tax from this program to fund a lot of things. And I think it really sets the city back when we don’t get that revenue.

So I think when we also think of this as sort of a tax evasion sort of device that a lot of voters are doing, that might give rise to justification for broader measures. And again, I’m not addressing this to those who are trying to lawfully comply with this bylaw. But I think that there’s a lot of problem out there. Do we have any sense of what the magnitude of that problem is based on complaints that we’ve gotten about non-registered units?

Thank you, I’ve got to Ms. Pfeffer. Thank you and through you, Chair. So we do have enforcement tools that I can’t be more specific about in this venue, but we have enforcement tools that assist us in determining where the unlicensed venues are.

Certainly we receive reports from concerned residents in relation to unlicensed properties. And we also have a requirement written in this proposal that dictates that if a broker wants to list a short-term accommodation, it must have an associated license number. So those brokers will no longer be able to list those short-term accommodations for short-term rental if it doesn’t accompany, isn’t accompanied by a license number. Thank you very much.

I think you’ve done some really good work on this and I’ll get back to this when we talk about the motion and the amendments, so there’ll be two amendments. Okay, thank you. So my understanding, Councillor, just because I don’t want you to give up your time on your first time speaking, if you want to move an amendment, is you’re planning on the amendment to add an amendment, just to be clear. I would like to amend the motion to add clause at the end that says not withstanding the adoption of this motion.

This committee may at a future time request the staff report on the additional matter, is density the right word or is imposing a density requirement? And I’m not putting a time, I think that’s a step. It’s just a moment, we’re just discussing the language just a moment, okay? Pardon me?

We’re just discussing the language, just a moment. Councillor, just to match the language of the report, did you want density controls or do you want minimum distancing? Thank you. Okay, Councillor, just to confirm the wording for you, it would read that the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as follows, not withstanding the adoption of this motion.

This committee made a future time request a staff report on the additional matter of imposing minimum distancing requirements and density controls. Is that read correctly? Okay, thank you. Looking for a seconder for that amendment.

Councillor Ferrera, thank you. We’ll begin discussion on the amendment. Councillor, would you like to speak to it? Only to say based on what I read in the report and the communication that I received and what the staff said today, I don’t want to preclude this as a decided matter of council, yet I don’t want to delay the implementation of these needed changes which are badly needed.

And I also do not want to place any sort of burden, especially in the short run on the staff for this, but I maybe we’d want to revisit this within a year. So I just think that that protects us to be able to do that. Thank you, I Councillor Ferrera on the amendment. Thanks, Chair.

And just before I ask, is this the amendment that we were expecting? No, okay. No, this is the other amendment. ‘Cause I didn’t see that other amendment.

All right, well, I guess you have me on the speakers list after this amendment, okay. So I do see that this was a direction that we did provide in the last direction from the July 25 direction when we discussed this. And I do see the report comes back. And I guess the real concern would be that a density control would be hard to establish because of existing STRs in the area.

And if we find that some existing ones are already clustered, that could be an issue. ‘Cause then we would be in a position to revoke a license. Is that, I just want to clarify that. Is that correct?

I’ll go to Ms. Pepper. For you, Chair, that is certainly a concern that we would have to address if we had imposed density controls. Again, as I said, it wasn’t determined to be a significant problem at this time within the city of London.

It’s something that is seen in some heavily tourist-laden municipalities, much smaller municipalities than London, but we didn’t determine it to be a significant concern at this point in time as far as enforcement is concerned. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. And would that be the only restricting factor, I guess, when it comes to a potential density control measure?

Or are there anything, is there anything else that we should be aware of if we were to, I guess, pursue any type of density control measures? Whatever. Would certainly be one restricting matter. Thank you, please go ahead.

Thank you, through the chair. Section 153 of the Municipal Act is a restriction with respect to business licensing. It states clearly that a municipality shall not expect, except as otherwise provided, refused to grant a license for a business under this act by reason only of the location of the business. There are other exemptions to this rule.

For instance, it’s specifically stated in the Municipal Act that the location can be determined with respect to adult entertainment establishments, for instance, pay-day loan establishments as well, but there is no provision that allows for restricting the location of the business with respect to these short-term routes. Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Councillor Ferrer, go ahead.

Thank you, so a measure restricts the density and using location specifically ‘cause it is considered a business license is not something that the municipality could legally do. Ms. Marshall. Through the chair, as I said, the act is clear that you cannot restrict or refuse to grant the license by reason only of the location of the business unless there’s a specific exception in the act and there isn’t one.

This, in terms of land use control bylaws, that is certainly a means of determining the location of businesses, but that does apply here. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you for that. So I do see the issues with clustering and I do wanna avoid that, but I also see that there’s some legal roadblocks that would, I guess, push us back from potentially doing something like that.

I do say that this motion is asking for a future report back on the additional matter of imposing minimal distance required in any density controls. So I would wonder with this language, if that is even something, if we would just get the same answer back than what we just got here. So I’m just trying to find like a pathway ‘cause I do have concerns with the clustering and I do wanna see if there’s any measures that we can take that would avoid that, but I know that we don’t want to actually focus it specifically on the locations ‘cause we can’t do that. So I’m just looking for a little guidance on how we could maybe proceed with that or if it’s just something that we just can’t actually do, just some clarification.

Thank you. I’ll go to Ms. Marshall. We’d be happy to provide a further report.

Councillor Ferrer. That’s it. Thank you. Councillor Trussa, you wanted back on the speakers list on the site.

Very briefly, the inclusion of the word only. Keeping in mind the role of statutory construction, it says every word has to be given a meeting, otherwise it’s surplus, which is a construction we should avoid. If the word only wasn’t there, then I think it would be more absolute. But the fact that the word only is there, I think it creates a roadblock, but not an insurmountable one if there are other conditions present and I think that that can be addressed in the step report.

So while I agree with you that that language is there, the use of the word only does limit it a bit and give us a little bit more discretion in my view. Thank you. I’ll take that as a comment. I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, just a quick question through you to staff. I’m trying to understand the amendment in front of us and I hear the Councillor’s concern when it comes to having some kind of control around density and reviewing that, but my first question is, will we not be getting a report back when it comes to the minimal distance requirements? It’s my first question. And my second question is within this recommendation, we are dealing to some extent with the density as well.

So have I got that right? I’ll go to Ms. Pepper. Thank you and through you.

I do believe you have it right. And certainly, if directed, we would take this away and monitor how this iteration of the by-law works and determine whether we need to look at those clustering or density considerations and whether they would be applicable or not. Councillor Hopkins. And this report back, would it come back to this council or is this council or will the next council be obligated to follow with the decision that we are making or that we are trying to make here?

Ms. Pepper. Thank you and through you, I suppose that would be determined based on the direction we received today. Thank you, yes.

So what we have in front of us right now, it says may add a further time request to staff report, but it isn’t actually requesting the staff report at this time. So I think that’s the clarification on that item, perfect. Okay, I had council approval next. Thank you, Chair.

Actually, there was my question through you to the stop and to the comment was made, we can provide further report, will be the timeframe for this report. Ms. Pepper. Thank you and through you.

Realistically, it would make the most sense to give this iteration of the by-law some time for us to determine whether or not those considerations are required, but certainly if we were directed to do so, we could bring something back sooner than later. Being mindful of our current work schedule and having several reports coming to this committee over the coming months, I don’t know that we would be able to do it in the coming months. Council approval? Okay, thank you for that response.

Based on everything I heard, I will not be supporting what’s in front of us now, but I will have further discussions. I will talk to you with the staff before the council, but I will certainly, I will not be supporting what’s in front of us right now. Thank you. Thank you, looking for other speakers on the amendment.

Okay, seeing none here or online, I will look to open the vote on the amendment. Opposing the vote, the motion carries three to two. Okay, thank you. I will look for a mover and seconder as amended.

Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Chaucer. And so on the as amended, I have Councillor Preble next on the as amended. Thank you, and thank you staff as well stated, actually, by my fellow Councillor Chaucer. We did have various issues with quite a few short-term recommendations.

Again, I don’t wanna see, I don’t wanna sound negative. There are many more applications or licenses that are out there than we received, but it certainly was on the rise. So I’m very glad that the staff would came back with because there are some things that I believe they are gonna give us more tools to address these issues. I also had conversations with Tourism London and Ontario Restaurant Automata Association and in addressing some of the concerns what we heard, including the three letters.

I would like to put following amendment forward and that part B be amended to read as follows. The proposed by-law as appended to the above-noted staff report to be introduced at the Municipal Council meeting on March 31st, 26. Do amend by-law number L13116 be amended in section 8.12 to offer or provide short-term accommodation at a dwelling unit for more than two individuals per bedroom, not including children under two years. Single-room short-term accommodations occupant limits will be determined upon inspection, but are excluded from this clause.

And I think this is the reason why I’m introducing this. It addresses the issues of the two individuals’ maximum. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll look for a seconder for this item.

Three Councillor for I can’t hear you. Can you put it up on the scribe, please? So looking for a seconder on this item, Councillor Hopkins, thank you. Yeah, sorry about that.

I just want clarification. I heard the Councillors state the age, not including children under the age of three. This is two. I just want clarification that I heard it right or I’ve got it right.

Thank you. I believe I said two, but either way it’s two, it should be two. Okay, thank you. I will, I’m still looking for a seconder, but not seeing one.

I will second this to get this on the floor for discussion. I’m looking for committee members first for any discussion on this item and then looking to other members. Council of, I’ll go to Council for both of you. Thank you, Chair.

So I’ll let it briefly mention. There is why I introduced it, but again, I take a documentation sector, hotels, airbnbs tried to, the rules to be obeyed and same as much as possible for everyone. And when we look at the hotel rooms and when we look at some of the rooms that was stated, the large rooms to maximize it to two individuals, I believe this is more fair towards STAs. I did discuss this with our staff as well, who this was discussed with our staff, I’ll leave it at that.

My bottom line is, you know, some of the letters, by the way, which I was kind of some of them, I was disappointed, some of them mentioning in terms of Métis Municipal Accommodation Tax, everyone has to pay it. And again, some of the comments that were made in terms of the ORMA, so or terrorists around Hotel Motel Association, they are only involved in the operational staff, the regulatory, the enforcement, the taxation, it’s all by the municipality. ORMA does this by the way, throughout the entire province. So just going back to it, tied to this motion, I really feel this would be more of a level playing field to the STAs compared to the other sectors of the accommodation industry.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Trossa next. Thank you very much. I’m speaking against this amendment.

There’s a good reason why it’s not a level playing field. These are residential neighbourhoods. Hotels generally are in commercial areas. This is one of the reasons why we need to institute this change in the first place, this has been overcrowding.

I noticed that the motion does not define bedrooms. This is being brought forward because somebody said they have a very, very large bedroom. Yet this is being the way the motion is drafted. It’s applying to all bedrooms.

This would be a little easier to understand if it said large bedrooms meaning, but basically this is just an invitation to engage in the same type of overcrowding that got us into this problem in the first place. So I really wanna, without further clarification of what you mean by bedroom and without further clarification as to maybe what zones this can be in, which we’ve already been told would be a problem. I just have to oppose this amendment and I would urge my colleagues here to note on this amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, I’d Councillor Ferrienex. Thank you. I’m just looking at the motion. I didn’t see it beforehand.

I know it wasn’t circulated. So I just, to get some understanding here, like as I read the motion, it does say to provide short-term accommodation at a dwelling unit for more than two individuals per bedroom. So I guess more than can be interpreted. So I would just go to staff and say, how many more than two is the question?

I’ll rephrase. I can see staff is wondering what am I saying here? I’m sorry. Right now we’re looking to restrict two individuals per bedroom with these changes that we have before us.

This motion has to provide short-term accommodation for more than two individuals, but it doesn’t say how many more. So how would you interpret that number? How many more is the question that I would have? Thank you, I’ll go to Ms.

Pepper. Thank you and through you, Chair. The intent with this specific clause is to enable an inspector to determine the appropriate number of individuals allowed in a single room, it’s not a single bedroom, it’s a single room short-term accommodation. So that could be quite large, it could be small, but it’s impossible to establish a limit on a single room accommodation without having seen that single room accommodation during a licensing and inspection process.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you and with respect to the fees being raised because we’re trying to have a cost recovery model, a motion like this would require the inspector to go in and actually make a determination in which I would assume would take a little bit of more time and more resources. So would that push up the fee potentially? Go to Ms.

Pepper. Thank you and through you, Chair. So the license fee is not being increased, but we have established an inspection fee for both fire and property standards inspections, which will come with an associated fee. This is, the intent behind this is to align it a little closer to the residential rental unit licensing by-law, but it is something that we have the resources for currently and we intend to begin inspecting all short-term accommodations if this is successful.

Councillor. Thank you, did the staff look into this scenario or this possibility with the original report? And if they did, why did we not include this? Ms.

Pepper. Thank you and through you, Chair. The issue that was brought to our attention in relation to single room short-term accommodations was not initially contemplated during the review of this by-law, which is why you’re seeing this now. Councillor.

Thank you. Is this only specific to single room STAs or single room? Is this only specific to single room STAs or it says single room STAs actually would be excluded from this clause? So this is everything with the exception of single room STAs.

Ms. Pepper. Thank you and through you, Chair. So the proposal recommends no more than two adults per bedroom in any short-term accommodation between one bedroom and five bedrooms.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. I guess with that, it’s hard for me to make a determination whether it’s for this or not. I don’t have enough time to really kind of, I guess digest and go back and forth with staff.

I would request some motions come before us before so we can actually have some, I guess discussion that I may be able to support it, but I don’t know all the details. So I wouldn’t be supportive of it now. Okay, thank you, looking for other speakers. I have Councillor Hopkins and then I’ll go to visiting members.

Councillor Frick next. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation here that I really do not understand this amendment and find it, understand as it goes through the recommendation to me, I was satisfied that we could control some density with allowing it up to two people. So I wasn’t that supportive of the previous amendment thinking that we’re already doing what we need to do to deal with the density.

And I feel like I’m being flip-flopping back and forth always open to being convinced I’ve got it wrong, but presently I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor Frick next. Thank you, yes, and I appreciate Councillor Perbault for bringing this forward.

Upon reading some of the communication was contemplating something similar at Council. So I appreciate the discussion and thank you to Mr. Class and I’ve never had a complaint about that location in my ward, so I just want to say that. I was wondering through the chair to staff if the single room exclusion makes as much or more sense than doing, on Airbnb it differentiates between whole home rental and like a room within a building or as was referenced like an addition onto a building that the primary residence is staying in.

I’m just wondering, I understand the desire to have the single room potentially have a couple more people. The situation that we’ve given the example is this King bedroom plus a queen, which I can say as someone who has a three-year-old, I wouldn’t be able to stay in this situation if the current prevailing legislation was passed. And I have stayed in Airbnb is where I’m in the same room as my child. So I again appreciate the flexibility that Councillor Perbault is bringing.

But I guess my question is are there other situations where potentially there’s a one bedroom Airbnb that has a king and a queen in the one bedroom and then let’s say a king in the living space that again would fall into the existing proposed recommendation from staff and this wouldn’t qualify for it. So I guess what I’m wondering is, it feels like sometimes we are potentially disadvantaging people who are compliant in the STAs and trying to keep it in a good spot versus like party houses. And I’m just wondering if there’s a way for staff to include people like requesting an assessment and an exemption if their house is not a party house through the chair. Thank you and through you.

Oh, sorry, thank you. And to staff, sorry, to Mr. Pepper, go ahead. Through you, Chair.

So that’s not contemplated in this proposed amendment. Councilor Frank? Yes, I understand that I appreciate it. Perhaps, okay, between now and council, perhaps I’ll have more discussion with staff because I feel like I’m trying to land on something they don’t really have the words for.

That being said, at this point, I will be supportive of this amendment from Councilor Pribble at council because I do think, again, myself going to other cities, I use Airbnb’s and I have a toddler and I think it would be good for us to continue to allow people who are using these services to be able to use them for the purposes that they intend to use them for. And this will provide the clause that would allow people who are operating their STA properly and have single rooms to be able to continue to do that. So I have a couple of questions on the main, but I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

I had Councilor Pribble back on the speakers. Let’s go ahead. Excuse me, thank you. And actually, Councilor Frank mentioned one thing and she said we are in terms of disadvantaged in the ones that they obey and play by the rules.

I want to say that I did have quite a few issues with Airbnb last couple of years. And one, I would say two really extreme ones. So in terms of this, I really feel what we brought. And again, when we did the comparable analysis with other municipalities, it’s very much in line.

And I believe we took the stricter parts from each. So we are really trying to protect the half a million of Londoners, what I’ll always say. But one thing is that the biggest issues that I actually had, that the owners, they were not present at those premises at the building, at the house. And there was the number one reason.

So it wasn’t kind of in terms of having three or four people per bedroom. And as we, there are quite a few STAs that we have, that the owners, they live at the promises and they do have one large, one, two large rooms that they are trying to rent and trying to make the extra income. And they are playing by the rules and they are living at the property. And those are the ones I really didn’t want to disadvantage and I feel this is fair going forward.

And as I said, I’m the guy who I probably, around the horseshoe, quite a few issues with Airbnb’s. But again, so that’s my main reason. And this is the clause which was already reiterated by our staff that it would be determined during the application process based on the inspection. So I hope it’s going to be supported here.

If it’s not going to be supported here, I certainly hope it’s going to be supported at a council. Thank you. Thank you, looking for other speakers on the amendment. Okay, seeing none in chambers and none online, we will look to open the amendment.

Closing the vote, the motion fails two to three. Okay, thank you. That takes us back to the main motion. I will look for any further speakers on the main motion.

I have Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, Chair. So I appreciate the report. I appreciate how we’re trying to clean things up.

I also have a party, short-term accommodation issues in my ward, and I do feel like we are getting closer to cleaning things up as much as we potentially can. I guess my first question would be, and with respect to the fees, we, I think originally, I think the fee was like $196 or somewhere around there, and we’re substantially increasing that fee. And I know that we are really trying to focus on the commercialization of short-term recommendations, but at the same time, I don’t want to be also kind of using a broad brush and also impacting the smaller-level short-term accommodation. So I guess I just want to get some clarification from staff on the licensing.

And if that applies to, I guess, an address specifically, or if that applies to, you know, how many bedrooms are being listed as the short-term accommodation. So if we have, like, an additional dwelling unit that’s being used as an STR, and that’s a one-bedroom, let’s say, is that a $547 fee compared to a house that has maybe four bedrooms or, let’s say, three bedrooms in it, is that the same fee, both on both, for both of those parties? Is it an address-specific fee? I’ll go to Ms.

Pfeffer. Thank you, and through you, Chair. It is address-specific, and it includes the fees for fire inspection and property standards inspection. So those fees would be a one-time fee, the annual renewal fee would remain, or, as it is now, 196.

Councillor Ferrera. So it’s the fire inspection and property inspection part that’s really kind of bumping it up. So regardless of how many bedrooms it is, every single unit or every single address needs to be inspected with respect to fire or property standards or anything like that to make sure we’re in compliance. So that is really the reason.

So that’s why we see that big jump. The bedrooms are not really what’s inflating the fee. Okay. I’ll go to Ms.

Pfeffer. Through you, Chair, yes, that’s correct. Councillor? Okay, thanks for that clarification.

For my next question, going through the report, and I guess specifically, I guess the report is pretty clear. We’re looking for a one provider, one property, kind of one licensed model, and that’s kind of what I see of an overarching theme throughout the report. And I do see those references for a single party to operate the STR, or have consent from any stakeholders, whether it’s an owning party or any other stakeholders on the property. And I do see that that was something that was brought up, but I also know that I think that was something that we already did from what I understand if there is an owner on title and there’s a renter of the property, that owner did have to provide consent previously, so there’s no change in that regard.

I just wanted to ask that. Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Pfeffer. Through you, Chair, yes, that’s correct.

Councillor? Okay, thank you for that. And then I guess my last question would be, as I was looking at the report, and I guess specifically with Appendix A, on page 231, the report does make mention that there could be more than two short-term accommodations at the same time. And I just wanted to confirm, ‘cause we are looking for a single party that owns, or has one license or one accommodation.

We’re trying to clean it up on that, and we’re trying to make sure that we don’t have that commercialization of things. So I’m finding this on page 231, and let me just go to the report 231. I just wanted to confirm that language specifically on that. And that was in, I can’t find the closet, it’s there.

Let me just, sorry, sorry, committee, just give me a second. Okay, yeah, so it’s clause 8.4, and it says no person licensed as a short-term accommodation provider shall operate, advertise, broker, carry on the business of, or permit the operation, advertising, brogoring, licensing, or carrying on the business of more than two short-term accommodations at the same time. So I just wanted to get clarification on staff with that. Thank you, I’ll go to the staff.

Thank you, and through you, Chair. So that section is being deleted, just if you refer just above that to number nine, then the instructions there. We’ll be deleting that, Councillor. Okay, that’s good.

Then with that, I wouldn’t have any more questions further. I do appreciate the work that staff has done. I do really wanna move away from the commercialization of short-term rental accommodations. I do have problematic areas in my ward, specifically in some neighborhoods.

I do have concerns with the density. I know that we legally may be very restricted on being able to either permit some of this type of business license or not when it comes to the address itself, but I am interested to see what other tools can be had, or what other— - 30 seconds. So we don’t have those clustering issues. So with that, I will support the motion as it is, and I guess I only have a couple seconds left, so I’m done.

Thank you. Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Hopkins next. Yeah, thank you, and on the main motion, maybe a quick question through you to staff, before I make my comments. I did hear from the public the challenges of the increased fees, and I’d like to, especially as it relates to sort of smaller rentals, compared to the larger ones.

Did you look at the differences of the rentals to come up with the increased fee? Sort of looking at just a one-time short-term renter, part of the house, compared to a house itself that’s always on the market, or did we not discriminate when it comes to the increase in the fee. Ms. Pepper?

Thank you, and through you. So the current license fee is 196, and the proposed fee is not— the fee is not proposed to increase. It’s the inspection fees that we’re proposing to add, because we intend to inspect all short-term accommodations. I think that clarification, and on the main motion, I am very supportive of the intent here in the recommendation.

I think it does deal with the density. I have a number of rentals, homes in particular in the ward that I represent. The other proposals that are being made when it comes to the mandatory emergency control, obviously the consent, and limiting it to providers to one property, and one license and to enhance property information, to support inspections. I think all those things are really, really important in our neighborhoods.

That’s something that I can go to, and explain to residents when I hear their concerns. So I think better regulation is needed, and we’ll be supporting the recommendation. Thank you. I’ll ask Councillor Pervell to take the chair.

I have the chair, and I recognize Councillor Raman. Thank you, and through you. I just wanted to say first, thank you to staff for this report, and the information that you’ve provided, and the thoughtfulness that you put into it. I also want to take a moment to thank Councillor Pervell for his work on the original motion that led to this report.

I know that you have faced some challenges in your ward with respect to short-term rentals, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that you put into bringing something forward that we could action and give some clearer direction on. So thank you for that as well. Looking forward to further discussion at council. I think this will be something that we’ll need some input further on, but I do think this is a really good starting point for where we go to next with this, and as this continues to evolve in our community.

Thank you for your comments and returning the chair to you. Thank you. I will go to Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes, and I just have a few more questions on the entire report through the chair to staff.

I’m wondering, I looked at the comparable fees across other municipalities, and there are some that had an initial upfront higher cost, and then the subsequent renewal years were decreased. I’m just wondering if staff contemplated that option for London and why we didn’t go in that direction. Go to Ms. Catherine.

Thank you, and through you, Chair. With the implementation of inspections, that is a new expense for short-term accommodation holders, and we recognize this, so we didn’t contemplate increasing the licensing fee because of that reason, and certainly going forward for renewals, the licensing fee will remain as it is. Councillor Frank. Thank you, and perhaps you’ve already explained this, and I’m just confused, but so the additional $547, that’s not the licensing fee, that’s a different fee.

Thank you, and through you. So that is a fee that includes a licensing fee, a fire inspection fee, and a property standards inspection fee. Councillor Frank. Thank you, so then every year they’ll get a fire inspection and a inspection by our city staff on their location, which is part of the $547.

That’s right. Thank you, and through you, no, it’s not intended that they’ll be inspected every year. It’s intended that they’ll be inspected upon initial application for the license or for those existing, and following every renewal wouldn’t require an additional inspection. Councillor Frank.

Thank you, yes. See, that does have me a little bit confused ‘cause it sounds like the first year that they pay the $547, that’s their licensing fee, their fire inspection fee, and then an inspection fee, which was three of the fees in one, which makes sense to put them all together. But then the following year, they’re not gonna get a fire inspection and an inspection, but then the price is still $547 each year. I guess that’s a question.

Yes, never. Thank you, and through you, their renewal licensing fee would be $196. Councillor Frank. Okay, I think I’m almost there.

So then they’re only paying the $547 the first year, and then they go back to the $1.96 subsequently. Is that her? Yes, that’s correct. Councillor Frank.

Thank you. Sorry to make you go through that. You probably already have again, but I understand now. I appreciate it.

The only other question I had was, is it possible to send an email to all the STA folks about the outcome of today’s meeting, including a link to the report and a link to the amendments we’ve made, ideally in the next day or two, so that if there are any additional comments that can be submitted to council by the STA folks. Just one moment, Ms. Becker, for you answer that question. Councillor, just procedurally, just in conferring with the clerks, they wouldn’t normally have the report ready for it to go out from a standing committee that quickly.

So to anticipate the turnaround then for staff to send it out, so it might be better for us to do our own engagement as Councillors and let, I mean, they’ve done the outreach to let people know that this was coming to the standing committee, but I’m not sure if in between now and council, that’s procedurally possible for us to get that and get that feedback in time. Councillor Frank. Sure, yes, I think the only unfortunate part is we don’t all have an email list of all the STA folks, so we’d just be putting on our socials and that would go out to the 2,000 people that follow me. But I would love if, I can’t direct staff at committee and you’d have to go through council to understand that, but it would be really great if staff were able just to send a blast out to the list that they already sent the first blast out to her and just say, we had the meeting, here’s a link to the website.

I understand they won’t have a report done because the report won’t be done until council, but I will just say, I would like that as a communication tool because I did hear from a couple of STA owners in my ward that they went into their spam or that the title of the email was confusing so they didn’t click it. I know that we sent out an email and I do appreciate that, but I think, again, for folks who are following this, it might be nice to give them that additional information. At this time, I don’t have anything else, but I do want to reiterate, I will be supporting Council Provost’s amendment that did not pass at this committee at council. Thank you, and I just wanted to check with Ms.

Feffer. If the link was provided, is that something that could be shared out to that list? Just the link, not a report, to the video. Thank you, Chair, and yes, we would be able to do that.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, I’m just trying to read your mind there, Councillor Hodge. Okay, thank you. I have Councillor Palazzo next, go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair.

One, thank you for chairing, and two, just following along with the conversation. I appreciate the Councillors, Frank’s desire to get more information out fast. I would say everything’s available on the website, just looking at if we start doing this for individual topics of council business becoming committee business when not all members are present. And if committee has a different viewpoint, then what has changed at council?

It really muddles the conversation. If individual Councillors want to share out the link or whatnot absolutely, but I would have mass concerns with committee directing staff directly without council to start pushing a certain conversation that happened at committee that may or may not be the will of council. So just flagging that procedurally, I don’t believe it’s an order. Maybe that’s just how we change or get involved in our communications and making sure everyone knows what council or committee meeting it’s going to at what time and where the screening links are to go out and view the minutes and the meetings, but not okay with the addressing staff one offs to start going and doing different things without council approval.

Thank you, thank you. And I appreciate that feedback. So this would not be a clerk’s direction to do that. It would be up to staff if they wanted to put that engagement out as part of their engagement on this report, but that’s I guess up to staff but not directed by the committee nor directed by the clerks.

Okay, looking for any other speakers. Seeing none and chambers and none online, we’ll look to open the vote. Supposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, that takes us to items for direction.

Our first item for direction is item 4.1, which is a communication from Councilor McAllister. And it’s a request to expedite the review of the property standards bylaws CP24 as it pertains to property conditions that enable rat infestations. We have two requests for a delegation related to this item. I will look for a mover and a seconder to allow those requests for delegations.

The motion agreed that the request for delegations from our shields in A.M. Velastro as appended to the added agenda be approved. Looking for a mover and a seconder, I saw Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Ferrera. Supposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero.

Thank you, and I will start with Mr. Shields. Good afternoon, I’m Robert Shields. Hi Mr.

Shields, thank you for joining us. Today you have five minutes. And I’ll give you a 30 second warning when we’re close. Well, five minutes ain’t gonna really touch this too far, but I love East of Adelaide and we have a rat infestation.

The rats are both the size of squirrels. They’re eating everything we own. They’re eating through concrete. Nobody’s doing nothing about it.

We can give people stuff to do drugs, but we can’t do anything for us. We, the taxpayer, maybe should be looked after just a little bit. It’s getting to the point where it’s crazy. I kicked a hornet’s nest when I talked about this.

I was on TV last week and people are constantly coming to my door now, emailing me, texting, calling. I wasn’t gonna come here today, but so many people have come to my door. Now it’s time to do something. We wanna be like Toronto.

Toronto has a task force for a rat problem. Why don’t we call them and see what they do so we can do the same thing? It’s not just a couple of houses, it’s a big area. And it seems to be East, West area of London that the problem has been.

This problem was brought up in October. I don’t know if it was a Nestor Council, but nothing’s been done. So that’s been five months. Just think of how many rats have babies every day.

And this is how we gotta live. We’re not talking a little problem. We’re talking holes to our walls. They’re not scared.

They’re going into our houses. They’ll look great at you and then turn around and walk away. They don’t even run. I thought I had a mice problem.

My dog brought me rat in this mouth from my basement. It’s beyond embarrassing. I was embarrassed at first, but realized it’s just not my problem, it’s everybody’s problem. It’s not just a garbage problem.

Rats will eat anything. They’ll eat each other. But if we don’t do nothing about it, it’s not gonna get any better. What can the city do to help us?

So we don’t have to live like that. I don’t wanna move. I’m old, I’m too lazy. I just want somebody to actually look after the problem.

That’s all. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your feedback. I missed the last year next.

Thank you. You have five minutes. I actually don’t think there’s anything wrong with a property standards bylaw. The problem is that residents and property owners are not familiar with it.

For example, garbage needs to be stored in secure bins. And bimonthly garbage must be dried garbage. It means no food can be in that garbage. I really think they’re problem-wise with the lack of enforcement on private and commercial properties.

I live in a neighborhood with a lot of absentee landlords that do not maintain their property. They get the tenants to put out their own garbage. But those tenants really are not informed on how to put out their own garbage. Or they collect the garbage and dump it all in the open bins at the back of their property.

I constantly call enforcement on my neighbors. It’s a really bad chronic issue in my neighborhood. And I have to say that there is a real lack of enforcement. It’s okay if the garbage is on the streets or on the curb, the city will come right away.

But it’s when the complaint is actually on a private property or it’s part of a commercial establishment on Richmond Road. So real, we’ll follow the complaint. And once it’s filed, we know that people get warnings and are issued at times fines, but fines are paid and they’re not a deterrent. On private property, residential private property, my understanding is they give the landowner two weeks to comply.

And on commercial properties, such as the barking fog, dirty garbage, it’s just a constant problem. The open bins are overflowing. We complain about it over and over again and nothing happens. And I would like to see those establishments shut down.

No different when they are given a citation for infestation. But that doesn’t happen. There seems to be a different approach to the commercial properties and private owners and garbage on the streets. So the commercial properties are probably the real source of rat populations and yet they don’t look at it that way.

And I think fines should be a deterrent for repeat offenders. I also want to say that poisoning rats is not the way to address the problem. Not only is it cruel, but a poison kills other wildlife such as squirrels and pests. We have neighboring— we have properties in my neighborhood that find a concentration of dead squirrels from adjacent properties that use poison while their garbage overflows.

People should also be aware that local wildlife such as skunks and raccoons, they eat rats. Raptors as well, they will come down and they will eat rats. And they are in effective population control. So when you see a skunk or a raccoon on your property, don’t call wildlife businesses to come take them away.

They do your favor if you have a rat infestation. I think the really to resolve this issue, the focus should be on enforcement, including neighborhood blitzes, which we have tried to get in our neighborhood over and over again. There was a time when they were doing them and now they just don’t. And I really think there needs to be strong fines for repeat offenders.

And I really think enforcement really has to focus on the commercial businesses because they put out an extraordinary amount of food garbage far more than any household would do. And yet nothing really tackles that problem. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback.

OK, those were two speakers on this item. I will look for a mover and seconder for the motion that was provided in the letter so that we can begin discussion on this item if there’s a mover and seconder. I have Councilor Perbal as the mover looking for a seconder on this item. I’m happy to second this to get this on the floor as well.

Councilor McAllister, since this is your letter, I’m wondering if I can go to you first for your comments. Thank you and I appreciate as visiting Councilor to be able to speak to this item first. As you’ve heard, I think pretty much every major news outlet has done a story on this. I don’t think it’s necessarily just restricted to my award.

I’m hearing now more and more from other parts of the city. Everyone seems to have had some sort of a rat issue. So I think that it’s important that committee and even Council weigh in on this issue. I did raise it in October, November we did pass a motion in terms of looking at the residential dumpsters.

As you’ve heard, since this has kind of come out, it’s not restricted just to that. I did get a lot of complaints last summer regarding the dumpsters. But I do think this is expanded to not just residential. As we’ve heard commercial, perhaps even industrial, I’ve heard some of those areas experiencing as well.

So really, I wanted to put this on the floor to have that discussion. I’m hoping my colleagues will be able to weigh in in terms of whether they want to see this expanded. If you want to not just have residential commercial properties, as we’ve heard, can also be a source of this. But really, this is a conversation starter to see some concrete action come out of this.

As I’ve heard from a number of my residents, they’re all dealing with the rats. This is impacting their lives. It’s a public health issue. And we really do need to see some action on this.

I know I’m sure Byla has some comments they’d like to share on this. But this is an issue that impacts all of us. And rats breed very quickly. And if we don’t get a handle on this right now, it’s going to get worse and it’s going to impact the whole city.

So I really hope we can make some progress on this item. I’m happy for people to put forward some amendments if they have them. But we absolutely need to see some traction on this. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. I had Councillor Ferreira next, then Hopkins and Troso. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair.

So I’ve been trying to look into this myself. And I do hear there are some different ideas of where I guess the issue would go to. And I really think maybe we should be focusing on what is the reason? What are the reasons why we’re seeing these infestations?

Why are we seeing them localize in certain areas of the city with respect to other areas of the city? I hear that there could be lack of enforcement and proper containment with some commercial areas. There are some issues with garbage containment for residential areas. I do know from past discussions here at Council before this term that I think the compliance message was always that the message is that like a yard and lot maintenance by-law is a containment issue or could also include or could promote something like this.

When it comes to garbage or rubbish or especially food scraps that could also promote something like this, I was doing some thinking myself. Like I do understand that with respect to our green bin program and the uptake of that with the city, I would really want to know if with those who are not using their green bins and they’re putting their food scraps into their garbage. And now there’s a two week cycle where those food scraps are in those garbage cans. Would that maybe be an issue with that as well?

Just because with the uptake. And I know I don’t see anybody from waste management here. But these are some of the— do we have someone from waste management here? Yes, we do.

Ms. Chambers is online. Yeah, OK, I’d like to let Ms. Chambers and ask if you can just remind us what the uptake is for the green bin program.

And if you have any data on potential areas where uptake is a little bit less than the rest of the city, if you have any information on that. Thank you. I’ve got Ms. Chambers.

Thank you and through the chair. I know generally our uptake is approximately 60% city wide. We’d have to report back on particular areas that are low spots. And if there’s a correlation between rats and green bin usage, there’d be a report back.

Councillor Ferrera. So I’m just kind of spitballing ideas of what could be it. But I think that there’s a lot of different ideas of what could be causing this. And I really think an approach we should take is to really get a comprehensive report back of what staff can find, of what may be promoting the issue that we’re seeing.

Especially because I do see that there’s some areas in the city that locally have this issue being reported a little bit more than other areas of the city. So that kind of tells me something. And I’d really like to know what tools we would have at our disposal to be able to mitigate that. So I like what Councillor McAllister is doing.

But I would want to add a report back from staff to just really hone in on what the issue is and really go from there. Just to understand what’s happening. Because there’s a lot of ideas that I see coming my way of why the reason would be. But I think that we should really kind of try to refine that and reduce that down to what the real issues are.

And I think a deeper look, more comprehensive look, might help us on that. So I would put an amendment on the floor. And the amendment would be to have a comprehensive report back on what the sources are for certain rat infestations and to look into— and I know the slang, if the clerk can just help me out here, I’m sorry to throw this last minute to you on the floor. But if we can just find any type of trends, localizations within the city, and any type of correlations between any other programs that we may have or correlations with maybe enforcement issues or anything like that.

And I know this is a terrible language. But I think that we should have a report back that basically looks on a comprehensive report that identifies the localizations of where rat infestations are in any type of correlations between with containment, with commercial businesses, restaurants, potentially with green bin uptake. Thank you, Councillor. Just before I go to your amendment and the language contained, I just want to go to staff for a moment because the direction is a report back, but it’s a little bit more specific to the by-law piece.

I’m just wondering if you might be able to specify if the report back would contain any of that information that the Councillor is asking for in this amendment. Go to Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, just the time frame around this report is extremely short.

Like where it’s Q1 is, this is the last month of Q1. So Q2 is by June. If you want any kind of a detailed analysis, that’s going to take more time than this. Also remind you that the same team that’s working on this has, I believe it’s for other requests related to by-law.

Much major by-law changes that are being proposed that have come out of other council resolutions. So I just want to highlight that if you’re looking for any kind of detail, but it really will require a longer period of time before bringing you forward the report. Councillor Ferrer. So we’ve got language ready for your amendment.

The issue will be the date. So it almost puts the motion as the report back as contrary, unless we separate your portion of the report back from the portion contained in the by-law, Councillor. Appreciate that. I just want to follow up.

Before I do officially move an amendment, and I do want to hear the language, and I appreciate you working on that for me, will does this motion as it is have that comprehensive report? I did see that you said that the timing would be an issue, and that kind of tells me that if I were to add that, then the timing won’t work. But that also is telling me that that is not included in this motion as it is. So I just wanted to confirm what I’m looking for.

Is that included in the motion as it is? Mr. Mather. Through the chair.

So staff didn’t have any contribution into this motion. So I’m not aware of what the intent was to be included in the motion. So any kind of clarification on that from the right of the letter, of course, would be very helpful. But from our, just want to report back and be very open with you that if this is a comprehensive report, you’re not going to get it by that time frame.

It’s too difficult to be able to meet that expectation. Thank you. I’ll go to Councillor McAllister. If that’s okay, just to clarify the intent of the wording of his motion, that’s on the floor.

Thank you, through the chair. So two things here. The first is what I would say is a request essentially to expedite the review that was already initiated in the fall. I have included all residential property types because when I’m looking at my complaints, a lot of them were residential based, recognizing there’s a desire for commercial.

So perhaps if the Councillor’s looking for something in terms of a larger report back, that could be an examination of the commercial side of things because mine is right now just focused on the residential. With respect to part B, the reason why I’m requesting an option in terms of reporting is outside of the collection that I do through my calls and emails. I’m not sure in terms of what by-law can point to, but I do think there needs to be a better reporting mechanism in place. Other municipalities have that in terms of road and control because right now, I don’t think we have a good handle in terms of where the hotspots are.

And so to your point about a larger report, I think we need a reporting mechanism to be able to then have that larger report to show those areas to understand in terms of zoning, is it residential, is it commercial, is it industrial. So that was kind of my intention with these two, recognizing that there would probably be discussions in terms of where else people would like to go with this. But I was trying, recognizing as Mr. Mayor said, a tight timeline.

But the reason why I put Q2 is this process was in place, and I was just trying to capture as much residential before that report for this came back. Thank you, okay. Councillor Ferrera, back to your, the language on your amendment, go ahead. Thank you, before I get to the language, I think we need to be coordinated because this is an issue that’s been going on since, I hear it really kind of enhanced after COVID and this is, and there was an issue before.

Councillor, sorry, I just want you to be aware, you’ve got a minute left and you have, you’re wanting to introduce an amendment. So I just want to keep you in time to be able to do that, go ahead. All right, I think we should be coordinated. If we focus on the residential, we may start pushing issues towards commercial.

I think the timeframe, especially considering that this is a, we don’t even know what the issues really are. We should maybe push the timeframe out if the staff needs that for that comprehensive report back. Can the clerk read me back the motion? So Councillor, the amendment, as you’re proposing it, because we’ve been told by staff and we’ve been told by the writer of the letter that the intention is to bring back the by-law change in quarter to 2026, your amendment would be additional but contrary.

So just based on the time. So I’m just wondering, can we do it as a report back that’s a separate reporting time versus what’s in front of us, which is tied to this motion? If that’s what we need, I would recommend we change the timeframe coming back to a later date to have everything together as one coordinated effort. We don’t know what the issue is.

We don’t know what the source of the issue is. But if— - One moment. Okay, thank you. So then on this amendment, this amendment is related to report.

So you’re actually looking for another amendment to first amend the timeline in order to then bring in your report. I guess I would. Okay, so you’re looking to move an amendment to move the timeline to when? I guess I would go to staff and you probably wouldn’t be able to answer this.

How much time would be a reasonable amount to make this comprehensive report? Would you need six months? Would you need 10? I’ll go to Ms.

Beffer. Thank you and through you, Chair. I estimate that we would need until at least Q3. Okay, Councillor, so you’re looking to move to amendment, you have 20 seconds.

So I’m trying to help you to get— Q3, 2026. Okay, I’ll amend to Q3, 2026 if that works. And then I would add the addition. Thank you, just a moment.

We’re just clerking it. Just noting that the mayor has joined us. So Councillor, I’m just gonna read it back to you. Just make sure the language correct again, being noting that you’re short on time.

That part A of the motion be amended to change the reporting back to Q3, 2026 to allow staff to provide a comprehensive report back related to sources of rent, infestation, trends, localization, correlations with programs and enforcement issues. Is that language suffice? That’s perfect. When I say programs, I mean city programs, but if staff interpret that with city programs or any other, I guess maybe it’s good to say broad.

Thank you, we’re adding city program. Okay, so I’m looking for a seconder for the amendment. Okay, I do not see a seconder for your amendment at this time and you’re out of time. Okay, and that’s your time on this round discussion.

So I will go to Councillor Troso next. I’m going to start by just reading my amendment and I can give a reason why I’m doing this. My amendment reads simply that civic administration be directed to consult with the environmental stewardship and action community advisory committee about the city’s response to rodent infestation and opportunities for improving public information. Should I wait to see if there’s a second or should I explain my rationale?

Thank you, I will look for a seconder on this amendment. Councillor Ferrera seconded it. Go ahead, you may speak to your item. This is one of those situations through the chair.

It cuts across different divisions in different departments. So when we say send something back to staff, I already have a problem with that ‘cause it doesn’t say to who. You can’t put chicken bones in the green bin that are wet and not do anything else and be surprised when you get rats. And I guess the question that I have for a code enforcement is don’t we already have a number of bylaws on the books that deal with rat infestation and the obligation of a property owner to keep their property free of rodent infestation and the types of debris that will cause it?

So could you state what they are? Thank you, I’ll go to Ms. Feffer. Thank you, Chair, and through you, I’d like to introduce you to the manager of community compliance, Wade Jeffrey, who will answer that question.

Thank you, Mr. Jeffrey, for joining us, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you. We do have a couple of different bylaws that do address debris as well as pest infestation.

Pest infestation is handled through our property standards bylaws CP24. Excuse me, there’s a specific regulation in that bylaw that speaks to pest infestation. With respect to the debris, we can handle that through both bylaws, for containment, there are specific regulations that speak to containment and ensuring that it’s compliant. We find that through our inspections, a lot of it is improper storage.

So there is, you know, that’s, that we deal with on a daily basis through our inspections. And again, this is something that is, it’s a high volume complaint year after year, due to that. Councillor. Thank you, that’s very helpful.

And the reason I’d like this to go to the advisory committee is because they do have expertise in dealing with animal issues. They do have expertise in terms of dealing with green bin problem issues, yard debris. They’ve worked on the yard and lot bylaw, and they understand the interrelationship between different bylaws that cut across different parts of civic administration. We’re asking our staff to do a lot.

And what’s holding us up here is not the will to deal with the rat infestation problem. It’s that we just keep asking for more staff reports. I mean, part A asks for a staff report on strengthening the bylaw. And I can’t support that because I think that the bylaw is already state that there’s an obligation not to have rat infestation.

The problem is coordination between code enforcement and garbage pickup. And I think that that’s something that we do poorly when we have to go across different agencies. I also disagree with the contention that nothing’s been done. ‘Cause I know I’ve called in a number of complaints about dumpsters and they’ve been dealt with.

Not as quickly as I’d like, but they’ve been dealt with. So what I’d like to do first is I wanna bring in the expertise and advice from the advisory committee. I’d like staff to cooperate with them. And I see this not as a way to divest staff from their authority, but a way to assist them at a time when they’re being asked to do a lot at the end of our term.

So that’s what I have to say about this particular amendment. I’ll say more about why I can’t support part A of the main motion when we get to that. Okay, thank you. We are on the amendment, which is part D.

If you refresh your screen in E-Scribe, you’ll be able to see it, but for the anyone that’s following along, I’m just going to read it again that the motion be amended to add a new part D to read as follows that civic administration dealt with the environment stewardship and action community advisory committee about the city’s response to rodent infestation and opportunities for improving public information. Now this is an amendment to the main motion. So it will come after A, B, C, it will follow as D. Councilor Ferrer, you had your hand up.

Thanks, Chair. So this, I guess is close to what I was saying. I think we need more information. And if the environmental stewardship and action committee does have expertise here and they can make a scan on different city programs and really see maybe type of any type of correlating trends or localizations and issues like that, I will support it.

I agree with Councilor Trosso. We need to potentially have coordination between our enforcement and garbage pickup. I do see that there could be different areas with some of our programs that may be contributing to this, but I don’t know for sure. And I worry that if we don’t really understand the full, I guess, scope and breadth of the issue, we’re just gonna be putting in resources and taking shots and just gambling to see if it works or if it doesn’t.

And I really think we need to coordinate our effort and really understand the issue before we do anything. Because if we have a motion as it’s proposed above, I worry that we’re gonna do that work and we’re not gonna see any difference. So just that understanding of really what the issue is, where it lies and what are the contributing sources for the issue, I think is the first step that we should really take. So I’m gonna support the motion as it is.

I hope that we get that scan of where the issues lie, what type of city programs or not programs may be involved and how we can identify to, I guess, mitigate really what the issue is. But because I’m hearing a lot of ideas of why we may have infestations in this area or infestations in that area and I see that they’re kind of all over the map. I really wanna understand really what the contributing factor is. Now we may have issues that are aligning with one area that are different from the other and maybe we can have a better coordinated approach with that.

But again, it’s really about understanding ‘cause I don’t wanna be telling the public that this is gonna solve your issue and then it doesn’t. I worry about that. And I don’t wanna be wasting city resources on trying to put these resources in to solve the issue and then nothing comes out of it. I don’t think that’s a good spending of taxpayer funds.

So I understand the issue and I want to have a real understanding of why that issue is occurring. I really wanna see what these infestations, why they’re happening. So I’m gonna support this as it is. I’m hoping that we get a good amount of information of what is contributing to the road and infestations and hopefully we can get some good ideas of what opportunities there might be to mitigate those and maybe we can coordinate that with our efforts in the future.

Because this is something that has been going on for years, we need to really have a good understanding if we wanna make an effective action and approach. So I’m gonna support the amendment. I think it is gonna take what my last amendment was bringing about. I understand it’s maybe even better because it’s not gonna waste or really tie up city resources as it is, but I’m gonna support it as it is.

So I appreciate it. Thank you. I just wanted to seek clarification from staff on the order by which this is being discussed. So I just wanna clarify that the report in part A would be the expedited piece that would come forward in Q2 2026 and that there is time to go to the ESCAC committee in that cycle before it comes back to committee.

Mr. Mathers. Through the chair. So I can confirm that that wouldn’t be possible without giving some, we don’t wanna go disingenuously to this group and say that, hey, we’re gonna reflect your comments, but then not have our information available until after or right before their meeting and then not be able to that turnaround to bring it back to committee.

So it would be very difficult within this timeframe. We can absolutely do that still within that Q3 timeframe, but any of those more significant issues or items that were brought up by Councillor Ferrara as far as that additional information, just by adding this isn’t going to necessarily get that into this report. So yeah, it would be very, actually not possible to be able to do that in that timeframe. Okay, thank you.

So Mr. Mathers, just to clarify. So we would be able though to before it comes back to report to the committee, bring it to ESCAC, they can provide in the minutes of their meeting any suggested changes, any advice that they have to committee to consider while this bylaws brought forward. So that could still meet the timeline.

Through the chair, yes, there could be a parallel process, but if you’re looking for the content of what comes out of that committee, to go back into the report in the findings before it comes to you, then that would be very, that wouldn’t be possible. But if you wanna go in parallel and provide them at the same time, we can absolutely do that. Thank you. Okay, I’ll go back to Councillor Ferrara.

Thank you Chair for asking that question. I have concern with the parallel process because as we make an implementation here with this direction that could, I guess, skew some of the information that the Environmental Stewardship and Action Committee gets. I honestly ultimately just want a real solution that will actually work that’s informed. If this committee needs to rush this motion forward, I have concerns on what it’s affected, this is actually gonna be, and we’ll find out very soon, especially as the summer comes up.

But if that’s the intent of the committee, then that’s fine. If I wouldn’t wanna speed this review coming back from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Committee. So whether it’s parallel or not, it depends on the work that they do and how long it takes them to do it. But I think the report needs to be quite deep and comprehensive in really kind of analyzing the issues.

Because I think if, even if this motion does work and the actions from the motion work, I really wanna understand what’s really what’s going on. And if that work takes a little bit longer for the Environmental Stewardship and Action Committee and they have to be separate in that regard, I guess that’s fine. But ultimately I just wanna see a real solution and I think we need to understand the issue and we don’t understand really what the issue is. So I guess I’ll leave it there, but I wouldn’t push for this to be parallel with that other report.

I think that it’s okay if it takes a little bit longer, it’s okay if it comes to the next council because ultimately we’re trying to really solve an issue that’s gonna last for years if we don’t actually take a real approach to it. So I’ll leave it there. Thank you. So just to clarify, if we’re not amending Q2, then it is a parallel process in order for this amendment to not be contrary.

So the amendment as it sits right now is not a parallel process or is a parallel process as it reads. Okay, so on the amendment, any other speakers? Okay, looking for speakers online, seeing none, looking for those in Chamber, seeing none, we’ll open the vote on the amendment. Closing the vote, the motion carries, five to one.

Thank you, I’m looking for a mover and a speaker on the as amended motion. I have Councillor Trosto, Councillor Hopkins, thank you, and I will look for speakers on the as amended. I’m gonna go to committee first, I’ll go to Councillor Trosto, then Councillor Hopkins, and I have Councillor Stevenson after that. Councillor Trosto.

Thank you, and I don’t want the Councillor who brought this forward or members of the public to think that I’m minimizing your concerns, which are very well taken. My problem with the way A is written, however, is as I understand the state of our bylaws, which I’ve studied, and this has been confirmed by staff, we don’t need to change the substance of the bylaw to say, well, you can’t just ignore rats and vermin and you can’t leave things away. We’ve got a number of bylaws that do that. If A said to take further enforcement, enhanced enforcement measures, I’d be good with that, but I don’t want to send staff back to try to redraft the bylaw.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think if there’s a flaw in our bylaw, it’s the protocols for enforcement, and I want to remind everybody, we have a report coming back from Code Enforcement staff soon on the protocols for dealing with resident complaints. I also understand that over in the other garbage division, there is also a staff report that’s going to be coming back. I’m not sure exactly what the time is on that, but we’ve already asked for a number of reports that bear on this.

Finally, I’d like to say that we don’t always have to reinvent the wheel by understanding rats. The rats in Toronto behave much like the rats in London, and the fact that the city of Toronto has already done a very comprehensive staff report on this that goes into all sorts of detail. Really, we should just be reading that, not just, but we should start by reading that report before we send staff off to recreate that report, because sometimes I think this staff work has been done very effectively by another jurisdiction. And I’m sure the advisory committee will look at the Toronto report, and I’ve spoken, I should say informally, I’ve spoken to a member of that committee.

They’re very anxious to get started, and they understand the Toronto report, and they understand the interrelationship between what we do in our garbage division, I’m calling it the garbage division, and the Code Enforcement Division. Maybe we need a rat division that just brings them all together, but I think the intention here is to, and I think it’s really in keeping with what the Councillor is trying to do. I think what we need is an all-encompassing situation of report where we’re in a position to pinpoint what changes we need to make in our practice, not necessarily a by-law amendment, maybe, but we’ll find out. So that’s my position, and I don’t know, are we speaking on the main motion right now?

This is the main motion as a matter. Yeah, so I’m not gonna put another amendment on the table to make Part A more to my liking, but if I was, it would be along the lines of not asking for a full by-law review, but a particular enforcement review, but I think I’m just gonna vote against Part A and leave it there, because I think what I wanna do here is gonna happen with or without Part A. Thank you. Thank you, we’ll prepare that for separation.

I will go to Councillor Hopkins next, and I have Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Palosa. And this is on the amendment and the motion. This is the motion as amended, yes. Thank you, and I wanna thank Councillor McAllister for bringing this forward, and for having this conversation here at committee.

I know there’s a lot of rats in my community, not those rats, these rats, sorry. Sorry. (laughs) I’m getting eye-tracked here, but, and you did Councillor acknowledge that it’s not just an east dam problem, it is throughout the city, and I do appreciate that. I do have a couple questions through the chair.

Maybe to staff trying to better understand what we’re doing with this motion when it comes to A, expediting the review of the property standards by-law. Expediting gives me a bit of a pause. I would like to know when we are expecting the property standards by-law update coming to committee. It’s my first question.

Got a mister. Thank you, and through you, Chair. So we’re expecting the review of CP 24 as it relates to residential garbage control in Q2 of 2026, but that doesn’t speak to much of what’s included in A as you’ve referenced. Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you for that. And my second question again is as it relates to be, I just wanna, I’m not sure what’s including or directing to include the option to report rat infestation conditions through service London. What exactly would that entail? Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Parity. Thank you, through the chair. We currently have the ability to report past infestation, especially under a rental unit or buildings, there’s no drop down boxes out of the 15 icons.

You pick that one specific icon and go right into a description box. There’s no drop down boxes and you can report your past infestation. If you’re talking yard and lot maintenance by-law, you can go in there and this is where you’re looking at different lots around the city or property next door or even in the backyard property of the unit you’re renting in. And there’s two drop down fields in that box.

And one is, it’s the tall grass and weeds. Doesn’t really apply. And then there’s one that says debris. Now, that one there we can build out as part of the direction coming out of this report.

And maybe we put in some examples and some brackets there to make it a little bit clearer of what you can report under that. And we can put garbage or junk and past infestation of some examples in there to help out. But we currently have with those two icons the ability to report. That’s our Hopkins.

Thank you for that information. And with that, I will not be supporting A, but supporting B, C, and D, thank you. Thank you. I had on my speakers next, Councillor Stinson, then Councillor Palazzo.

Thank you. I just wanted to thank Councillor McAllister for bringing this forward. It is an issue that I hear about in my ward too often, specifically recently around the McMahon area in Carling and the Oakland Ave area, which is pretty much the entire ward. It’s a really traumatic experience for people.

I’ve got people saying they woke up with a rat running across their face, nibbling the bananas on their dining room table, having to keep their fruit in bathtubs. They’re chewing through water lines and wiring and literally chewing through almost anything to get into the home. Some of the homes have dirt basements. Some of them have foundations that don’t have a cement floor.

They’re finding it almost impossible to keep the rats out. I did a quick Google and I don’t know how accurate Google is here, but they’re saying that rats are able to reproduce at five or six weeks old, that gestation is only about three weeks, that they can get pregnant again in two days, and that a pair of rats can explode into a rat infestation of about 88,000 within a year. So I guess I support all that’s being talked about here today, but I’m just wondering, the things that I’m hearing is the residents believe they’re being stirred up with the construction, some of the deep construction that’s happening, coming from vacant buildings that have been left vacant for a while. There is concern that it’s about the biweekly garbage pickup, property standards, which we’re talking about here, where garbage is not being dealt with appropriately.

Also the demolition of restaurants and other buildings, again, as we do our construction. So my question through you to staff is, is there any comments on sort of the sources of what’s stirring up these infestations and affecting homeowners, and is there a way that we can be proactive? I mean, if we’re putting traps out that will kill them, that’s not poisoning, that’s not gonna affect other animal life, could we be putting them out when we do construction and when we do demolitions to help address the issue as quickly as we possibly can? I’ll go to Mr.

Mathers. Through the chair, absolutely. And I think we could probably start, and this was highlighted by the other counselors as well, but like just trying to take some of those learnings from other municipalities, right? So just in this time, I’m able to pull up the rat plan by the city of Toronto, and it highlights some of those very issues.

Construction possibly being linked to it, so I think we very much have to build on what some of the pieces that we can learn from other municipalities, but then also make sure that we contact all those other parts of the corporation that might touch this issue in any way. Councillor. Thanks, yeah, I’m gonna look at this between now and council to see if we can maybe proactively put traps out as we, you know, we have a lot of infrastructure projects, hopefully a lot more, that we could do it proactively around maybe require it on vacant buildings, and when we look at demolitions, look at dealing with it right away. The facts, if they are accurate, are very scary in terms of how quickly they can reproduce.

There’s a lot of health associated with that, and it can be costly for people. And so if we could even loan out rat traps, or I don’t know, I appreciate all the other work, but I really want to address this as quickly as we possibly can to eradicate some of these and reduce the populations before we really do have something that’s a lot more serious than it already is. Thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Pelocinex, followed by Councillor McAllister, and then Councillor Frank.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to staff, as city staff and partners go out and do the vacant building inspections as required by fire, is there any notes made in there potentially regarding rats as they go through, or is that something that could be added if we’re already on site? Mr. Jeffrey.

Through Madam Chair, when we are out doing inspections for vacant buildings, we take into account all of the maintenance, excuse me, and the property standards by-law regulations that come into play during those inspections. So we are addressing debris pest infestation when it is in fact valid and able to be addressed. Councillor Pelocinex. Thank you.

So I’m understanding that if there was a rat colony discovered, we would take action on it, just looking for clarification. Mr. Jeffrey. Through the chair, yes, we would address that.

Councillor? Thank you, Madam Chair. Having been a second term Councillor and having rats in the south end as well, when staff have been involved in the past, it came back to property standards, hoarding at homes, hoarding in the yards, hoarding of yard waste and sod piles, residents who lovingly feed wildlife, usually the flying happy bird kind, the feathered kind, and overfeeding, which falls to the ground and creates rats in the neighborhood and under neighbor sheds, to which colonies have formed in the past in the south end, or commercial waste within the dumpsters. For the most part, it hasn’t been associated to the waste collection that we’d see at the curb on a weekly basis.

Certainly with that, since some neighborhoods, green bins are, I would say, more of a proactive tool, allowing that organic waste be removed as a food source on a weekly basis. So as we move through these conversations, just really mindful of where we’re gonna put resources and the tools that we already have that staff have been well utilizing and experiences in the word of it tends to be feeding. I have a neighbor who feeds rats running through my backyard as well. So just really cognizant of when we’re asking for staff stuff to be done of just looking at visit, just and maybe through you to Ms.

Pfeffer and her team, if someone does lodge an untidy property complaint, how quickly is there a staff compliment who could usually get to address that concern for the resident? Thank you, I’ll go to Mr. Jeffrey. Through you, Madam Chair.

Typical response for a concern or complaint that’s registered like that would be two to three day turnaround for our staff to address it. Councilor Palosa. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just really looking then, I know sometimes in the past it ended up being residents who didn’t want to clamp their property or didn’t want to pay the fee of actually removing that rat infestation that they were harboring on their own property.

So that’s where more of my interests come in with staff of our bylaws already there, being well in action and staff in a very timely manner, having multiple bylaws of just how to enforce a standard, realizing that one person doesn’t keep those cleans and absolutely can traumatize an entire neighborhood, that’s where my interest is focused. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor McAllister followed by Councillor Frank.

Thank you, through the chair. And I really do appreciate the conversation today. It sounds like we’ve all encountered this at some point or another and we all have different opinions and suggestions, so I really do appreciate that. But for me, really this was, I was trying to come up with something in an expeditious manner.

My residents are living with this, as Councillor Stevenson has said as well, had some horrific stories, and some of the problem properties, which is why I think those reviews are very important, have existed for a very long time, and I just have not seen resolutions. The reason why I originally brought up the residential dumpsters, for instance, there’s properties on Shelburnes, properties on King Edward, which have been problematic for years, and I just not have seen any sort of resolution understanding by-law have to follow a process, but my intention in terms of strengthening the by-law, if staff come back and say, we think we’ve got what we need on the books, I’m fine with that in the report, they don’t need to be exhaustive about that, but if the enforcement mechanism and the measures they have at their disposal are not necessary to address these long-standing problems, that’s the issue I’m having, because there are the same things coming up time and time again, and if we keep doing the same thing and the result is the same, I just don’t think we’re making progress, right? So that’s where a lot of my frustration and the frustration of my residence comes from, is they’re reporting things and they’re not really seeing any sort of resolution to it. In terms of the reporting aspect, appreciate Mr.

Parity what he said, but really, for me, it’s having a dedicated spot where rodent infestations can be reported, because when it’s pest control, I wanna be able to look at CRM and say, “Okay, these are my hunt spot areas.” The issue I’m having when it’s just as pest is if there’s a roach problem, I don’t necessarily need everything conglomerated into one box saying pest control issues are a problem here, because I really wanna get more granular in terms of, okay, is it roaches? Is it mice? Is it rats? That’s where my intention with that was coming from, is that I do want us to look more specifically what the problems are, because our response is gonna change depending on the problem, especially when it comes to pest control.

Just to give some rationale there, I understand in terms of the language, people might’ve wanted something different with A, I was still very willing in terms of an amendment, but I was looking more for the enforcement as has already been said. The Q2 is a recognition that in the summer, this is height of when my residents are dealing with this. This is when they’re living with it now, particularly when it’s in colder months, the rats are coming inside, but it’s rampant in the summer, and it’s really bad, so I was trying to offer some relief to my residents as we go into the summer months, ‘cause that’s where they’re really seeing the problems. So again, I appreciate the discussion today.

I hope we can find something and move this forward. Thanks. Thank you, I have Councillor Franknaxe, followed by Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and I thought I heard clearly, but that Councillor Stevenson said eradicate, and I really liked it, so I hope that somehow makes its way into a clip somewhere.

But I did have one quick question. I just wanna confirm in my award, we’ve had some issues with rats near commercial dumpsters. Will that be looked at in this report back from staff? Thank you, I’ll go to Ms.

Beffer. Thank you, through you Chair, yes, that’s the intent. Councillor Frank. Great, thank you, that’s all.

Thank you, I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to follow up on a few of my colleagues regarding the enforcement, because when we hear two to three days for a response, I too hear from residents that have properties that have been ongoing concerns for years, and they put the complaints in, they file the complaints, things happen, but nothing changes, and they are left very, very frustrated. I had another call on Friday. So I just wondered through you to staff, are there things that Council could do in terms of policies, or is this something that’s gonna be coming back to us in Q2 about how we can have greater enforcement so that residents can get the outcome that they’re looking for, right?

If this isn’t allowed, we run into this with the homelessness situation, right? Zero tolerance for encampments, what does that look like, and why do zero tolerance areas, are they covered with tents every day, all day, all the time? And so residents get frustrated. If it’s not allowed, why does it continue?

So anything that you can provide would be appreciated. Ms. Beffer. Through you, Chair.

We certainly do get chronic residential complaints in relation to this issue, and part of it is in relation to the compliance first mindset. We really wanna give residents the opportunity to comply with our bylaws, and so we do that. That gives them a period of time in which they have to potentially clean up their property. When that cleanup is done, or if it isn’t done, the city will undertake those cleanup endeavors, but we sometimes see that this is sort of a rinse and repeat cycle where the problem resolves itself temporarily and then renews again.

And so we really do understand and understand the frustration, but we need those continuous complaints to come through to us so that we can resolve it. In terms of what Council can do, we’ll look at that in this report coming back, and if there is anything that we identify, we will certainly put that in the report. Councillor Stevenson. Thanks, I really appreciate that.

It’s about managing expectations as well, right? Like you wanna tell the public, this is the way it is, and then this is what you can expect, and a lot of that is important here. Thank you. Looking for other speakers, I have Councillor Trossa.

Thank you, through the chair. I think this is a very productive discussion, and I sense that we’re getting very close to having unity on this. So I’m gonna take back something I said, and then I’m gonna offer an amendment to A, ‘cause I don’t wanna vote against A, I’d rather just fix it. And if we substitute the word by-law, where it says recommendations to strengthen the by-law, take out the word by-law, and put in the words enforcement of the by-laws, then that would take care of my objection to the fact that there’s more and more in by-law, and that really the problem is enforcement, and the by-laws are already there.

So if we could make that small amendment, I don’t think it’s contrary. Councillor, so the only issue is that you already, on your first round speaking, you moved an amendment. So that’s the only issue, but I just wanna clarify just a moment. Because we just get in.

Okay, so Councillor, because you already spoke on this item, on the as amended, that was your time to move an amendment. So I’m just trying to keep us procedurally in order, but if anybody else who hasn’t spoken, perhaps, maybe would like to from the committee, they could. Yeah, I’ll go to, thank you. I’ll go to Mayor Morgan.

• I’ll do it. Yes, no, I see Councillor McAllister who brought this saying, “Noting that he’s comfortable with that language.” I’m happy to move the amendment. I hope not everybody needs to speak to it again, and we can move along and get language that can allow us to proceed. So I’ll put it on the floor.

Just a moment, and I will be going back to staff to ask if this affects the timeline at all. Through the chair, so this actually probably makes things a little more simpler even, so it doesn’t impact. It doesn’t, thank you. And I have Councillor Trozzo as the seconder, we’re just preparing the language, just a moment please.

Hey Mayor Morgan, and Councillor Trozzo just going to you on the wording, that the change to part A is to read the enforcement of the bylaws. Thank you, I’ll go to the Mayor in case she wanted to speak to this item. No, I don’t need to speak to it. Thank you, looking for any speakers on the amendment, sorry, Councillor Ferrera.

This is what I needed to carry me over to support it, so you’ll have my support for A. Thank you, looking for any further speakers on this, looking online. Okay, looking in shame, we’re seeing none. On the amendment, we will open the vote.

Sir Trozzo, closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, I look for a mover and seconder on the as amended, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Hopkins, thank you. Look for any final speakers on this item. Hey, looking just for clarification from anyone on committee, if this still needs to be separated out.

Thank you, and last call for any speakers, seeing none, we will open the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, thank you everyone. Committee, I’m in your hands.

If you’d like to take a break now, or if you’d like to wait until after the next item to take a break. So I’m in your hands, looking for anything. Seeing no one moving towards the mic. Oh, Councillor Ferrera, go ahead.

I need a bio break, can I get five minutes? Do I have a seconder for five minutes? Councillor Hopkins, seconding a five minute break. I will take a vote by hand.

All in favor. So we have Councillor Ferrera, just keep your hands up, folks. Ferrera, Hopkins, and Preble. So opposed, that fails on a tie.

Sorry, okay, so that looks like we’re proceeding with our next item. We are on item 4.2, which is Councillor Stevenson’s letter, stating restricting city funding organizations from distributing safe use drug smoking supplies. I have a delegation request for this item. What I’d like to do is I’d like to hear the delegation request first, and then I’d look for a motion or an alternate motion to be put on the floor for a discussion.

I will look for a mover and a seconder on this item. Okay, Councillor Hopkins for the delegation, sorry. Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you, we’ll just prepare that.

He will open the vote. Using the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Thank you, this was a delegation request from Ms. Velastro.

May come to the microphone, please. Thank you, I knew five minutes. Our reduction policies were adopted decades ago after people were dying from drug related diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis C. Hepatitis C is in particular, shows no symptoms for 30 years or more, at which point people were in late stages of liver disease.

Harm reduction policies were pushed by healthcare workers because it was, is cheaper on the healthcare system to prevent disease rather than try to treat it in its late stages. Premier Kathleen Nguyen, just before leaving office, made hepatitis C drugs available for free under the Ontario Trillium Benefit Program. At a cost of approximately $50,000 per treatment, it was still cheaper than letting patients either die, as hepatitis C is a death sentence without access to the drugs that purge the virus from the body. That’s why safe use drug supplies are important.

They alleviate pressure from the healthcare system and why the program is under provincial jurisdiction. So I really don’t understand what’s motivating the counselor to bring this forward. I can’t help think that it’s a form of showmanship because I don’t understand why the counselor doesn’t understand that it’s a provincial program, that the cities are obligated to administer because it’s pragmatic, it’s a pragmatic program because of the burden it places on the healthcare system. It’s important to bring these supplies to the people that are the users because it’s a sure thing.

And it’s important for people like myself who pick up drug paraphernalia from my own property and from other properties. It’s much safer for me if a supply of needles and what I have you are used once rather than being very dirty because they’ve been used over and over again. I just find it tires them over time to have to always address these issues. When to me they’re just very straightforward.

The province wants the burden of the healthcare system. These supplying safe paraphernalia for drug use alleviates a lot of that. It’s a preventative measure to keep people one for causing an epidemic that the healthcare system then has to deal with. And so I hope this is a short conversation because the city seems to have no jurisdiction and the council should know that.

And I’m hoping that this conversation isn’t belabored. People should know that it’s a provincial program that the city must bring forward. Thank you. Thank you for your feedback.

I have a communication from two members of the committee. I have a communication from a visiting member of committee. I’m in the committee’s hands as to just a moment. Okay, sorry about that.

I’m in committee’s hands for next step so that we can continue the conversation. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Trocelin and myself we did add a communication ‘cause we do feel like when it comes to this topic we would like to get as much information, especially from the professionals in the field as possible.

So we did reach out to the chief medical officer of health at the Middlesex London Health Unit. I just texted him from what I understand he’s ready and online so if the committee would permit me I’d like to request that you would allow me to move a motion for delegation for Dr. Summers. He didn’t submit a delegation before so I guess before I would move that motion I would just want to know if this is in order and how to go about that.

Okay, thank you. So Councillor, I don’t need a motion to delegate for Dr. Summers but I would like something on the floor before we ask people to speak to an item. I don’t have a motion.

I do have a motion ready for items to be received if that’s a motion that committee would like to entertain and then we can ask for anybody else any questions if anyone else that has questions. And the items to be received to be the letter from Councillor Stevenson and the letter from Councillor Trostman myself? As well as the delegation. I would move that.

And I have a seconder and Councillor Hopkins. Okay, so now that that item’s on the floor you may begin your questioning. Dr. Summers, I understand you are online.

Thank you so much for being here and for your patience ‘cause I know you’ve been online since about one o’clock and I will direct any questions that come your direction to you should members of committee or visiting council have any questions. And Councillor Ferret, go ahead. Do I have to ask first? Oh, I wasn’t ready to ask the questions first.

I’ll yield to committee and I’ll put my hand up after. Councillor, the motion is to receive the communication. If you have questions for Dr. Summers, those would be where this would be the time where you’d ask questions.

Am I the only one who’s gonna ask questions to Dr. Summers? No, it’s just that you’re the speaking right now because you were the last one on the motion to move the motion to receive. If you don’t have questions, I can go to other members of committee.

Oh, I do have questions. I just don’t want to ask them yet. Can I ask the matter? Okay, thank you.

I will go to other members of committee on this item. Councillor Trossa. Yes, I’m gonna ask, first of all, thank you for joining us and thank you for staying with us through other parts of the meeting. You’ve had the opportunity to review Councillor Stevenson’s request.

You’re familiar with the program and what I’d like to ask you for, and this is a general question, and if it’s too general, I’ll make it more specific, but do you and your office have an opinion on the matters under discussion? I hope that’s not too general. Thank you. I will go to Dr.

Summers, sorry, Dr. Summers, go ahead. Through you, Madam Chair, good afternoon, everyone. What I can speak to and thank you to Councillor Trossa and Ferreira for the invitation to delegate today.

What I can comment on is certainly that there are potential health implications from limiting access to safe consumption supplies, including inhalation supplies. These are critical tools in minimizing the risks of infection transmission, particularly blood-borne infections like hepatitis C and HIV, as well as respiratory viruses and bacterial infections as well. It is essential with these programs for them to be successful that the materials are available. And we recognize that people who are consuming drugs and have problematic substance use are often somewhat limited and where they’re able to access these materials.

So it is certainly, from a health perspective, advantageous ensuring that these materials are broadly available. Thank you. That’s fantastic. My next question is, given the fact that your office and your board is an independent board pursuant to provincial law, could you just briefly tell us what the involvement of your office has been in this program?

I’m not sure a council can direct you to stop doing this although that’s not the motion, but it would have that side effect. So could you please speak to the origin of this program where the funding comes from and under whose authority it’s carried out? Thank you, I’ll go to Dr. Summers.

Through you, Chair Raman. As a local public health agency, we receive our direction on the minimum programs we have to deliver in our region through what are called the Ontario Public Health Standards. Within those standards, there are a number of guidelines, including some that refer to this program directly. And we are expected to ensure the availability of in the region of safer drug use supplies.

We, as a board and as an agency, ensure that that’s the case through directing funding to a partner, the regional HIV/AIDS connection to operationalize this program, which includes the distribution of the materials which are often received through other programs from the province through things like our care point site, the health units offices at City Plaza, as well as through a number of satellite locations, including outreach programs. It is through those variety of mechanisms that the materials are distributed. So yes, as a public health agency, we’re required to ensure the availability of these types of supplies. We then fund our hack to operationalize it through a number of different satellite sites, as I have mentioned.

Councillor Chassa. And my next question is given that it seems that you are under an obligation to delve into this area, and maybe this is better for the city solicitor, I don’t know, does this council have the authority to pass just from a jurisdictional point of view? Does this council have the authority to pass the measure that’s the motion that’s on the table without causing a conflict? And that could go to the solicitor, it could go to your office, that’s up to staff.

I’ll go to Mr. Shand. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We have read the direction is that it relates to city funds and city programs. So I think the jurisdiction is sort of limited to what the city would already have control over, and that probably would not include the Middlesex London Health Unit. But if you wanted further exploration of the legal authorities, we’d have to provide a report for a council. Councillor Chassa.

I don’t want to create another motion, certainly not in closed session, if it’s not necessary. So without knowing how Councillor Stevenson’s motion turns out today, it’s hard for me to ask the next question. Sorry, the motion’s not on the floor. It’s not on the floor.

Okay, would I be able to come back and re-ask this if it gets on the floor? Or am I done? The motion right now is to receive. So if the motion failed, then that would be your opportunity to do so.

The motion on the floor is to receive Councillor Ferreras and my letter, is it on? It’s to receive all communication as well. Okay, I have a side question that’s related to my jurisdictional question, which I’m hesitant to get into, but given the risk of not being able to come back to this. If this council passed the measure, this is for the solicitor, if this council passed the measure, restricting the distribution of the, I’ll call it safe supply gear that’s been described.

Would that have potential charter implications under section seven with respect to claimants’ rights to life and security of the person? So in order to answer that properly, we’d have to go into closed session and likely we’d need more time to prepare a Folsom Report for Council. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, I think that’s it for me.

And I hope that other members of this body have questions ‘cause this has been very illuminating. Thank you. Okay, so I’ve Mayor Morgan next followed by Councillor Ferreras. Thank you.

So I have a couple of questions for Dr. Summers. First though, I just wanna be clear that I support the notion behind Councillor Stevenson’s submission of the desire to reduce and decrease drug use in our community and investigating avenues to try to determine how to best do that. And so I just wanted to put that on the floor first.

But with respect to Dr. Summers, and I appreciate you being available today to answer a couple of questions, I wanna ask a couple of questions about the history of the programs and then some questions about what we might be able to do to achieve that goal that may or may not be along the lines of what the Council proposed in the letter. So first, I recall my first term of council near the end. There was this at the end, near the end of the term, there was a significant, there was a significant outbreak of HIV in the community.

And the health unit through a number of these programs decided to take action. I believe this was mainly on the injection drug side of things, not the inhalation. But could you comment on that and what the effects of that health intervention were on the rates of HIV? And I believe Hepatitis C in the community.

Thank you, over to Dr. Summers. Through you, Chair. Yes, from 2016 through 2018, the Middlesex London region concentrated within the city of London experienced a significant spike in HIV cases, well outpacing the rest of the province.

And that spike was driven within the population of people who used injection drugs. So 2015, 2016, 2017, we would see about 40 to 60 cases of new HIV diagnoses in those years. Again, about 75% of them are identifying a risk factor of using injection drugs. In response to that, a multi-pronged approach was taken, increased outreach from the health unit to support people getting HIV treatment, an expansion of safe drug consumption supplies, the opening of the care point site, which is the consumption and treatment facility, a number of different modalities.

As a result, last year, we saw seven new HIV cases in the Middlesex London region with none of them reporting a risk factor of using injection drugs. There are very few success stories that I’m able to share that are that positive. So this part is one part of that response, but the distribution of safer supplies has been a critical component in addressing that HIV outbreak. Hepatitis C rates also continue to be things we’re monitoring.

We saw a high water mark in and around the same period. It continues to decrease, although it has not had the as significant a decline, largely because Hepatitis C is more prevalent associated with newcomers to Canada as well, ‘cause of potential medical procedures overseas. But all in all, certainly we’ve seen significant progress. Mayor Morgan.

Yes, and I appreciate that, but I also recognize that the counselor’s focus has been on inhalation materials. And so I guess my question to you, and I’m unsure if you can answer this. And if the chair will just allow me just a little bit of information I can share to help preface my question. One of the challenges with the London Police Services Open Air Drug Strategy is if they come across an individual and they’re trying to make a referral, if they’re an intravenous user, they can take them to CarePoint and provide a connection point.

CarePoint doesn’t currently provide any sort of inhalation oversight services from my understanding. And that feels to me like a bit of a gap in the system because there can be an intervention, but if there’s nowhere to safely take someone there’s a challenge with that. So that could be the lack of treatment and recovery beds in the community, the lack of the ability of the facility we have to actually deal with some of the problems and challenges that people might be facing. Can you articulate?

I know the counselor has provided a suggestion on a path we could take to reduce this, but do you perceive other paths that may be effective that we could pursue either ourselves or through provincial advocacy related to the area specifically around inhalation, drugs and reducing that challenge that we see on the streets of our community? Dr. Summers. No, through you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for that question. Mr. Morgan, wanna preface this by echoing your comments previously about the critical issue that has been highlighted through this letter of ongoing open drug use and the impacts that has, the negative impacts that has on community. Certainly the health unit and myself are fully aligned with the London Police Services Open Drug Strategy.

That’s been work that has been co-developed through our community drug and alcohol committee, which I chair. So fully supportive of the work that needs to happen there. When we look towards what those solutions might be, we can consider the prevention activities that need to happen, which includes things like addressing poverty and trauma, continues to be things like early childhood supports, but also increased access to treatment for those that are suffering from severe addiction and that includes inpatient beds, outpatient services that include wraparound supports with primary care. And we also need to explore additional services that give people safer spaces to use the drugs they would be using anyways, so that we can reduce it on our streets.

There are other jurisdictions in Canada that have implemented safe inhalation facilities. That is not currently a funded resource here in the province of Ontario. But over the last number of years, given the increase in inhalation drug use, it is a service that I would be highly supportive of exploring for the city of London. The CarePoint Safe Injection site has been a critical part of our response, but as you mentioned, it is not for inhalation, and it is a notable gap in our region.

Unfortunately, when individuals who are stricken with addiction as the folks that we see on the streets, they are folks that are gonna be using these drugs in their current context, regardless of the types of materials we provide them. The effort to provide them with safer equipment is to minimize their risk, and I think it is very fair to state as you have that we need alternative places for them to use since we know they’ll be using regardless. Yeah, my other questions are for our staff. I don’t know if you want me to do that at this time, or let focus on Dr.

Summers. I’m in your hands if you’d like to continue with your part of the discussion. Sure, then just a couple more, and to our staff. I just wanna, so I understand the emergency treatment, I think it’s the emergency treatment fund that the federal government gave us that provided a variety of services, had a component within it that required us to fund in some way harm reduction materials being distributed, and my understanding is that that funding expires at the end of March, and there’s no continuation of it, and so that funding of that program would end.

So recognize that the city does have at least one program that the feds have required us to fund the distribution materials. Beyond that, are there any contracts? Are dollars specifically allocated by the municipality to distribute inhalation kits, or kits in the community? Is that something that we’ve specifically put in a contract beyond the federal one, or something specifically that we’ve allocated dollars towards?

Thank you, I got a Mr. Dickens. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair, that is correct. The only reference to harm reduction kits, or safe use gear, was through a Health Canada funding agreement from the federal government.

That funding expires on March 31st as council, as well aware, as we brought that forward. Our other contracts, we fund, sorry, just, we fund three organizations for outreach, 509 Pursuit, being the one that’s receiving the emergency treatment funding from the federal government. The other two that we fund through city contracts, for outreach are at LOSA and LUNNING CARES, and neither one of those contracts have any dollars attached to the procurement or obtaining of any harm reduction kits, or any requirement that they even distribute harm reduction kits. It’s not part of the contract.

It’s not part of an expectation that they do it. Mayor Morgan. And through the course of this discussion, and even the engagement through the open air drug strategy that London Police Services had, I know there’s been engagement with our staff about how to try to tackle some of the challenges that we may have gaps in the system for from a healthcare perspective. Has there been any engagement with our staff, with the agencies who may of their own accord, be handing out kits about them potentially modifying the areas that they hand them out in, or being sensitive to some concentrations within, say, the downtown core, or on Dundas Place or a place like that.

Has there been any engagement on that side of things to see if we’re not funding it, but others are doing it. Has there been any engagement to say, can you modify what you’re doing without the need for a motion? Good to Mr. Latisor.

Yeah, through you, Madam Chair. So, there has been engagement with the outreach teams since this concern was raised. Through that discussion, the outreach teams at this point have decided that they would not be distributing on specifically Dundas Street for 24/7. Wouldn’t continue distribution at that area.

Realizing that their distribution and other areas would continue as far as long. Mayor Morgan, you’ve got 30 seconds left. Okay, so, do you want me to, I’m gonna use the last 30 seconds for debate. Do you want me just to squeeze that in?

Because I do actually have to leave at 4.30 as well. So, or do you want me to hold so others can ask questions? You, go ahead. Okay, start by 30 second clock now.

Okay, so, in debate and very tight, I appreciate the answers to the questions. I appreciate the councilor’s goal, and I appreciate the attempt and desire to align with some of the other things we’re putting with open air drug strategy. To me, it seems like we’re not necessarily funding this directly, there’s some modification that agencies are willing to do, and I would support at some point, a renewed advocacy position with the province on increasing the number of treatment and recovery beds, or even the investigation about whether inhalation services at care point is something that we want to pursue, to provide an alternate drop off for London police services. So, I think there’s alternatives to the motion.

I respect where the council wants to go. I support degree strategies. Thank you. Okay, I have councilor Ferreira next, and then looking for other speakers to add on to the list.

Thank you Chair. Thanks for the questions, Mayor. Councilor Trusso, I’m gonna start with this. Councilor Stevens’s motion does point to a very real issue.

Open drug use on Dundas is a real thing. It is a real thing citywide. I see it, I’ve seen it in bus shelters, I’ve seen it on the bus, and I know that there’s a lot of impacts downstream for greater London when it comes to this. At the same time, the direction that’s being taken is kind of where I depart from that, because I do understand as far as I see it is, we are lacking that full comprehensive healthcare system, which is not there.

And that’s really the issue that has arisen here. The questions that the Mayor and Councilor Trusso has asked to our Chief Medical Officer, I guess I would ask one more question, and I do see that the Councilor has referenced for a provincial declaration in 2024 to move away from the harm reduction model. But I also understand that the Middlesex London Health Unit uses the provincial health standards, and I just wanted to know, have you seen any legislation change with that declaration from the province, or are you still operating under how the provincial health standards mandates your work to operate when it comes to safer supply materials? Thank you, I’ve got to Dr.

Summers. Through you, Madam Chair, we continue to operate under the Ontario Public Health Standards, and just to expand ever so briefly, harm reduction as an approach, and treatment and recovery as an approach are not mutually exclusive. They are work in tandem and in partnership as part of that comprehensive way to respond to problematic substance use in any community. Councilor Ferrer.

Thank you, and I feel some of the big issues that I see when it comes to this, obviously the lack of provincial support when it comes to this, they are little pieces here and there, but they don’t have the full system, and there’s a big misunderstanding of how things are actually gonna be translated into a pathway or stabilization or treatment and recovery, and the fact that that system is not there, and that’s really on the province’s hands. I usually say this, but I don’t appreciate how the debate is usually crafted where you have the province kind of behind us. The people are in front of us, and the people are looking at us saying, what’s going on, we need answers, give us solutions. When in reality, we have no real tangible ability or direct control when it comes to actually doing something.

And I really would like us to have that aware when we bring items like this to the public debate, because we have the province pushing us in the middle, and with a motion like this, we’re wedging ourselves in the middle, and we should really be careful when we do that, because we need people to understand that coming to us for the issues when it comes to substance use disorder, and the system that’s barely there, is not really something that we can control. And we really need to start focusing the conversation and really have an educational component on it, where people should go when they’re trying to advocate for an actual change. ‘Cause I think we need some serious changes. We need a real comprehensive model, as I’m saying, but we have to be really careful when we position ourselves this way, because if we do, then we are making some promises that we can’t achieve, and promises that we have no direct control over.

I want to go back to the health, the medical health officer. Now, I understand that we, in our contracts, we have a harm reduction approach, but we don’t directly fund any of the distribution of these services. And the Middlesex London Health Unit is using the Ontario Provincial Health Standards on how you go about things. We can’t control that.

That’s correct. If you can just answer that. We have no ability to actually give you a direction, to say to you, you cannot hand out safer supply materials. That comes from the province.

And if we did somehow, even though I know we can’t, stop the distribution of these materials on Dundas, you would still be able to, I guess, hand out supplies from your satellite locations and your location at your main office. Is that correct? Dr. Summers.

Through you, Madam Chair. Our board operates under the requirements of the Ontario Public Health Standards, and that would remain in place regardless in this situation. And we would still be required as a local public health agency to ensure the availability of these types of materials, given the drug use patterns that we see in this region, moving ahead. Councillor Ferri.

Thank you. So we really need to be speaking to the province for more supports. And taking away safer supply materials, as was said, can promote communicable diseases, and it can reduce the full spectrum of public health in the area. Like I would say, there’s an analogy here.

When it comes to substance use disorder, there can be genetic predispositions, there can be, and there’s obviously predispositions to use when it comes to someone’s upbringing, when it comes to any type of trauma that someone goes through. But there is a choice element there as well. But when it comes to, let’s say, cancer, there are genetic predispositions as well. And let’s say if we’re talking about drinking or smoking, you can have liver cancer, lung cancer, there’s a choice element there as well.

But the difference between the two is- 20 seconds. How many seconds? 20. So, the difference between the two is that we have an oncology unit at the hospital.

We have a full spectrum of care. We have safe supplies if it comes to needle injections for individuals who are going through cancer treatment. We don’t have that when it comes to addictions or substance use disorder. Thank you.

Can you give me a little bit of leeway? I just, I did, but if you wanna just final three words. I can’t do a three words. Okay, Councillor, you’re always able to ask for more time from committee if you need it, but there are other speakers waiting for me to speak.

So, at the end of your time, you’ve moved to motion for two minutes. I have a seconder in Councillor Trossa. I will, one moment while we prepare, opening the vote. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to one.

Go ahead, Councillor, you have two minutes. Thank you, colleagues. I won’t take the full two minutes. The point I’m trying to make is this.

We have systems in place for other types of substance use. The difference is, is when it comes to smoking or drinking, which can cause cancer, which does require extra supports and help. If we didn’t have those supports, an individual who wouldn’t be able to work if they had extreme malignant cancer in their body, that’s metastasized from their lungs, wouldn’t be able to work, and they could be out on the street as well. But we don’t look at it that way.

We see that we have this healthcare support. We have a whole unit in the hospital that’s able to help somebody with that, with the both the pre-care, the surgery, and the aftercare, and we don’t think anything about that. But if you look at the two, there is an apples-to-apples comparison here. The difference is, when it comes to substance use disorder and addiction, we don’t have that.

We just don’t have that. We have little bits here and there. We have what I’ve spoken about before when it comes to the private equity model for distribution of opioid agonist treatment, which is an issue, but I’m not gonna go there right now. And we also have the distribution of say supplies, and we have a little bit of downstream assistance, but nowhere near enough.

And that is the main issue that we have here. When it comes to advocacy to the province, I know we’ve been advocating to the province very well for a long time trying to say, “Hey, we need a little extra help,” but we haven’t really seen too much of that. I would like to see more inhalation supports, like we see at care point, but I would say if it’s only care point, that’s not good. We need more, I agree with the mayor.

We do need more areas in the city to have safer consumption sites, and we need more downstream supports. We need a better comprehensive care system is really what I’m saying. So thank you for giving me the extra time and I’m done. Thank you.

Okay, I had Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Stevenson. I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins and to Councillor Stevenson just to follow our practice of going with community members first, go ahead. Yes, thank you. And first of all, we’d like to say I am looking forward to the Councillor’s comments as well, but I wanna thank Dr.

Summers for being here and sharing your expertise. I think it does matter and thank you for that. I also appreciate what the mayor had to say too. You know, we can maybe find out other opportunities, areas to improve areas for inhalation sites.

I think, you know, there are missing gaps along the way, but it reminded me of how we must and can do a better job working together. I really do think that’s very, very important. I appreciate Councillor Stevenson’s perspective. It may not be my perspective, but I do, I would like to encourage you to work with city staff, work with agencies and come up with opportunities where we’re all in this together, working together to solve, I think the same goals that we all have, trying to protect our vulnerable community.

I find myself saying more and more when I’m at this committee, the importance of how we do ourselves a disservice when we look at good policy. I think we fail to protect the community when we ignore, try to change, try to divide, I think we can all do a better job, looking at our policies and working together. So, thank you for that. Thank you.

I had Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Pervall said he will follow you. So I will go to Councillor Stevenson next. Okay, thanks colleagues. This has been good.

I did have a couple of questions. I just want to reiterate that this is not about, should we have these harm reduction supplies or not? It was simply the limitation of a very small area of our city, probably two blocks wide, along Bendas Street and up along Richmond. That’s it, that’s the only change.

We’ve already, since putting this forward, it sounds like the agencies have voluntarily said, not Dundas Street. So, this is not the divisive issue that some are making it out to be. It’s about we have a common goal to have an economically viable downtown and the safe neighborhood for people to live. And we’re spending a lot of money on that, on consultation strategies and on our London Police Service.

It’s about alignment, it’s about better outcomes. And is there something we can do? Can we fix the entire problem? No, we cannot.

But I don’t, I think we underestimate what we can do as a municipality. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to find out how we can do better than what we’re already doing. Just making things better. So for those who are concerned, I just wanted to confirm through Dr.

Summers, I believe regional HIV/AIDS has harm reduction. There is a team of harm reduction outreach workers for whom this would not impact. I’ll go to Dr. Summers.

Do you need that question repeated? Nope, through Madam Chair. That is my understanding as well, although I can’t comment in massive depth on the outreach operations of our hack. But it is my understanding, yes.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and I appreciate that answer. And I can get clarity between now and council. But my intention was not to impede in any way the provincial obligation to provide this equipment to Londoners.

And that is absolutely available. And I’m confident in the Middlesex London Health Unit’s ability to do that. We also get provincial funding and federal funding to achieve our objectives around housing, around homelessness, and around safety in our neighbourhoods. That is this council’s obligation.

And I am looking to make that better. We have an issue, it’s been raised, and I believe there’s a way, and hearing that the agencies are already voluntarily agreeing to this makes it all the more reason why I believe this is a motion that should be put forward, that it should be put in the contract, that there is an area that we’re committed to, where we’re willing to align our taxpayer-funded services. Because we right now, we are funding policies that collide, and that’s just not helping anybody. So if there’s an area that we can agree on, then I believe that’s where the motion should be, and we should be really clear about that with our contracted agencies.

But in the meantime, through you to staff, I’d like to know where along Dundas Street, from end to end, that that agreement has been taken place, and for what time period we’re talking about at the moment. Thank you, I’ve got to register to let us work. Thank you, and through you, Madam Chair. So right now, it’s ongoing.

There’s been no deadline communicated. As far as Dundas Street, my current understanding is the extent of Dundas Street, through Old East Village, and right out to the river. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, and in the discussions, was there a reason why just Dundas Street, not the two block width of the Midtown, Old East Village downtown?

Thank you, I will go to staff. Through you, Madam Chair. At this time, there was no communication in other areas. It was specific to Dundas Street, but we are early in those communications.

So this was just over the last day or two that those communications have taken place. Thank you, and through you, just curious why Dundas, you know, not Richmond, not like was there a reason, like how did it come out that now it’s Dundas Street? Do you let us sort? Through you, Madam Chair.

I wasn’t directly involved in those communications. So I think it was, and I don’t want to speak on behalf of London Police, but where the majority of their work is occurring in the open-air project as well, and looking at how that collides with the work being done on Dundas Street. So I think that was the nexus of that conversation. But again, I wasn’t directly involved in that conversation that was with the manager of CIR.

Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you, so I just want it to be clear to see how easy this can be, right? That we can come together and agree upon an area. It’s not gonna put lives at risk where the agencies would have agreed to that.

It’s not getting in the way of provincial health matters. It’s simply us taking control over what we can control and giving Londoners what they need and deserve, and what supports all of our objectives. We want the downtown to be viable. We want businesses and residents to flock downtown.

And the abuse of substance abuse and the open public drug use is a number one concern. Number one, and London Police Service has done their bit, and this is about how we can do our part to come alongside that and say not here. Just in this one small little area, not here, that’s what the motion is about. I’m hoping that we’ll have support, if not here at council, in making our policies and systems better, just a small tweak.

Thank you. Okay, I had council approval next. Thank you, so no doubt that we all know that. I’m not saying anything new, we do have these issues, and we do need to address them.

In terms of the harm reduction and such initiatives, there are cities in the world that it works for them, and they support it, and they go further, and there are some that it doesn’t, and they go the opposite way. It’s really interesting worldwide where it goes one way, and the other way, where it goes the other way. The issue I have is this, we do have London Police and London Cares, which London Cares is the primary outreach organization that does this initiative. Five or nine percent, they don’t do it, five or nine percent, all they have is Naloxone, and they don’t distribute it.

And I don’t see a reason, I think that the, and I said it a few times during the three and a half years, I don’t think that we have to do everything through motions. We just need to work together. And if we have London Police and London Cares already working on this, and they, by the way, just so you know, the Dandas is first, they are talking about the other two areas as well that are being discussed and kind of everything around it. I just don’t see, I prefer to work with the teams, with the organizations, let’s work faster, let’s get it done, let’s address it, that’s my issue.

So if it does come to the council, I will not be supporting it because I want this to be driven by police and the organizations, and I believe it’s gonna be more successful and more faster addressing these issues. And the other thing is also involved in the enforcement. I really think that if we look at this, and if we are gonna go through the city first, if we are gonna pass, if we are gonna pass this, then the next step is gonna be enforcement, how are we gonna enforce it, et cetera, et cetera. I really think that police and London Cares, let’s leave it where they come up with, let’s see where they come back with, and I believe it’s gonna be more efficient, more effective and faster.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Perville, you take the chair? I have the chair and I recognize Councilor Raman. Thank you, and through the presiding officer, I wanted to say first, thank you to Dr.

Summers for being here today, we really appreciate having you on the line and the care that which you’ve provided answers to us today. I also wanna thank, there’s been a number of engagements I’ve had, I’ve had some engagements with the London police as well as London Cares, just on this matter as well. What I find very helpful and so you staff, sorry I should say, thank you for all the information. It’s good from the perspective of getting more information and just having more background.

What I did appreciate was how quickly London police had been able to, in partnership with London Cares, been operationalizing other changes as needed throughout. And to me this is very similar to some of the initiatives that London police are taking on around even things like officers on buses. These are things that they’re able to move and operationalize before even we can bring a motion and address it. So this is to me is very similar.

So I thank the Councillor for providing all Councillors that provided communication on this matter and the delegation. I think it’s important that we are having these conversations at committee. It may not be that every motion is moved forward but the actions and the conversations are just as important and I’m glad to hear that this is already starting to see some changes and impacts in the areas that were outlined in the letter as well. With that I will thank you for the comments and returning to church to you.

Thank you and I will look for any final speakers on this item, seeing none online, seeing none in chambers, we’ll open the vote. The vote is yes to receive. Seeing the vote, the motion carries six to zero. Okay, thank you committee.

I’m in your hands for a break at this time. I’m looking for someone who moved motion on a time for a break as many are in need of one. Councillor Trosto. And no.

Councillor Trosto’s moved 10 minutes. Councillor Hopkins is seconded. All in favor by hand. Any opposed?

Motion carries. For those in the gallery, we are just breaking for 10 minutes. We will be back to hear from you at that time and thanks for your patience. Okay, I will look to call us back to order.

I’m looking for committee to consider a change of order for the items that are under deferred matters and additional business so that we can deal with 5.2 first as we have a delegation for that item and then we can deal with 5.1. So I’m looking for a mover and seconder to move that item. Those items, Councillor Pribble. Chair, I’d have to call a point of order for this one actually and it’s just procedurally going through the procedure by-law.

And I’m looking at part four of committee section 391 of the deferred matters additional business item. And it says it includes matters or deferred matters list or other business of an emergent nature that must be dealt with before the next regular meeting of a standing committee. So I just wanted to know if this is on, both of the items actually are on the deferred matters list or what would be the reasoning of the emergent nature to hear them today. Thank you.

So you’re asking me as the writer of the motion? Okay, thank you. I will turn the chair over to Councillor Pribble so that I may answer those questions. I have the chair and I recognize Councillor Arman.

Thank you and through you. So item 5.1, the reason that I brought this item forward was as we were dealing with an item at council and this item was directly connected to the item that we dealt with at council. So I was trying to move it forward as a remedy to follow up on that discussion. 5.2 again was an item that came through committee and council.

So after those discussions happened, I was looking to sequentially move those items forward following those matters. And as you’ll see, there was also additional communication submitted from Councillor Stevenson on a matter that I would say residents in that building are also raising for consideration, which is why the delegation’s in front of us as well. Councillor Pribble. Thank you for your comments and I’m returning the chair to you.

Sorry, I think because the Councillor’s calling point of order on motions of which I’ve submitted, I’m going to ask that you deal with the item. I’m dealing with the item. Can I challenge the chair on that? Sorry?

I made the decision yet. Based on the comments I heard from Councillor Roman, my decision is that the items on the defer matter states as they are and her explanation in terms of the last meeting follow up from the last meeting agenda. Thank you. Can I challenge you now?

So I would challenge because section 39 for an emergent motion speaks to, we need to hear this before the next council because it will cause irreparable harm or loss to the corporation. So I need to know just to be procedurally in order ‘cause I do want to keep things as procedurally in order as possible. And we did speak to that earlier today in this committee meeting. I haven’t heard how hearing these motions today would be need to be heard or discussed because there isn’t a potential irreparable harm or loss to the corporation.

Okay, Councillor, if I can ask you to make the motion and based on the motion, I will decide if I stand and the committee will decide by the vote. If you can please put forward a motion, thank you. Just to clarify a motion to challenge the chair. This to appeal the ruling of the chair.

And just for your information, Councillor, if you are appealing, you will need a seconder. I’d like to ask the members of the committee if there is a seconder. I don’t see a seconder, so my decision stands. Okay, thank you.

We’re back to the change of order at this time. Sorry, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and I’m returning the chair to Councillor Ramen. Thank you, I have the chair, and sorry.

Okay, so we are entertaining the possibility of a change of order, and it was again to hear a delegation request. So if anyone would like to move that change of order, I have Councillor Pribble and Councillor Trossa. Thank you, and we will prepare that for a vote. It is open.

Posing the vote, the motion carries four to zero with one abstain. Okay, thank you. I am looking to committee for a motion to hear the delegation request from Ms. Phoenix.

Councillor Trossa, Councillor Pribble. This is on item 5.2, the community housing financial challenges. Thank you, that is open to vote. Councillors Ferrera and Trossa.

Yes. Councillor Ferrera. Cara, with all due respect, I don’t want to vote because this is out of work. Councillor Ferrera, this is a vote right now.

It’s not a debate. One more call for Councillor Ferrera. Councillor Ferrera, the system won’t allow me to close the vote without a Councillor voting, so I’ll have to mark you absent. Posing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, Ms. Phoenix. Thank you for joining us. You’ve been very patient.

Please go ahead, you have five minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name’s Jody Phoenix and I’m currently the president of the Board of Directors at Toe Puddle Housing Cooperative. Many of you in the room know me and have worked with me in the past.

I’ve been a long-term resident of Toe Puddle for approximately 11 years. Most recently, I’m sure we’ve all seen the news story of last Friday, Thursday or Friday. I had a whole five minutes’ worth of something I prepared to say, but recent actions or again in actions of Council has diverted my attention. If anybody in this room does not feel the urgency of this issue, I don’t know what it is we can do to help you.

We house 134 units of highly vulnerable low-income people and we’ve been given no assistance from the City of London via their staff. Nobody at Council stood up and asked questions. Nobody did the footwork to find out what I was gonna talk about today. We have tried as a Board of Directors to work in partnership with the City of London through your staff on many occasions for funding, for solutions, for help, for resources and we have received nothing but crickets.

There was a change in housing division staff that we weren’t even made aware of. As a matter of fact, the last meeting that we had, who was somebody who’s not even with a department anymore, we were told that there was gonna be a security audit. It was 16 months ago, the city staff hasn’t followed up. The most recent meeting with three city staffs, it took me six weeks to coordinate because they were unwilling to meet on-site with us.

They were unwilling to meet on-site. And when they did meet on-site, we were told they had a limited 30 minutes. They were gonna talk and we were gonna listen. That is not a partnership.

That is not what the city manager stood up and told Council about last week, that we work closely to form partnerships, to see what resources we can extend that’s not happened. And it hasn’t happened at total total for 10 years. Total total has been the victim of many decisions by Council, the victim. Most recently, we’ve been the victim of the housing list because those people aren’t vetted.

And Council for some reason wants to pat themselves on their back when they have somebody who’s homeless. You’re not doing them or the community, any services or any favors. Somebody who is suffering deeply from mental health and addiction issues, they need help. They need to be made well.

I just heard the Councillor speak to the Dr. Summers being that exact same thing. But we wanna take somebody off the street and the act of throws of addiction and the act of throws of a mental health crisis, put them behind a closed door at toll puddle and say we’ve done our job. Toberda doesn’t have the resources to help that person.

As I said last week, we are a piece of the puzzle. We’re not the first step. Council has done nothing to help those people but to try to house them. What resources do they have at toll puddle?

They have zero. So what happens is they rely on the support systems they have from the street because government at all levels, it’s not just you guys, it’s all levels. The resources they have on the street, the support they have on the street, they invite them into their homes. And then we have to deal with it because council through staff isn’t giving us any resources.

We now have 24/7 security, 24/7 security. I was told by a previous housing division manager that the city was doing a security audit and that there would be money attached to that. As I said, that was about 16 to 18 years a month ago. We are in an operational deficit.

If we don’t get help now, it is going to be an urgent matter that the city has to deal with. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you for your feedback. And I will hand the chair to council approval.

Thank you and I have the chair and I recognize councilor Raman. Thank you, councilor, I, sorry, I failed to mention to you that staff did have an update for us before we go to my communication. Okay, so before I go to the councilor Raman, I’m going to the staff for the update, please. Through the presiding officer.

So I did prepare a memo with Matt Felberg, our director on just providing a little bit of information on our role as a service manager versus the housing provider and operating agreements. This is just because we’re used to dealing with a lot of different matters with LMCH or some of the other city buildings like Sylvan Thompson or baseline. These providers are inherently different. So the city doesn’t have an ownership stake.

We have a role through the Housing Services Act and those tools that we have are mostly financial related. So we very much are there to be able to support the various housing providers and that requires financial controls as well to ensure that we’re spending the money appropriately. So say, for example, like in the last, since 2022, we’ve provided about $1.2 million in capital and additional funding over and above our operational funding to topal this since that time. And all of these things, they require us to have documentation, make sure we have quotes, receipts, signed funding agreements, all those types of things.

So we very much, that’s our role is just being able to provide this financial piece. And of course, anything else that’s listed under the act. So also noted in my memo is we are bringing forward a report in April that’s gonna provide more detail and background of the topal housing co-op. And we very much do, we will be continuing to work with all of our housing providers and make sure that we both provide them the financial amounts that they deserve and also ensure that they’re meeting those provincial operating agreements as well.

So thank you very much. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mr. Madras for your update.

And I’m gonna go back to Council Raman. Thank you and through you. So I did prepare a letter and my letter was related to the previous report that we had, but also just in consideration to use some of the additional concerns that we’re hearing on community housing financial challenges, noting that we did receive a memo saying that a report would be coming forward with topal, topal, sorry. Specifically in April.

So this report was more of a general look at Appendix B of the previous report that we had received, noting that approximately 75% of housing providers are able to fill their vacancies, but we had this 25% where there was this gap. So the motion reads that the civic administration be directed to report back to future meaning of the community protective services committee with a summary of the number of units currently vacant within the community housing system in the service manager area and collect additional data from community housing providers and provide an analysis of the key factors contributing to the vacancies. That’s my motion. Thank you, Council Raman.

And I’m looking if there is a seconder for this motion. I will second. Council Raman, if you would like to start speaking about your motion. Thank you.

I will have to speak to it. So again, noting in the report that we are experiencing higher vacancies losses and that these losses mean that individuals, like families and individuals in the community are not able to then occupy these units and therefore they sit vacant and that downstream effect has impacts on housing in general, but also looking at the fact that there are needs for repairs, capital improvements and wanting to understand better that turnaround and turnover timeline as well as any administrative processes that are involved. So this report is to give us more in-depth answers on those matters. Also again, noting that on the other issue we are receiving communication in April with that follow-up report.

Thank you, Council Raman. I don’t have currently anyone on it. Council Hopkins, please go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. So I really do think some clarification is needed. I was getting very confused at the beginning because we did receive a memo regarding top huddle that recommendation will be coming to CAPS, April 13th. And I wanted to try to understand how this motion works and I appreciate the Council coming forward and explaining the concerns around the higher vacancies.

So we’re going to be here asking for another report back and maybe through you just to staff. And we do not have a timeline, but I’m trying to understand what this report back will look like. Is it a huge undertaking? I think is what I need to know first of all.

Thank you, Councilor. I’m going through the staff in terms of the report and timeline. Through the Presiding Officer, it is a substantial amount of work. It’s information that we haven’t collected in the past, but I think it would be very valuable to collect, to be able to have that understanding as far as why these vacancies are occurring and some of the roadblocks be able to address those vacancies.

So it’s likely going to be at least probably Q3 of this year because it’ll take a lot of work. We’ve got our 65 providers and we’ll have to be collecting a lot of information from them to just have that understanding and we want to give them a little bit of time to collect it to be able to provide it to us as well. So Q3 is what we’re projecting. Thank you, Councilor.

Sounds good to me. Thank you. Councilor Truso, go ahead. I’d like to make a motion.

And I would like to move the text of the motion that Councilor Stevenson circulated to us earlier. And I’m amending the motion on the floor to add that to it. I don’t think it’s, well, I shouldn’t argue, but I should just say I’d like to get that. And if there’s a reason why we need to break this up and maybe have part of it come later to give staff more time, that’s okay, but the top part of this I really need to have dealt with right away.

Thank you, Councilor, right now it’s with the clerk who are looking at the motion, they are searching right now for that motion. There’s adding officer, I’ll second that. Sorry, Councilor, can you repeat it? I will second the motion that Councilor Truso has moved for Councilor Stevenson.

Okay, I was advised by the clerk that I want to see it first because the two motions, they are different. They are different, so I’m going to read both of them now and I will make the decision if I believe that it will be an amendment to it or not. Just thank you all for your patience. I was comparing right now with the clerk to both motions and I made the decisions that they are not the same.

The one that’s in front of us, it’s addressing the number of units and the data analysis contributing to these units. And the one Councilor Truso is, it is different. So my decision is that it’s not the same and my decision is to deal with the motion that’s in front of us first. Excuse me, any other speakers to Councilor Ferra?

So I saw this motion out of order because it is and there’s no urgency to the nature. Now, I understand what the delegates are saying, but this motion, the motion that’s on the floor is for a report back. The motion that Councilor Truso and I just seconded is specifically for you. The Presiding Officer just deemed that out of order.

You are looking for support. I will give as much support as I can. I have not had any reach out from this housing cooperative, but every time I do, I help as much as I can. I would like to see staff and I would like to see Council do everything we can to support housing providers as much as possible.

That’s what I do all the time. The reason I deemed a report back out of order is because it’s gonna take months for it to come back. We are on the same page here. Point of order.

What is a point of order? Thank you. Councilor is referring to the motion being deemed out of order, but you as a chair have not deemed it out of order. Thank you, Councilor.

And I stand behind it as it is, as it is, to what is in front of us, the motion that was proposed by Councilor Truso is not in order. Can I continue? Thank you for your comments, Councilor Farira. You can continue, but to the motion that’s in front of us currently.

Thank you. The motion in front of us that’s before us is for a report back. To be procedurally in order for it to be heard on an added item, it has to have or show irreparable harm to the corporation specifically. We deviate from our rules and our procedures a lot.

And because of that, we run into issues. And this is why I think we need to get— It’s on the floor in front of us right now. Please talk to that. What’s the point of order?

I am speaking to what’s on the floor. But if I don’t wanna be heard by the committee, then that’s fine. Councilor, we dealt with the point of order. You can continue with your comments towards the motion that’s in front of us.

Presiding officer, with all due respect, I was continuing with my comments. Please go ahead. You didn’t lose any time. The motion is out of order.

But if I sit here, I am not able to abstain. I can only vote negative because I will be deemed as absent. I will support the motion. It is not urgent, but I will support it if we need to get this on the floor.

But I have trouble deviating from our policies and our procedure again and again and again. It gets us into trouble. Councilor Truss, I’ll go ahead. This is a procedural question through the chair, to the chair or the clerk or solicitor or housing staff.

If I feel that the situation at toll puddle is currently an emergency, how would I make that finding at this meeting so we could proceed with at least the toll puddle, part of it because based on what I understand and my knowledge of that building, I believe that there is a substantial emergency in terms of the condition of the building, particularly at toll puddle. And I’d like some guidance in terms of how I could move that urgency forward. And today I’m just talking about toll puddle. I’m not even talking about it.

And so apparently we are speaking only through a motion that’s on the floor. Any additional comments you can certainly bring back to the Council on March 31st. In that case, I’ll move an amendment to the motion on the floor. To include language that says the committee is concerned that the current conditions, as we understand them, constitute a threat to the health and safety, toll puddle and surrounding residents.

And we request this matter with respect to toll puddle proceed as an emergency matter this time, right? So Council trust out the comments and to your amendment, it has to do with the motion that is not in front of us. And that’s the one that you’re speaking with that was potentially another motion. But the other motion is not currently in front of us.

So I will ask you, if you look at the current motion that’s in front of us, if you have any comments or amendments, but those amendments would have to be, again, to the points that are there in terms of the units, number of units in terms of the data analysis. So if you can think about if there’s anything you wanna change, amend to the one that’s currently in front of us. Yes, but I feel I stated that in the motion that I just put forward with the parent, which apparently is out of order. Did you just roll my motion, my amendment out of order?

In which case, I’d like to make a motion to over roll the chair. Yes, there’s a seconder, Councillor Ferriero. Okay, the clerk is ready. So if you vote yes, you are agreeing with my decision.

If you do not agree with my decision, you won’t know. Councillor Ferriero. Are you calling the vote? I didn’t hear everyone for or against by vote nay.

I’m using the vote, the motion fails two to three. Okay, based on this vote, Councillor Trussa, please go ahead with yours. Put the motion on the floor. I concern in the reason why.

Thank you, Councillor. So currently the clerk has the committee is concerned that the current conditions constitute a threat to the health and safety, to the residents, and tall puddle, and that we request, and that’s all we have so far. So if you can think about the rest of what you would like to move, would you like me to read it again or? And we request that the matter of treating the deficiencies that tall puddle to be an emergency, which would warrant immediate action, and further, what is already been provided in parts B and C of the motion that Councillor Stevenson circulated previously, which I could read, but I think we already had that.

And I’ll second that. Thank you, both. Clerk is working with it right now. Okay, thank you all for your patience.

Based on the proposed motion from Councillor Trussa, this is an amendment to the originally proposed motion by Councillor Raman, and stated by Councillor Trussa, that the motion be amended to add a new part that reads as follows. The committee is concerned that the current conditions constitute a threat to the health and safety, to the residents at tall puddle, and request, that the matter of treating the deficiencies to be an emergency, which would warrant immediate action, and that the following actions be taken. I, the civic administration, be directed to immediately advance the funds and approvals necessary for 2526 GOCHI project, security system, fire monitoring system for tall puddle, housing cooperative, as outlined in Appendix G, of the FAB 1726 CPSC 2.5, affordable and community housing update, as approved projects, and without any conditions regarding a lien payment. I, I, the civic administration, be directed to report back on the lien situation regarding the tall puddle housing cop, including the amount, any concerns regarding the amount, supports to be offered, and timeline to April 13, 26 CPSC.

Is that accurate, Councillor Trussa? Yes, it is. Okay, can I have a seconder for this motion? Councillor Ferriero?

Councillor Trussa, would you like to speak to it first? I need to reiterate what I said before about the emergency conditions. And I should express another concern, too, and that is now that this is known to members of the public. I, I fear that the bad condition there right now without these security improvements could lead to more criminal activity on the premises, either through people breaking into the property or being invited in in an unauthorized way.

And I guess I would, I would raise a question to risk management or the solicitor’s office in terms of what type of legal liability we’re, we’re looking at is, is there something dire or unusual about this? Thank you, Councillor, and I’m going to stop the chair. I just wanted to make sure that we’re all on the same page with this ‘cause there seems to be a better confusion. So the, the $91,000 that’s already approved, there’s, there’s no limitations on us providing that, that funding.

There needs to be a request for the funding. We haven’t, we’ve been told that, that they do not at this point require the funding for the lien. That was the last meeting that was held. So we need a request and then there’s, there’s a, through the funding that we get from the, from the province, there’s requirements for an agreement to be signed, those types of pieces.

But we’re a little bit unclear what the challenge is, as far as actually being able to do that. But the money’s available, it’s already been committed. So we’re ready to proceed with providing that funding as soon as all of those steps take place. Thank you, Councillor.

Thank you, that’s helpful in which case, I’ll withdraw my request to the solicitor and risk management because it doesn’t seem as if that’s necessary. Now, would it be, would it be possible to try to wrap this up before the council meeting? Staff. Through the chair, I don’t see that there’s any barriers to doing that.

So I will task my team with just ensuring that if there needs to be like, there’s something happening with the telephone game here between all the different pieces, but all the information that I have says that we’re prepared to be able to provide the funding as soon as possible. And based on that representation through the chair. Councillor, please go ahead. Sorry, through the, through the chair and I’ll slow down.

In that case, based on that representation, I don’t believe I need to prepare any further amendments. And I think we’ve reached some type of resolution to this at least for now. And I wanna hear from the other Councillors ‘cause I’m talking too much. I think you have first, Councillor Ferra and then Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you. And this is a, this is a motion that is urgent. And this is a motion that is specific to what’s being asked for by the delegates. A report back wouldn’t do that.

And this is, and it’s, it is procedurally still out of order, but for me to tip and break procedure, I need something that actually will bring resolve to people. Point of order, Councillor Truss, I go ahead. I don’t think it’s procedurally out of order because we overruled the ruling of the chair and this is on the floor now. I agree with Councillor Truss or Councillor Ferra.

Please, go ahead. He’s correct. I forgot about the ruling of the chair. So, but this is something that would carry me over.

This is something that is urgent. This is something that will bring direct benefit. Despite the heat that I was getting, I wanna see actual movement that helps actual people in real ways. And this, that was my main concern.

This does that. So, this is why I’ll support that. Staff have gotten the direction that they need. And I’m hoping that we can have as quick, as quick of a resolve as possible with the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. My first question is, has this amendment been removed? I heard from the mover that he was going to withdraw the amendment.

The amendment currently is still on the floor. So, it was not, it was not pulled out. Councillor Truss, I didn’t ask to pull it out. He just, he was just making a common statement after the 91,000 that no other necessary additional amendments need to be done.

But I will go back to Councillor Truss so if he can confirm what I said or if there’s anything else he would like to add. Yes, that’s correct. And what I would do was what I said about wanting to ask some questions to risk management and the legal staff. And I said that’s not necessary in light of what’s been said by staff.

Thank you for that clarification. Very much, I will not be supporting this amendment for a number of reasons. We heard there is funding available right away. You need as a request from toll puddle to get that funding.

The next CAHPS meeting is April the 13th. So any report back will happen along with the report and recommendation coming from staff. I’m satisfied with that and will not support the amendment. Gives you looking for other speakers.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and thank you to my colleagues for moving and seconding this amendment. I just want to give you a little bit of history here. In that toll puddle reached out to me in December, invited me to come and hear the concerns that they had in their building.

Get a tour and see how terrible it was. They told me at the time that they were likely six months away from bankruptcy, okay? I didn’t do anything about it, right? Because civic administration are on it and I was listening to them.

I did but I could, I didn’t put it on social media. I didn’t go to the news. I didn’t make a big deal out of it. I wait, but February 17th comes a community and housing update that does not address the concerns that I heard specifically, right?

We’re now three months now. They’re saying they don’t have enough money to last the end of the month. On top of that, that report was date of February 17th. There was an appendix in there that listed the projects that were approved.

But two days later, there’s a meeting at toll puddle with civic administration and there’s an email that I get that says that it’s those two, the fire and the security, which they desperately need, along with the payment of a construction lien that they are fighting, that they don’t want paid. And what I was told was that it was a take it or leave it. It’s all three or nothing. And the email that I got is civic administration saying sorry to hear that you’ve said no to the assistance that we were looking to provide you.

That is what I’ve been trying to get clarity on. I received an appendix that I said, okay, great. They’re getting the funding for their fire and their security. But then I find out from them, no, they were told that they felt that they were being held hostage around the payment on the lien.

So I want to separate that. And I want to ensure that they get their security and their fire and the lien gets to be a separate issue that I’m trying not to get into and asking for a report at a later date. But since raising these concerns, there’s been a bylaw review of the building, which I’m very grateful for, okay? And I’m grateful for the staff memo with all of the information.

This is important. It was a fast turnaround. I really appreciate it. But that bylaw review lists all kinds of deficiencies that need to be dealt with and that is a whole nother conversation in itself around what we’re doing in terms of who we placed in that building and then the expectations we placed on the building, which are just totally mismatched in my opinion.

Today, what I would like to do is just simply ask for this committee’s support to support the amendment that was moved and seconded, that reiterates what staff has already agreed they’re gonna do, to just reassure this board who is very stressed out and running out of money as we speak, to just reassure them that they will get the security and the fire, that the lien will be left for another day. I don’t, I’m asking the committee to support it. Staff have said they don’t have an issue with it. It provides clarity to some really vulnerable people who need clarity right now.

I don’t need to get into the details of what’s happened. Just provide the clarity today that this will, they will get what they absolutely need and we will get a report back in April, which again is a super fast turnaround time and I really appreciate it. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Ramen, please go ahead.

Thank you and through you. So I just want to go back to the language that’s in the as amended section. So part I, just for clarification because I’m hearing some conflicting information, I just want to be clear that we think that we can reach an agreement with the board using the language that’s here and because this doesn’t go to council until the end of the month, that we aren’t actually creating a limitation as to your ability to negotiate in the meantime on something that seems very close already. That’s my concern with supporting this right now.

So I’m asking you through you to staff too for that clarification. Thank you, Councillor, going through the staff, through the chair. So I’m thinking I put all the pieces together now ‘cause even for myself, it wasn’t clear ‘cause if the comment was related to being able to break it up, just confer with my team that we can do that. This doesn’t cause any kind of challenges with us trying to do that in the short term and I think I understand what the challenge was now.

I wasn’t aware that we were saying it was an all or nothing. So I think this is a very prudent approach and I’ve talked to my team to be able to move it forward in the short term, but this does not conflict or cause any challenges with us proceeding now and just reinforces what we’re gonna be doing. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you and through you.

So I’m happy to support it as an amendment to the original motion. And the other speakers. So if you allow me from the chair, I will, oh, sorry, I’m going back to the staff. Stop, please go ahead.

Sorry there. So the last sentence there indicates that the funds be provided without any conditions regarding a lean payment. That’s a requirement of the Construction Act. It’s also a requirement of the transfer payment agreement with the province for co-chief funding.

So we can’t comply with that direction. Okay, thank you, staff. I will go back. Sorry, my apologies.

Is this in relation to the Construction Lean or is this in relation to the 10% holdback that’s required under the Construction Act? I shall go back there, Councillor Trossa. It’s Construction Lean. I’m here in Construction Lean.

So does it change your reply or does your reply stand? No, I think that’s fine. Thank you. So thank you.

Just comments from the chair. I will be supporting what’s in front of us as well. I really thought actually that we had after the first motion, we had the opportunity to address the second motion. So thank you for bringing this forward and I will be supporting it.

Yes, this is the amendment that’s in front of us and I’m looking if there are any more speakers and if there aren’t, we are gonna go to the vote. Okay, let’s go to the vote, please. Closing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for the motion as amended.

Councillor Ferrer moving it and seconder. Councillor Trossa. Anyone to speak to it? Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.

Yes, so thank you for the support of the amendment. But I also had another piece that I thought was very similar to Councillor Ramans in terms of vacancies. Mine was around details on the financial insolvency risk of 43% of the housing providers and 25% of those whose future survival is at significant risk. And I just didn’t know if committee had missed that part or if there’s an unwillingness to add that to the motion but it would be my request.

I will be doing it at council and I heard quite clearly people don’t like to do committee work at council. So I would appreciate somebody adding that amendment to this so that in addition to the vacancy, we also get the other information that I was looking for. Okay, thank you, actually, before I go to the members of the committee, if they would like to move forward, can I have a feedback from the staff regarding this proposal from Councillor Stevenson, can I get your feedback? Point of order, can we do that?

Point of order is, there is an addition to the motion that’s not within the scope of the discussion and the motion on the floor. Can we go beyond the scope and ask these questions to the clerk or anybody? Staff, I still would like to go to, if you have any comments, if you don’t, they’ll proceed and then I’ll come back to you based on the result of the vote. I call the point of order presiding officer.

You have to hear the point of order when I call it before any further discussion is made. First time. Council, I heard your point of order. I’m just trying to go to the staff to get clarification.

That’s all. That’s 45 seconds ago, I’m going back to the staff, if you have any comments at this time, thank you. Through the chair, yeah, there’s no challenge at all, being able to provide that information, it would be this along the same time frame. We had brought for the annual report and happy to provide any further details, that might be helpful for Council’s consideration.

So I’m really under point of order, based on what I heard from the staff, I believe, or my decision is that Councillor Stevenson’s comments motion are in order. So nowadays after we heard the comments, I would like to go to the members of the committee, if anyone would like to move the motion as per request of Councillor Stevenson. Based on what staff just said, I would move that. So we have a mover and we have a seconder, Councillor Hopkins.

Okay, clerk is advising me that it has been updated in these scribes, so Councillor Trossa, if you can read through it. And if it’s actually both Councillor Trossa as a mover and seconder, Councillor Hopkins, if it’s accurate as per your comments. Number five, Councillors, if you can wait a couple minutes, clerk is right now removing the IV, if you can refresh now. So it has been updated by the clerk motion of five and currently X, and there is only three, one, two, three, I, I, I, and IV has been removed.

So if you can please confirm Councillor Trossa and Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I’m confirming this based on what staff said a few minutes ago, and I don’t think there’s anything in here that’s a problem with that. I mean, yes, I confirm that. Thank you and Councillor Hopkins.

Thank you, I see, I see a nod, and I would like this, anyone would like to speak to it, speaker’s list. I don’t see any, so we go to the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. I’m returning to the chair to Councillor Raman.

Okay, I’m looking for a new mover and second for the motion as amended. Councillor Hopkins and me. Okay, so we have the motion moved and seconded, looking for any final speakers on this item. Seeing none, we will open the vote.

Opposing the vote, the motion carries five to zero. Thank you, we are on to item 5.1. I’m returning the chair to Councillor Pribble so that I may move the motion. I have the chair and I’m recognizing Councillor Raman.

Thank you and through you. So I’d like to move the motion that’s contained in the letter I’ve submitted. The motion reads as follows that with respect to municipal compliance service council policy and the creation of a public rental license look up tool, the following actions be taken. A, the civic administration be directed to report back with proposed amendments to section 4.7 of municipal compliance service policy, including options that would permit the city of London to provide complaint status information where appropriate.

B, the civic administration be directed to report back with options for implementing a public rental license look up tool using a model similar to that of City of Brampton and C, the civic administration be directed to investigate placing compliance status updates in the property licensing listing available online. Thank you, Councillor. I’m looking for a seconder, Councillor Hopkins, going back to Councillor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

So what’s in front of us today came out of the discussion from our last conversation at CAPS and that took place at council around the desire for improved transparency for residents. Something I hear from residents in my area is that they are looking for more information at their fingertips. They’re looking for a way to understand when a request has been made in their neighborhood for a specific compliance issue. What has happened with that in terms of what those next steps are and what we can share.

And one of the things I’ve found challenging as a member of council is the limitations of the information that can be made publicly available. I do believe that we have an opportunity today to strengthen trust in the city’s enforcement processes to reduce the volume of service requests, seeking verification, which I get a lot myself even, as it relates to complaints. And secondly, I think that we have a way to make our system more efficient in providing information or residents. So just to give you an example, I’ve had residents call and they say, is this place a rental?

And in the past provided them the property lookup tool that is forward facing on our website, it’s quite a cumbersome tool to be able to look up whether or not there is a license. The zoning map tends to be where the information is actually found easily. And then you have to know what are the different colors of the dots that are on the map related to that address. So for me, that’s quite a challenging process to explain to a resident as to how to find this information readily available for them to then inform their actions.

But it’s also really important when you’re looking for a rental. When you’re looking for a rental property to understand and want to be compliant, to want to rent from somebody that has a rental license, I think is really important. And I think that just to clarify within this motion, this applies to units of smaller size. So this is units with one to four units in them versus a larger building.

And again, this is what I’m hearing from residents in a lot of my neighborhoods where we have rentals that are advertised on Facebook or elsewhere and they’re looking to find out whether or not these rentals are legal. And secondly, they’re looking to find out has there been complaints about the rentals? And so this is an opportunity for us to move this item forward and have staff report back. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. The reason I second to this, I know we’re directing it back to get a report back, but I do think we can do a better job when it comes to streamlining. I don’t think we have to get into the weeds.

I have concerns there when we try to create more problems than are necessary. But how can we do a better job streamlining our system and maybe communicating to residents, tenants, landlords on opportunities for them, not for me as the Councillor, but for them to look into things with having regard to this sensitivity of a bylaw enforcement and putting out too much information. So I think we have an opportunity to again, maybe streamline it a little bit. So I’ll second this.

Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Ferreira, go ahead. Thank you, presiding officer. I don’t want to sound annoying, but this motion I find out of order as well. I would like to see if we can get a take on, if this item is within, within under the additional business and deferred matters, if it’s on the deferred matters, listen, if not, if I can hear how, without hearing this before the next council meeting, it will cause irreparable harm to the corporation.

Okay, thank you, Councillor. I’m gonna consult with the clerk. Okay, I will go to Councillor Ramen, if you can state her reasoning. Thank you and through you.

So I did, when this item was brought up just beforehand on all of section five, but I will state it again, that this item was tied to the previous agenda. And I have the procedure bylaw in front of me. 339.1 does not pertain to anything that causes irreparable harm to the corporation. I’m not sure where that language came from.

It might be from not the standing committee portion of the bylaw, I’m just seeking further, I actually am not seeking clarification, but that’s just what I read. That’s why this is in front of us today. Thank you, Councillor, for the explanation of your reasoning. I’m gonna go back to Councillor Ferreira.

I’ll go to the clerk on this one then, because I do believe that it has to have an emergent nature within the language there of section 39.1. And I wanted to know how that emergent nature ties with the next council direction on an emergent matter. Thank you, Councillor. I’ll go to the clerk.

Thank you, through the presiding officer section 39.1 of the council procedure bylaw states that items to be dealt with under this section shall include matters contained in the deferred matters list or any other business of an emergent nature. Emergent nature is defined in our council procedure bylaw in the definition sections, but it’s not defined in this specific section itself of the council procedure bylaw. Councillor. And under the council section of an emergent nature, what is considered as an emergent nature on the council section at this part of the bylaw points of the council section?

Point of order. Go ahead, Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and through you presiding officer, I do believe that you ruled on the entire section of part five when it was originally dealt with on whether or not these items were deferred at matters of our additional business. Thank you, Councillor, for the reminder.

And I do agree that I’ve already ruled on this as both point five point one and five point two stand under the deferred matter and we’ll be dealing with them today. Point of order on that, is that correct? If there is a ruling, it’s on the entire section regardless of what item it is. Thank you, I will go to the clerk.

Thank you through the presiding officer. The point of order was made at stage five for the two items. Councillor. Okay.

Okay, fellow colleagues, it’s seven to six, so I need a motion to extend past six o’clock. Councillor ramen, seconder, Councillor Hopkins, can we vote by hand or are we gonna wait for the system? Okay. Councillor Frara.

I vote nay. Thank you. Opposing the vote, the motion fails three to two. So we have seven minutes and we have Councillor ramen.

She talked, we have him from us, her motion and the others, any speakers towards what’s in front of us? Any speakers currently? Councillor Trusser, go ahead. Okay, there was an e-scrap error and there’s gonna be a re-vote on the past six o’clock.

So if you can please refresh and the clerk is gonna, okay, the vote is open. Please vote and then this is for past six o’clock. Councillor Frara, second call for Councillor Frara. Marking him absent.

Motion carries three to one. Okay, Councillors, thank you, so VR. It’s approved to go beyond six o’clock and we have him from us, the motion brought up by Councillor ramen and I’m looking for speakers list. Councillor Trusser, go ahead.

Thank you and I wanna start by asking staff a question. Ms. Pfeffer, didn’t Council already send something that’s similar if not identical to A, to you, for your report back and aren’t you currently working on such a report? Thank you and going to the staff.

Thank you and through you presiding officer. We are currently working on a report back in relation to exploring potential amendments to that CPOL 410/168. There are some distinct differences in relation to that motion and the work we’re currently doing and what’s before us here. What I can say is that the initial motion or direction to report back in Q2 of 2026 would not be impacted by this additional work if committee were to direct us, so.

Thank you, Councillor. Well, through the chair, I must say I find it very confusing because I worked on that motion that went to you and as some of the staff members here know, this question of coming up with changing our protocols for how the city of London provides complaint status information where appropriate is something we’ve been talking about for quite a while and Council’s already taken action on this and I just think at this point in the Council term, especially given some of the other demands that were placing on staff, I want to avoid duplicative requests and from my point of view, I don’t see anything that’s being added in A that you’re not already doing. So I’m gonna ask that A be called separately and I’m gonna vote no on A, not because I don’t believe that we should do this, but I believe we’re already doing this. Now having said that, we really need to do this, which sort of, but I have confidence that staff is working on and is gonna give us a report back and I would like to better under, I’ll change my position on this.

If I could better understand what the section A that’s in front of us adds to what you’re already working on ‘cause I don’t understand it and I don’t see it. Thank you, Councilor. I’m gonna go back to the staff as Council Troso ended with a question. If you can please explain why the A would be different in addition to what was submitted last year, the request.

Thank you and through you presiding officers. So we’ll be looking at some IT improvements potentially, which will require collaboration with IT to determine an exact scope and timeline with that in addition to potential costs and the specific language in relation to the residential rental unit licensing was not a part of the previous motion. In addition to the specific direction to review the city of Brampton public licensing system. Thank you, Councilor.

But the direction that you have through the chair as I understand it is that you are also looking at the protocols that we use to amend and potentially replace the notice that that complainants receive after they file something on service London or with enforcement, which has caused a lot of consternation and upset on the part of residents, which is to the extent of, thank you for your complaint. We may not get back to you for purposes of privacy and the independence of the investigation. And that’s what we asked you to look at, which is, I think, pretty broad. And it doesn’t matter with, do we need, was that just the property standard?

So if we also want it to be as to licensing problems, we could just say with respect to licensing only. I mean, I really want to avoid duplicate requests to you because it’s sort of like we never did that. And I have a real problem with that ‘cause some of us really worked hard on that. And it’s sort of like it just isn’t there.

And I just feel bad about this motion. So I will go to the staff, but I do just from the chair, I do want to make a comment because we did work on it together as Council Trust. So I don’t see from the A, I see very much similarity as well, but if you could please clarify that if A stays, if it brings additional value to the ones that we have passed already last year, thank you. Thank you, and through you, presiding officer, I do believe it brings additional value.

That will be documented or outlined in the report that’s to come, but again, as I reiterated earlier, it won’t impact the timeline for return in relation to reporting. Thank you very much. And the next question was timeline and you were the answer to thank you. Council Trust, do you have any additional comments, questions?

No, no, I don’t. And based on what was just represented by staff, I will support this ‘cause I believe in the concept, but I just, I don’t know, I’ll just leave it at that. Thank you, Council Trust, any other comments? No, thank you.

I will support it as well based on the answers. Thank you very much. Let’s go through it all together. Councillor Trosto, closing the vote, the motion carries four to zero.

Thank you, I’m returning to the chair to Councillor Raman. Thank you, the last item on the agenda is adjournment. I will look for a motion to adjourn. Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Pripple, thank you by hand, all in favor, motion carries.

Thanks everyone, have a great night.