- Okay, thank you, please be seated.
Welcome to the seventh meeting of municipal
council
for this session.
I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement.
We acknowledge that we are gathered today
on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak,
Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak and Adawandron peoples
.
We honor respect the history, languages and
culture
of the diverse indigenous people
who call this territory home.
We acknowledge all of the treaties
that are specific to this area.
The two-row Wampum Belt Treaty
of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy,
Silver Covenant Chain,
Beaver Hunting Grounds Treaty of the Haudenosaun
ee Nanfant Treaty of 1701, McKee Treaty of 1790,
the London Township Treaty of 1796, here on track
treaty of 1827 with the Anishnabek,
and the Dish with One Spoon Covenant Wampum of
the Anishnabek and Haudenosaunee.
The three indigenous nations that are neighbors
to London are the Chippewaas of the Thames
First Nation, Oneida Nation of the Thames, and
the Muncie Delaware Nation who all continue
to live as sovereign nations with individual and
unique languages, cultures, and customs.
The London is also committed to making every
effort to provide alternate formats and
communication
supports for meetings upon request. To make a
request specific to this meeting you can contact
council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489
extension 2425. And with that it brings us to our
national anthem. Sarah Weave is a core member of
London Symphonia's violin section. As an active
freelance violinist. She has recorded on Juno-nom
inated CDs with both the
National Youth Orchestra and the children's group
Splash and Boots, which
I have seen many times, having four kids. While
not performing, she is an active
teacher, instructing both piano and violin at all
levels. Please rise and join me
welcoming Sarah, who will now perform the
National Anthem for us. We're a turn
ourselves to item one, which is disclosures of
pain or interest. I'll look
for any disclosures the colleagues might have.
Seeing none, then we're on to recognitions.
I'm gonna start with Councillor Hopkins.
- Thank you, your worship and members of council.
I would like to briefly acknowledge
International Fallissimia Day,
which will be observed on May the 8th.
This day is an important opportunity
to raise awareness of Fallissimia.
It's a serious, inherited blood disorder
that affects individuals and families in our
community
and around the world.
It also recognizes the strength of those living
with the condition as well as the caregivers,
healthcare professionals and advocates who
support them.
I wanna thank members of our local community
who have worked to bring greater awareness to
this issue
and to highlight the importance of access to care
,
treatment and public understanding.
I'm joined here up in the gallery, Mr. Carlos Zaz
uta,
who is a board member of the Falissimia
Foundation
of Canada and is also a resident in Lambeth.
Thank you for being here.
I'm also pleased that City Hall will be read
on May 8th in recognition of International Faliss
imia Day,
supporting everyone that is afflicted with this
disease.
Thank you.
- Great, thank you.
I will do the next recognition.
So just give me more.
So I wanted to start today by recognizing
that the National Day of Morning is a day
where the nation remembers those who were workers
,
who were killed, or injured, or made ill on the
job.
I think we first have to recognize the family's
friends
and coworkers whose lives have been forever
changed
by workplace tragedies.
As a community in a city, we recognize that every
person
deserves to be safe on the job.
Everyone who leaves home at the start of a shift
deserves to come back home.
Each number or statistic on workplace injuries
and fatalities is a person.
A family and a story that must be told and
remembered.
You can't lose sight of the fact
that workplace injuries and fatalities are
preventable.
As mayor and council, we all have the privilege
of representing our city.
With that comes the responsibility
of being employers to thousands of people.
And it's vital that we work together with our
employees
to put them first, prioritizing safety,
healthy and respectful workplaces each and every
day.
many groups in the city who work to try to make
workplaces safer.
And we recognize their continued ongoing work,
whether they're organizing runs, raising money,
raising awareness,
or working to ensure that different organizations
have the tools and
training that they need to ensure that workplaces
are safe.
I want to recognize that there was a number of
ceremonies today and
a number of members of council were able to
attend them, or
recognize in their own ways.
And as a city and a council, we certainly paused
to remember all of those who were
and workplace strategy, but those who are also
injured
or did not get to return home in the same way
that they left.
I just wanted to end because even at the
corporation,
there have been lives who have been lost over the
years,
and so I just wanted to end with just a moment of
science
for all those who have lost their lives
due to workplace tragedies.
Please be seated, thank you.
- Good, Councillor Troso.
- Thank you very much, and I want to thank the
mayor
for raising that and recognizing it.
I was one of the people that was at one of the
ceremonies today.
And I just want to add that the special focus in
London
is looking at a very, very particular and
emerging
type of workplace injury, and that is
psychological damage.
And there were a number of people in attendance
who were able to speak, the particular instances
of that.
And it's also worthy to note that the Lifetime
Achievement
Award from the London Labor Council for this
issue
was awarded to Mr. Steve Holmes,
who many of you know, he's an LTC bus driver.
And Mr. Holmes recounted several instances
over his career of bus drivers being in harm's
way
with respect to these types of issues.
So again, thank you, thank you Mayor for raising
that.
And it certainly is an important occasion
and I was very honored to be able
to attend one of the ceremonies.
Thank you very much.
- Thanks, any other recognitions?
- Yeah, seeing none, a review of the conference
minor speaks to the room public.
We have none, that brings us to council in closed
session.
We have six items to go into closed session
before.
All the reasons are on the public agenda.
I'll look, Councilor Trostac, we just have your
microphone.
I'll look for a motion to move into camera
for those reasons.
Councillor Cuddy, seconded by Councillor McAll
ister.
Any discussion?
Okay, we'll open that for voting.
- Councillor Ferrera, Councillor Lewis.
- Councillor Lewis votes yes.
- Councillor Ferrera votes yes.
- No, thank you for closing the vote.
Motion carries 13-0.
Okay, we'll be moving to meeting room five
colleagues
for the public, you can stay here.
We'll return as soon as we're done.
Okay, thanks, please be seated.
Okay, we're back in public session.
I'll just note, Councilor Frank is online.
I believe both Councilor Hillier and Deputy Mayor
Lewis
will be joining us online potentially shortly.
We appreciate the public's patience
that was a little longer than I had anticipated,
but we'll proceed with the agenda now
and we'll move into confirmation
and signing of minutes of previous meetings.
We have the sixth meeting that was held
on March 31st, 2026.
I'll look for a mover of the minutes.
Councilor Hopkins, seconded by Councilor Van Mir
bergen.
Any discussion on the minutes?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Is it for eight votes, yes?
- No, did thank you.
Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- Sorry, I was just trying to get out of some
reading,
but the clerk says no.
So the first two items of the communication
and the petitions are actually expropriations.
So we're going to proceed with those two items
first,
and then every other item in the communications,
including all of the added,
have positions placed in the agenda.
They will be referred to those,
but we'll do that vote after we do 6.1 and 6.2
first.
And so, these are expropriations,
just for Council and the public's reminder.
What we have to do is,
we have to move into sitting as the approval
authority.
We then make a recommendation on the expropri
ations.
then move back out of the approval authority
into municipal council, and then we accept and
vote on
the recommendation made by the approval authority
.
So it's a little bit procedural,
but in a lot of reading on my part,
but we'll stick through it as pursuant
to the expropriations act.
All right, so I'll read the motion.
I'm gonna move in seconder.
Move that council convene as the approval
authority
pursuant to the provisions of the expropriation
act,
RSO 1990 section E26 is amended for the purpose
of considering communication number two
from the deputy city manager environmental and
infrastructure
with respect to the expropriation of lands
that may be required for the project
known as the amended environmental compliance
approval,
ECA for the expanded W-12A landfill.
I look for a mover and a second urge
to convene as the approval authority.
Moved by Councillor Vameerberg
and seconded by Councillor Cuddy.
We'll open that vote.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- Okay, now sitting as the approval of approving
authority,
the motion is that on the recommendation
of the Deputy City Manager in Environment and
Infrastructure
with the Concurrence, the Director of Climate
Change
and Environmental and Waste Management
on the advice of the Director of Realty Services
with regard to the expropriation of lands
that may be required to comply with condition 18
of the amended environmental compliance approval
ECA
for the expanded W12A landfill and that the
following actions
be taken in connection there with A.
They'd counsel the Corporation of City London
as the approval authority pursuant
to the expropriation act, RSO 1990, section E26,
as amended hereby approves the proposed expropri
ation
of lands as described in Schedule A,
as appended to the staff report dated April 28th,
2026,
in the city of London County of Middlesex.
It being noted that the reasons
for making the decision are as follows.
I, subject lands are required by the corporation
of the city of London for the administrative
title
cleanup associated with the expanded W12A
landfill.
B, subject to the approval of A,
a certificate of approval of B issued by the City
of Clerk
on behalf of the approving authority in the
prescribed form.
We'll look for a move and a seconder for that
motion.
Moved by Councillor Cuddy, Mr. Van Mierbergen.
Any discussion?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- All right, next, we will adjourn as the
approval authority.
So that the meeting of the approving authority be
adjourned
and that council reconvene a regular session
moved by Councillor Layman,
seconded by Councillor Hopkins.
We'll open that for voting.
- Motion carries 12 to zero.
- Okay, now sitting as municipal council,
we have a recommendation before us
from the approval authority, approving authority.
And it reads as follows that on the
recommendation
of the deputy city manager environment
and infrastructure with the concurrence
of the director of environment and waste
management
on the advice of the director of realty services
with respect to the expropriation of lands
that may be required to comply with condition 18,
the amended environmental compliance approval ECA
with the expanded W-12A landfill
and that the following actions be taken A,
proposed by-law as appended to the staff report
dated April 28th as appendix A,
being a by-law to expropriate lands in the city
of London
in the county of Middlesex,
the expanded W-12A landfill project B introduced
that municipal council at the meeting
to be held on April 28th, 2026.
And B, the civic administration be directed
to take all necessary steps to prepare a plan
or plans showing the expropriation of lands
and to register such plans or plans
in the appropriate registry or land titles office
pursuant to the expropriation act,
expropriations act to RSO 1990 section E26
within three months of the approval authority
granting approval of set expropriation.
And see that the mayor and the clerk be
authorized
to sign on behalf of the expropriating authority,
the plan or plans as signed by the Ontario Land
Surveyor
showing the expropriated lands.
indeed that the city clerk be authorized and
directed
to execute and serve notices of an expropriation
required
by the expropriations act, RSO 1990, section E26,
and such notices of possession that may be
required
to obtain possession of the expropriated lands.
Moved and seconded by Councillor Cuddy,
seconded by Councillor McAllister,
any discussion on that recommendation?
Okay, seeing none, we can open that for voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12-0.
And just for colleagues, the E-Scribe is just a
little slow,
so it just might take a moment for those votes to
pop up.
For sections 6.3 all the way through, 6.10.
We have various parts of the agenda
that those pieces of communications refer to.
I have a consolidated motion referring all of
those
components to all of those parts of the agenda.
I'll look for a mover for that.
Councilor Vameerberg and seconded by Councilor
Ferreira.
Any discussion on the referral of those items?
Okay, seeing them, we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- Okay, item seven, motions to which notice is
given.
There are none, courts.
We have report 8.1, which is the sixth report
of the Strategic and Priorities and Policy
Committee.
I'm gonna turn it over to the Vice Chair,
Councillor ramen, to present the report
on behalf of the Chair and Council.
- Thank you and through you.
I would like to present the sixth report of SPPC,
that meeting so far, I've been asked to pull a
few items
from the list, I've been asked to pull five, six,
and eight
and I will just look around to see if there are
any other
pull requests from my colleagues.
- Would anybody else like anything done with
separate?
Other than five, six, and eight?
Seeing none, you can prepare a motion.
- Thank you, I'd like to put items one to four,
item seven, nine to 12 on the floor.
- Okay, so those items are on the floor,
I look for any discussion on those items from
colleagues.
Okay, seeing none, we'll open those items for
voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.
- Go ahead, Councilor Roman.
- Thank you, I'd like to put item five on the
floor.
That's 2.1, the micromodular shelter's update.
- Okay, that item is on the floor.
I'll look for speakers on that particular item.
Go ahead, Councilor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
We did get a briefing note from staff
with a breakdown of the details on the costs,
both the monthly and the capital.
- But I shared it on Facebook and there's a lot
of feedback
that people were expecting more detail.
So I know, you know, our 13,500 a year in expense
accounts
are there item by item by item.
And this was $7 million in property tax money.
I just wondered through you to staff,
is it possible to get either publicly posted
or shared with council a more detailed breakdown
of the costs?
- Mr. Dickens.
- Through you, your worship,
well, I can't speak for the capital costs.
This is why we asked a committee,
the level of detail that committee wanted,
which was a high-level breakdown of the operating
costs
broken into the large chunks of where that
operating costs go.
So we are reflecting in that briefing note,
what we understood to be the direction from
council,
should council have different direction,
where in your hands.
- Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, I appreciate that.
It wasn't criticism we got what we asked for.
I'm just sharing what the public is telling me,
and I serve at the pleasure of them.
So they're asking, is it possible to get
a more detailed breakdown?
And so I'm just wondering if a motion is needed
or if that's something that could be provided
publicly?
- I think we had a motion last time.
So if, I mean, Saf gave us exactly what we asked
for.
So if, I would say if colleagues were looking
for something with a more detailed breakdown,
that would likely be a motion asking for it at
this point.
only because staff responded to the previous
direction
and provided the information as we asked for it.
- Okay, thank you, well, I'll leave it with my
colleagues
to see, because the thing is,
it would be around the wording of it too.
I understand that the monthly is a budget at this
point
and it might vary month to month.
So I guess it was looking for guidance regarding
how best to get the clarity that the public is
looking for.
It's something I can do offline as well
potentially bring through caps.
I also, I was watching some of the videos
around the new site and I believe there was
mention
that there might be TVs and stuff being purchased
and put into the shelters.
I just want to confirm if I heard that correctly.
- Sure, I'll go to staff to talk about
some of the components of the site.
Mr. Dickens, go ahead.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
There are TVs installed in the common trailers.
I believe those were donated items.
However, I will defer to Mr. Green,
who I believe is on the call.
- Mr. Green, go ahead.
Thanks for joining us virtually.
- Good morning, just testing to make sure
how do you video look good, okay.
- Yep, we can hear you good.
- Okay, thank you and through the chair, yes.
Mr. Dickens is correct.
There is two televisions in the recreational
trailers.
Many of the residents, not many.
Several of the residents do have televisions
in their own trailer, which they provided
themselves as well.
So yes, donation of two provided in the common
spaces
and there are several others in the cabin spaces.
- Councillor Stevenson.
- Okay, thank you.
So, you know, it's generally I'm hearing from the
public.
They're very pleased that 60 to 70 people
have found shelter.
We're hearing some good stories from in there.
It was supported unanimously at council.
I was, I only voted against the source of funding
.
But one of the things that is coming up with the
public
the cost because it is $4,800 per month per
shelter when the capital costs were all funded.
It is a little mind boggling to the public and to
those who are trying to survive on
their own on a low income on a pension or on ODSP
or OW.
I know I took a drive out to Hamilton about six
months after the Tiffany Barton shelter
site went up and I had an opportunity to speak
with someone who worked there.
asked if there were any challenges and one of the
things that they shared was
that no one even wanted to go look in an
apartment because they had maybe made
it too good to be there and you know although
that's kind of a success that
people are happy there it also maybe doesn't set
them up for the realities
of living on their own on ODSP or OW we have to
find your own transportation get
on the bus get to appointments figure out your
own food when when everything's
brought there, including medical care, pet care,
and food is all prepared and everything.
Again, I'm just sharing what I hear from the
public in terms of their concerns in terms
of what the conditions that they're facing and
they're living with.
You know, it was mentioned even by the mayor that
a lot of people don't have air conditioning.
So although we want this to be, well, people are
asking me what the transition plan is,
why sort of basic life skills, such as food
preparation,
stuff, is there a way to bring the cost down?
Is there a way to help set people up
for more independent living as they move forward,
knowing that this is just a shelter.
It's not a long-term stay.
So while I'm pleased that we've got another
opportunity
to help people who are living unsheltered,
I'm gonna be voting no to receiving the report.
And I just wanna explain why,
And it's because I'm hearing clearly from the
public
that there's not enough transparency around the
cost.
They want an itemized listing of costs and invo
ices.
Personally, I understand that.
And they also want to understand why the cost is
$4,800
per month and what the transition plans
are to ensure that we're treating people with the
care
and respect that they need, but also asking
for some working towards the independence at
least.
So thank you.
- Okay, I'll look for other speakers.
Councillor Troso.
- Well, thank you through the chair.
I'll certainly be voting to receive this report.
That's all we're being asked to do.
I know from time to time,
members of the public like to leave comments
on social media posts.
May I ask the clerk that we did we receive
anything
in the form of a added agenda item
or some request to actually put these concerns
in front of council with respect to this item
on the agenda.
- Councilor, if you're asking whether all the
communications
received are on the agenda,
all the things that were given to the clerk
are on the agenda if they were there on time.
I mean, the clerk will not,
I mean, she's not gonna comment on all those,
but there are things we've received are on the
public agenda
as per the prescribed timeframe.
- Okay, well, thank you very much.
I think it's really important for those of us on
council
who engage in social media,
to when people write in with concerns
that should be forwarded to council,
that they're reminded that posting something
on social media comment on Facebook, for example,
doesn't really get into our record
and they might want to take the additional step
of sending in an added communication item.
I know I always do that when somebody says
they want something on the record
and I think others should do that as well.
Thank you.
- Okay, I'll look to other speakers on this.
Go ahead, Councillor Ferrera.
- Thank you, Mayor.
I'm just kind of following up.
So I'm looking at the monthly expenses.
I do see it's $288,000 a month for the entire
site
as it operates from the report.
I just wanted to break that down.
So is that from what Councillor Stevenson is
referring to?
I think she said 4800.
I broke it down to 4200 divided by 70 per
individual.
I just wanted to know for that 4200,
What services do we provide in addition to just
housing?
So I believe it's not just housing.
I believe we have further supports,
whether it's getting people paper ready,
whether it's I think employment services are
included
in that food.
So I was wondering if staff could break down
the extra numbers on that.
- Go ahead.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
I'll start with this response.
As we shared with council members,
those operating costs include the staffing on
site,
contracted staffing agency, providing supervision
, PSW, all of the services and amenities that
have been articulated, daytime transportation
services to appointments, scheduled
transportation
to appointments, custodial and maintenance
services, meal service operations, and consumable
supplies, cups, cutlery, things like that. Food
services are included in that cost. So
the provision of daily meals in addition to
snacks so that folks meet their caloric intake.
We also have the necessary packaging and delivery
of those meals. And then a large portion
of the operating cost is also the rental of the
trailer so that people have a washroom
in a shower to access as well as the communal
spaces.
So rental of the support trailers, the
maintenance materials and operational supplies
that go
into running a brand new city facility that
opened up in about 70 days.
And then of course through the seasonal operating
costs you have snow removal and garbage
collection
and things like that.
Thank you for that.
And the intent is it's like a long term stay at
these micro modular sites or is this more
like a short term kind of stabilization state
because I understand that most or if not all of
the individuals who are staying there are were
previously not with housing. Is that correct?
Mr. Dickens, go ahead. Thank you. Worshiping, yes
, as is indicated in the SPPC report,
every individual that is now benefiting from the
services at that site was previously living
unsheltered. Experiencing direct either street
level unsheltered homelessness or encampment,
homelessness. All of those folks have come there.
The intent was, as per the direction,
come up with a plan to mobilize a brand new city
facility with 60 sleep cabins in 60 days.
So the cost is the cost for, and we hear it too,
that everybody can build these things cheaper,
but nobody was, and that, you know, services can
be found that are better or different,
but they weren't available. So we are in the
reality we're in, and I think it's important for
for the public to know that, that in order to
move at the pace that we moved under the
direction that we were given, you have to make
trade-offs in terms of what is available
and what that cost is.
The intent of this space was to open it quickly,
give people in off the streets and keep them
alive, which we have done to this point.
In fact, there are already a number of
individuals willing to leave this site and move
into housing.
expect to potentially moving in by weeks and go
ahead thank you so I guess you
know like the cost is the cost and you have to
have these trade-offs and I guess
there is you know the social cost the human
capital costs whether it's
individuals who are without shelter or
neighborhoods around them I guess going
pivoting to that just focusing on that I guess
the financial costs though I did
see from the last evaluation report that the cost
of homelessness unsheltered
individuals is around 70 to a hundred thousand
dollars a year which would come
out to about $8,300 a year.
Is that correct?
And if we were to compare the two costs, whether
it's $8,300-ish per year for individuals who
are outside on the street financially, and that's
only on the financial side, to the
4,200 in the micromodular side, I do see
financial costs benefit there, it costs the
city half.
And I'm not even speaking about the social cost
when it comes to individuals out on the
street themselves.
if staff could just kind of point that out with
that evaluation report for how
much it does cost the municipality and the
provincial government and the
federal government. I guess all the taxpayers
together how much it costs for
one individual being out on the street per year
and per month. Go ahead Mr.
Dickens. Through your worship whether having that
data handy but it does ring
about that that would be correct. There are
significant costs of folks living
on sheltered both on the municipal system and the
provincial justice police and
and healthcare systems as well.
- Go ahead.
So I think these are fair questions to be asking
by the counselor of the costs and everything.
I would say that it's not just housing.
There's extra things that are involved
with the micro modular sites.
The cost when it comes to individuals right on
the street,
what they go through emotionally
and without any housing or any stability is a big
cost.
The cost of neighborhoods and families
who you have individuals in encampments in,
there's a cost there too.
but when you were to, and those costs will be
relieved
if individuals are housed with the micromodular
sites,
having those available, that relieves those costs
.
But if you were to look at the purely financial
cost of it,
$100,000 per year, or $8,300-ish per month per
individual
living on house to $4,200 in a micromodular site,
I think there's an efficiency there for costs.
- Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Prib
ble.
I think you'll be very brief,
but I'm gonna make some comments.
And yes, I will certainly, we all would like
lower expenses,
and I certainly want to look at the being more
effective
and efficient at this facility.
Having said that, if I look at the cost,
what is currently now and the services
that we are providing compared to, again,
what was already said, there are other costs
on the street encampments, and also in the
hospital.
There's actually much lower than that.
This is actually very similar services at
hospital provides.
I'm very happy to hear that there are certain
people
I already ready to move on and I think that was
our main purpose of this facility for us not to
have say
Let's say the 60 plus individuals there, but to
keep rotating get them stabilized the stabilizer
stabilization cost some money
Thank you
I'm please let's stay on track of us this making
sure people remove them on to move them on for
Better improvement of like point one point two to
keep looking at efficiencies effectiveness
Absolutely, but thank you for this project. I
really so far
I know it's at the beginning or first stages,
but I think it's a very positive initiative.
Thank you.
- And I will certainly vote to accept this report
.
- Thank you, I have myself next on the list.
I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Lehman.
- Thank you, and I'll go to the mayor.
- Thank you, so I was gonna ask a question Mr.
Dickens,
but he actually answered it in response
to Councillor Ferrer's questions,
and that was one of the things we talked about
early on
was making this a pathway to housing.
I'm very excited to hear that two people are, you
know,
after only a few months of operation,
not only moving into the micromodular site,
but finding the right type of housing for them
and potentially, you know, this week moving on to
housing.
You know, flow through on these sites is pretty
important
because it gives us the capacity to move people
from the streets into proper housing
where they can be successful.
You know, I think we should be conscious
of the costs of the things we do, right?
Taking action municipally does cost dollars
and taking action particular within the space
of serving vulnerable individuals does require a
cost to it.
The micromodular site is a unique shelter option
that has a number of components to it.
It's a site that serves people much in the other
ways
that bringing people off the streets in the
shelter does.
We've got lots of data, lots of data,
not just here in the city, but across the
province
to show that when you actually get people off the
streets
and with supports, with shelter, with space
around them,
with access to services, with people
are gonna come out with connections to housing
services.
We take pressure off of lots of things, lots of
areas,
the cost, residents' money, whether they're
paying it
through their parental taxes or their federal
taxes
or their municipal taxes.
We know that emergency room visits go down.
An emergency room visit is $1,400 a night.
It doesn't take long for someone accessing
emergency room services to start to become very
costly,
a very costly, provincial cost in the system.
Inpatient stays go down.
land ambulance transfers go down.
Police interactions go down.
CIR interactions can go down
when you provide people with spaces.
Business impacts are minimized
when we have 67 people in housing, 70 people
potentially.
There's impacts from the public,
encampments in public parks, encampments in
public spaces.
Bringing people into those spaces
actually creates relief in a variety of different
ways
for the public.
So yes, there is a cost to it,
but there's a benefit to it.
Most importantly, there's a human cost
to not providing the service that we're providing
, right?
When we actually bring people from the streets,
particularly in the colder months of winter,
where every night is a decision on where can I
find
a warm place to stay?
And sometimes that's through warming centers,
which have a cost to a two, or other options,
or maybe no options.
When we bring them into a space that is a pathway
to housing,
they get dignity, they get safety, they get
survival,
they get well-being.
And when you stabilize an individual,
they're at a different point in their life
where they can move on to other places in housing
that are much less costly than being on the
street accessing
a large variety of services.
It doesn't mean that one shelter system
like the micromotor's shelter site
is going to solve the entire problem.
But it certainly helps for those individuals who
are in it
and it helps for all the people
who would have been otherwise serving those
individuals
out in the community in a different way.
So what I love for this to be part of a system
across the province where provincial knowledge
put towards it for sure.
And maybe we will build something here
with the best practices of others
that may be picked up by another level of
government
to be funded in the future in some way.
We may build a model much like we did with the
hub system
that evolved into the hard hub system
across the province of which I just met
with my OB/CM colleagues, the Minister of Health,
who talked about the early successes
that they're seeing in the hard hubs across the
province.
We might do something that inspires other action
in other communities or action across the
province.
So, I think that there is important work being
done here.
I think our staff have done exactly what we've
asked them to do.
They've done it quickly and they've done it with
professionalism
and expertise and I think they brought us back
the reports and information and if Council needs
more reports
or information, we have every ability to ask for
that
moving forward and I think, again,
we're in the early stages here still.
I think it's right, we're only just evolving the
cost.
We also have other people stepping up and saying,
I'd like to help too.
Whether it's the donations that Mr. Green talked
about,
I know I mentioned Columbia actually donated some
jackets
to the individuals living there.
We've got other groups saying, how can we help?
Can we donate?
Can we support in some way?
And that can also defray some of the operating
costs
'cause what I hear from the public
and members of the public and businesses is
we wanna step up and help too.
What role could we play in interacting with our
staff
gives them the opportunity to support something
that's great.
And I just wanna-- - 30 seconds.
- 30 seconds, I just wanna say
something really brief. I know Chris Moss from
London Carris is in the gallery tonight. I
want to say through the presiding officer, thank
you for being an early critic and providing
some feedback on the micro modular site that we
were able to incorporate and then coming
back and saying we feel this is serving the
people who we helped very well and I appreciate
you writing the letter in your organization,
writing the letter to recognize the success
of our micro modular site. Early critic, but very
happy with the way it's going. Thank
you for doing that.
Okay, I'll return the chair to your mayor.
Okay, I look for other speakers on this
particular item.
Okay, seeing none, then we'll open this for
voting.
- Opposed in the vote.
Motion carries, 12 to one.
- Councilor Robin.
- Thank you and through you I've asked Councilor
Perble
to present the next report since I voted against.
- Councilor Perble.
- Thank you and through the chair,
I would like to present the 2.2 Housing Acceler
ator Fund
and I just wanna let you know that during the PAC
committee,
there were two parts, part A,
which was specific initiatives for the current
program,
and that one was passed nine to four,
and part P was administration to report back
with future initiatives,
and that part was passed 13-0, so it was
unanimous.
So I would like to present this point, 2.2,
housing accelerator fund.
- Yes, and just one second counselor
because there was a memo circulated from our
staff
about a by-law that requires an amendment to this
piece,
before we get into maybe dividing things up
or doing anything different.
I'd like to take care of that.
So just give me one sec.
Okay, so just so colleagues in the public are
aware
of the amendment we're gonna make.
In the original motion, Mr. Mathers,
that we're bringing forward a by-law.
It's gonna be this by-law to do this.
Actually, two by-laws were brought forward.
So we just have to amend the motion
to update it to reflect what's actually being
voted on tonight.
So that's what the motion before us is.
I, Councilor Pribble, if you're willing to move
that.
- I'll move it.
- You can do that while you're presenting.
- And I certainly will move that.
- Thank you.
to just get on the floor. And that's going to
come up in the e-scribe. And I'm just going to
read it so
people can actually know what it says. It's that
the motion be amended to add a new part C that
reads
as follows. C, the attached proposed by-law be
introduced at the Municipal Council meeting on
April 28, 2026, to amend by-law number CP 1545-41
being a by-law to establish financial incentives
for
for the affordable housing, community improvement
,
project area to add sections 11 to 13.
So those pieces are added into that bylaw.
Okay, any discussion on that amendment?
Okay, we'll open that for voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Okay, so now we have the as amended motion
have councilor Pribble present that.
It needs a second or so.
- I'll move it.
- Okay, now we can have discussion
on this as amended motion.
I'll look to speakers.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Opposed in the vote.
Motion carries 11 to two.
- Okay, Councillor Progall.
Thank you for that.
And I would like to return to Chair Councillor
Ramen,
the Chair of the Committee.
Thank you.
- Well, I have the Chair,
but she can continue to present the report
so you can relieve and Councillor Ramen
as the Vice Chair of the Committee
will present the further components of the report
.
- Thank you and through you,
I will put on the floor item eight, 4.2,
the London Transit, Rapid Transit,
Operational Readiness Review.
- Okay, that is on the floor.
I'll look to speakers to this item.
go ahead, Councillor Van Mierbergen.
- Thank you, Mayor, if you could call B
separately.
- So B, section B, Councillor, B.
Okay, yeah, we can for sure do that.
All right, but is there any debate
or discussion on the overall item?
Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.
- Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.
I just wanted to make a comment.
This is on 4.2, but I know we're receiving three
items.
And I'm really excited about the transit,
rapid transit operational readiness
as we go forward, it's been a number of years.
I know we are directing LTC to come back to us
with a report at the end of Q4.
I just wanna make a comment.
I know we may not be here as a council
when that report comes back,
but I would encourage LTC to even give us
a bit of a progress report to this council.
So very supportive of this going forward.
- Okay.
Thank you.
Any others?
Councilor Trossa.
- Thank you very much, thank you to the mayor.
I thought long and hard about putting forward
a formal amendment on this.
And I decided not to at the last minute,
just in the interest of removing some complexity
from our deliberations here.
I am a little concerned that this,
if this doesn't come back until the end of Q4,
it could be a new council,
possibly Q4 is the end of December.
- Yeah, a new council, perhaps at one of their
first meetings.
And I'm just wondering, short of making an
amendment,
is there some way we could nudge this a little
bit
to get it back before this council before we go?
Because I just am a little uncomfortable
with the length of time this is sitting out there
.
- Well, I can go to Mr. Chair.
I'll just note that it says no later than Q4
and transmission certainly could endeavor
to try to do it faster, but it kind of be up to
them
at this point, basically the way the motion is
worded,
that I'll go to this chair.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
And you have stolen my answer, but agreed.
So this will now go to the London Transit
Commission
to further their receipt and direction to their
staff.
That would be an opportunity to have a discussion
about whether those timelines could be flexible.
The timelines we have in place
are the ones that we've discussed with our
colleagues,
but certainly between council and its commission,
there may be that opportunity.
- Okay, so what I'm hearing then through the
chair is
I would have the opportunity as a member of the L
TC board
to encourage them to come forward with a report
earlier
than the end of Q4.
- So yes, I think that's exactly what Ms. Sharon
and I said.
Council's request is no later than.
There's nothing stopping somebody from doing
something faster
given it's obviously a discussion, debate,
resources,
but that doesn't need to be discussed here.
That can be discussed at the transit commission.
- That's right, and I appreciate that.
And in light of the fact that it would be
a request to the transit commission staff,
I think I'll not take that matter up here,
but I will take it up later with the transit
commission.
The only thing that still concerns me
is that we don't have a reflection
of the receipt of the Stantec report in our
minutes.
And I just wanna make sure that members of the
public
can access the Stantec report through our minutes
or agendas.
Is there some way that we could,
without having to make a motion,
just to agree that we're gonna put that online
with respect to these materials
what I need to make a motion saying it's further
noted that we received the
Stantec report and that be reflected in the
minutes. Go ahead, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, Your Worship. As per the discussion that I
see or at just TPC, we are looking
in a way to get that online and as soon as we
have that link available, we will
share it with all of Council. Thank you. I
appreciate that. I will not be making a
motion then. I just want to strongly recommend to
the public that I feel that
the Stantec report was presented in a way of
different people like to take
information in different ways.
And the Stantec report, I thought, was very
strong in terms of its use of graphics, use
of maps, use of charts, and I think anybody who's
following this issue, I would strongly
recommend that you look at the Stantec report.
With that, I'd like to thank Ms. Shere and her
staff and Stantec for the excellent report.
I think that there are some items that need to be
dealt with in somewhat of a -- perhaps
I think they're more urgent than what's in this
motion, but I'm going to just show
a little patience now, but these issues about how
people are going to get one to the system
through back doors, bear boxes, and other matters
I think are very compelling.
So I'm just going to leave it like this.
- Please read the stand deck,
and thank you for indulging my questions.
- Great, any other speakers to this?
Okay, seeing none, so that's,
we're gonna do this separate
as per Councillor Van Mereberg and his request.
So part A will be first, part A.
So we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- And next, we'll do part B.
Okay, we're gonna open that now.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to three.
- Thank you, that concludes my report.
- Okay, thanks, that concludes the SPPC report.
As Councillor Oman just indicated,
We're on to the seventh report of the
infrastructure
and corporate services committee.
I will go to Councillor McAllister
to present that report.
- Thank you and through the mayor,
pleased to do the seventh report
of the infrastructure and corporate services
committee.
I have a request to pull item 10,
but I will put one through nine and 11 to 13 on
the floor.
- Okay, so 10 is pulled.
Was anybody like anything else separated from
this?
Councillor Stevenson, go ahead.
- Yeah, apologies.
I meant to ask for 12 as well.
- Okay, we can do 12 separate too.
So 10 and 12 are separate so far.
Other items, anyone?
Okay, go ahead, Councilor McAllister.
- Okay, with that in mind then,
one through nine, 11 and 13 of those.
- Okay, the chairs put those items on the floor,
any discussion on those items that are within it?
Go ahead, Councilor Cuddy.
- Thank you, Your Worship and through you.
I wasn't able to attend committee that day,
but I want to speak to six,
the Clayley Road Infrastructure Project,
and I want to thank the committee,
I want to thank staff for the work they've done
on this.
Tulalee Road is one of the fastest drawing areas
in the east end of the city.
Great deal of development going on out there.
We had a fatality a few years ago.
Young boy at a bicycle.
High speeds, narrow road, but we're rectifying
that
with the infrastructure work.
A word of maybe caution to staff.
Webster is now our will be the through way.
And I see Ms. Chair shaking your head, yes.
And we're all aware of this.
I've made it aware.
I've had a lot of residents speak to me about
this.
I will come back to you again, as you know,
time and time again, please.
Webster Street is a rural road in the city.
It has no street lights and has no sidewalks.
And it is narrow and people drive fast through
there.
So I plead you, please take care of my residents
on Webster Street during the construction.
And again, thank you staff for the work you've
done.
Thank you, committee for the work you've done it.
- Okay, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead.
- Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.
And I'd like to ask my thanks through you
to the committee on, let me see, number five, 2.4
,
which was the contract amendment detailed design
for Southdale Road.
Thank you for allowing those additional
improvements
to complete Southdale Road West improvements.
And I also want to make a comment on number 11,
which is by Ontario Act Bill 72 municipal
implications.
I wanna thank staff for including Amos report
on building Ontario's economy
with flexible municipal procurement.
There's a lot of work that goes into that.
Thank you to staff for sharing that with us.
I have such respect for Amos staff and the work
that they do
and on behalf of not only the city of London,
but all municipalities, so thank you.
- Thank you, any other speakers to this set of
motions?
Go ahead, Councilor Trossan.
- I'm also not gonna make a motion,
but I just wanna highlight and back up
and share the concern that Councilor Cuddy raised
with respect to the traffic on Webster Street.
Not only is Webster Street all of the things he
said,
but there are also parts of Webster Street,
as we know from our other agendas
that are very dense,
where there are a lot of cars coming in and out.
And I really, I'm going to be watching this.
I really want to encourage traffic staff,
which I know you have a lot of discretion here.
But I really want to encourage traffic staff
to take this very, very seriously.
Because I think we could be creating
some very dangerous and perilous impacts here.
I'm not going to raise today the question
of where the cars end up going if they're
on their way to downtown from these northern
developments.
that's sort of a broader discussion.
But I just wanted to support and highlight
what Councillor Cudi said, thank you.
- Okay, any other discussion?
Okay, seeing none, we're gonna open this for
voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Go ahead, Councillor.
- Okay, I'll put item 10 on the floor.
- All right, item 10 is on the floor.
I'll look for any speakers on item 10.
Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, I just wanted to quickly explain
again
my no vote and reiterate again,
it's not a criticism of the staff
or the report that was written,
it's really just me trying to find an opportunity
to share some of my concerns.
And I understand that they may not even relate
exactly to this, but this is my opportunity
where I have people reaching out to me
around the procurement about some issues.
I heard some concerns about last minute changes,
about an inability to enter info,
that the lowest bidder wasn't awarded
and there wasn't a satisfactory for them
opportunity
to go through that process.
I also heard from a local charity
that lost a long time contract to a first time R
FP.
Again, I get this isn't a criticism of the report
before us.
It's just my opportunity to put on the record
that I have some concerns around the procurement
as it is
and also some of the things that are gonna be
coming forward
with the new procurement policy that we have.
So I just, as I said, just wanted to be clear on
why,
what my no vote represents.
And it's not a criticism of the report
that the staff wrote here particularly,
just expressing some of my concerns through this
vote.
- Okay, any of the speakers on this one?
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.
- Councillor McAllister, to put item 12 on the
floor.
Okay, item 12 is on the floor.
I'll look first, speakers on item 12.
Go ahead Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
This one I spoke more about at committee.
I just wanna summarize again here.
I'm voting no to receiving this report
specifically
because I just have a different idea
of the level of transparency that I expect as a
counselor
and that the people that I represent
are telling me that they want to see as well.
We have a $1.4 billion budget
and we are being provided one line
with a net tax amount to compare.
I understand that I've spent some time going back
through the open data and some of the plans
that are available online.
I just believe that first of all the level of
data
that it was available in 2015.
I can't find there.
And second, in the plans,
I just think it should be right there
for Council on the public record,
easy for the public,
not necessarily a link for them to go research
or try to figure out how to use an Excel file,
but it should just be right there
even as limited as the eight or so lines per area
that we had in 2015.
I think it's interesting to see
the decrease in publicly, easily available data
included in the budgets over the last 10 years.
And so I really feel strongly about this.
And so that's why I'm gonna be voting no here.
- Okay, any other speakers?
Go ahead, Councilor Pribble.
- Thank you, I would like to make a comment
because part of this report is a recommendation
from RBC Place, our conventional center as a
surplus.
I really wanna highlight the last year at the RBC
Place
and the entire kudos to the entire team.
Under the challenging situation
that we have economic situation,
this organization was able to deliver their
record revenues
throughout the history of this facility.
So I would like to comment on that.
Thank you.
- Thank you, Councillor.
Any other speakers?
Okay, we'll open item 12 for voting.
- Opposed in the vote, motion carries 12 to one.
- Okay, Councillor McAllister.
- Thank you, that concludes the seventh report
of the infrastructure and corporate services.
And I would now like to move on to the eighth
report
of the special infrastructure and corporate
services
committee meeting we help.
- Yes, from all the way back to yesterday.
Go ahead and present that, Councillor.
- Okay, we just have the two items,
so I will move item one and two,
and I have not been made aware of any pull
requests.
- Okay, Councillors, put those on.
I don't, well, we're not gonna put in the dooms
effort
'cause it's disclosures and one item,
but I'll look for any discussion on this one.
I'm gonna say somewhere,
and so I'll turn it over to Councillor Layman to
present.
- Thank you, I'll go to the mayor.
- Thanks, I'll be brief.
I didn't attend the committee meeting yesterday
on this.
I had other matters, but I think it was a five or
six minute
meeting, which is, I think, great in that very
thorough,
very detailed report.
But I think it's important to continue
to recognize that the city does have borrowing
needs.
We do have to issue debt to build significant
infrastructure
projects in the city.
And we do so at really good rates over the time
that we borrow at because we have a AAA credit
rating.
And these are the moments where,
I know we talk about its importance,
but these are the moments where they actually are
important
because going out and getting debt that is fully
subscribed,
that is competitive, that is at good rates,
that happens because people know that they have
confidence
in the city of London's policies,
the way that we do financial management of the
city,
even though even what we just passed is a council
where we said with the operating budget
monitoring report,
a portion of that money is going towards
debt avoidance, infrastructure gap,
and the pieces that I know from the engagements I
have
with our credit rating agency,
the things that they monitor fairly closely
and that it continues to allow us
to have a good credit rating,
which allows us to do what the debentions report
says
and that's borrow at a decent rate.
Borrow at a decent rate on behalf of taxpayers
where the principal and interest payments
are manageable over the long horizon.
Other municipalities have been downgraded
across the province.
We are vulnerable, obviously,
because we are subsidiary to the province
of the general situation in the province,
but in respect to above that,
I think we've done a great job
sticking to a long-term financial management plan
that has allowed us to keep that credit rating in
place,
which allows us to borrow at the rates that you
see
in this report, both this current debt issuance
as well as the historical rates that you've seen
across that, which are very competitive in the
industry.
- I'll return to chair to you.
- Okay, anyone else excited to talk about the
ventures?
Just me, okay, all right, we'll open that for
voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Okay, and that concludes the eighth report
and we'll have both my reports, so I'm all done.
- Thanks, Councillor McAllister,
appreciate the presentations.
We'll go on to the sixth report
of the Planning and Environment Committee,
and I will go to Councillor Layman.
Go on, I got just a request.
- I believe I might have omitted pulling item 11
- Windermere Road.
- Yes, you know, Leibn was not pulled.
We did vote on it, so that would require
reconsideration
to do something different with item 11.
- Well, we haven't voted on the, no,
we haven't, we're just getting to the report.
- Oh, oh, and you mean, in the PEC report,
I thought you meant 11 from the last report.
- No, I don't need to vote on the debentures,
that's great.
- No, okay, well. - Windermere Road.
- Okay, if you're talking about planning
an environment committee, we're gonna circulate
to ask you for that in the second councilor.
Go ahead, councilor Leibn.
I just wanna make sure we're okay.
I'm not gonna do anything, I just wanna make sure
.
- Councilor Trossow, can we have your microphone,
please?
Thanks.
- Thank you.
Please present the sixth report of the Planning
Environment
Committee, I've had a couple of requests to pull.
Some items, item six, item 10, item 11,
item 13, and item 18.
- Okay, that sounds like it accounts
for Councilor Trossow's request,
so you should be good Councillor.
So, so far that's six, 10, 11, 13, 13, and 18.
- Correct.
- Okay, anybody want anything else dealt with
separately?
All right, go ahead, Councilor Layman.
- So I'll move items one through five, seven,
eight, and nine,
12, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and 19.
- All right, that will be moved by the chair.
Any discussion on all of those items
or any of those items, I should say.
Okay, we're good, so we'll open that for voting.
closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- All right, go ahead, Councillor Layman.
- Thank you, I'd like to put number six on the
floor,
2.3, regarding the deferred loan payments,
Councillor Stevenson requested that to be pulled.
- Okay, I'll go to Councillor Stevenson then,
and I know there's at least one other Councillor
who wants to talk about this as well,
so go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, yes, I've got an amendment
that I'd like to put forward, the clerk has it.
I can read it out.
- Yes, if you could, that'd be fantastic.
- That the motion be amended to include a new
part C
and revise Part B to read as follows.
The interest-free deferral of loan repayments
under the facade improvement loan program
and the upgrade to building code load program
be extended for an additional 19th month period
through March 31st, 2028,
where the applicant is requested deferral in
writing
and all city of London property taxes owing
are paid in full.
It being noted that the April 2028 loan repayment
will proceed as planned.
and that the civic administration be directed
to undertake a one-time transfer of a 1.15
million,
or of 1.15 million from the economic development
reserve fund to the CIP reserve fund
to offset the financial impact of the deferral
in part B above.
And I believe I have a seconder in counselor Prib
ble.
- Yep, counselor Pribble indicated he would
second.
So that's on the floor.
Would you like to speak to that now?
- Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that.
So we started this amendment at planning and
realized that we had an extra piece that we
needed to address which was the impact that the
deferral of the loan payments was going
to have in the CIP reserve fund.
Staff let us know that it was going to take it
too low and that there wasn't going to
be the money available for new loans.
So I had committed to coming back to council with
a cleanup on that and we let it go through
at planning knowing that it needed an addition
to this amendment.
So I appreciated the support at planning
around providing the businesses in these areas
and the property owners an extension
on the deferral of the loan payments.
So that was really appreciated.
The fact that the CIP Reserve Fund is going to
run too low
gets to be addressed.
And so staff provided us with two options.
One was to suspend the loans for the period
of the extension of the deferral of the payments.
The other was to take money from the Economic
Development
Reserve Fund.
I really am asking my colleagues support
that we choose this one, because we
have strategic goals and commitments
to business and viability of these neighborhoods.
That's why we did these programs and these loans.
And so to suspend the ability for other
businesses
and property owners to take out new loans
just doesn't make sense when you see the
conditions
of our core area right now.
So remembering that it's a deferral of the loan
payments.
Eventually these loan payments are gonna come in
and I see a time in the future when we can put
that money back
into the Economic Development Reserve Fund.
I believe that using this money right now
helps address the urgent need of the property
owners
and continues the commitment that we made to them
when we approve these loans.
So it's, although we're taking the money,
there should be the opportunity to put it back
at some point once the loan payments are made.
And if not, I still think this achieves
an urgent objective and a commitment that we made
as a council around the strategic plan objectives
.
I would really hate to see us suspend the loans.
We're deferring loan payments because we
recognize
the crisis and the deterioration of this area.
So to, you know, we'd be giving with one hand
and taking away with the other.
And I'd really like to see this council show full
support
for this area that we believe in its future.
And we want to invest and provide and allow
people
to invest in that area right now
and not wait for the deferral to end.
So hopefully that's clear.
This is taking money from the Act of Reserve Fund
.
I understand that, but it's to allow the new
loans
to still be approved and applications to be
received
over the next 18 months.
- Okay, I'm gonna look for further speakers on
that.
Go ahead, I'm gonna have Councillor Ferra
and then Councillor Layman.
- Thank you, Mayor and thanks for the motion.
I had a similar one that was very similar to this
.
It is a different in a little one respect
and that's for the 1.15 million
from the Economic Development Reserve Fund.
The reason I have concerns from drawing from that
fund
is because we do have other commitments
that are gonna be pulling from that fund as well,
specifically the economic development strategy
and funding implementations therein
and the downtown master plan
and funding actions therein as well.
So I was wondering if we could just go to either
finance
or whoever might be able to speak to this on.
When those plans come back,
if we were to be drawing from the Ek Dev Reserve
Fund,
we potentially, is it true that we potentially
might not
necessarily have enough funding with the final
ization of those plans coming back, and I
understand
those plans are coming in July, I believe. So
without that information, I'd be a little
hesitant to be drawing from the Act of Reserve
Fund, so I just wanted to know if I could get
any information.
Go ahead, sorry. I'm working to language. People
are asking for things. Go ahead.
Thank you. Through the chair. So, yes, the master
plan will be coming forward. As I understand
it. A lot of those costs and funding will be up
to council to determine how to proceed
and at what timing. I do suspect to that,
particularly for the bigger ticket items,
the ECDAV Reserve Fund will not have a balance
sufficient enough to support those and that
they will need to go forward through the next
multi-year budget. I anticipate a large number
of those because they will likely have bigger
ticket potentially items that would need to
be funded are likely not going to be sufficient
through the Act to Reserve Fund to fund.
Mr. Murray is online.
He can provide what the current balance is
in the Economic Development Reserve Fund.
But certainly, for an interim, this would be the
only source
if the desire to defer the loan repayments
at this time would be available
to allow those loans to continue.
- Go ahead, Councillor, go ahead, Mr. Murray.
- Oh, thank you, and through you,
I will confirm that the current balance
of the Economic Development to Reserve Fund
is in the ballpark of approximately $10 million.
There are some approved commitments out into
future years,
but as noted, there is uncertainty as it pertains
to upcoming plans that may require funding
through the reserve fund into future years as
well,
subject to, of course, the multi-year budget
process.
- Councilor Ferrer.
- Okay, thank you for that.
So speaking to both the economic development
strategy
that we're working on in the downtown plan,
they're going to be interim items that we would
be looking to action and those are coming from
the
active reserve fund. I understand the plan is not
finalized yet, but I was wondering if I could get
any hints. Okay, Mr. May, let's go ahead. Through
you, Worship, I'll just speak to the downtown
program. So I do want to just highlight that the
facade and the upgrade to building code loan
programs are very important programs that are
well utilized. If there's a decision to stop
those
programs, we may actually have to be going back
and up making sure we update our downtown
master plan because those are very important
programs. So it may be that if you if this
was removed, we'd be just adding it back in. So I
don't really see it as a net change from
the downtown master plan perspective.
Go ahead. Thank you for that. I did see there
were some other ways forward that I understood
that the council spoke to and we did kind of get
those recommendations to and one of them
was to pause the implementation of those two CIP
programs
in the interim so we don't have to draw
in the active reserve fund.
And with the pause like that,
we would still be providing I guess the financial
relief
to those properties that pulled the CIPs,
but at the same time we would still have the
ability
to I guess reverse course in the future
if we did get deferral requests in writing
if they were low or if they were high.
So I do know that there's other options here.
I'm kind of hesitant to support this.
I did have another motion that's very similar to
this,
but it just wouldn't draw from the Act of Reserve
Fund,
'cause that's really what I don't wanna do.
I don't wanna draw from that fund,
'cause I wanna keep as much of a balance in there
as we possibly can for any of the items
that come out of the downtown plan in the Act of
Reserve Fund.
I think not knowing what exactly is gonna come
out,
we could be tying our hands moving forward,
and I worry about that.
So I would ask to not support this motion
respectfully.
I'm right with the Councillor on the direction
that she's going.
I would just take a slightly different approach
that would not be drawing from the Act of Reserve
Fund.
So I guess I'll leave my comments there.
I think a report back would be in order as well.
But I'll leave it to colleagues to see what you
have to say.
- Okay, I looked to other speakers.
Go ahead, oh yes, Councillor Layman, sorry I had
you.
Thank you.
This is a question through you, to staff,
when the monies are repaid on this program.
Does it go into general coffers?
Or is there a special block that these monies go
into?
I'm going to make a comment.
Go ahead.
- Thank you, Chair.
So the reserve funds for the CIP loans,
essentially have a reserve fund,
where there's money that goes in.
So essentially the repayments are funding
the ability to issue new loans.
And that is why they're all managed centrally
together. So as money comes in and the balances
are, but as the money is repaid, it replenishes
the balance so that new loans can be issued. So
all of the money is contained within the
reserve fund and essentially it's a revolving
loan fund where the repayments are funding
what those new. That is why if you stop the repay
ments, there is no ability to be able
to issue new loans. Hence why there is a backfill
to support the repayments so that new loans
can continue to be issued.
- And which reserve fund are you speaking?
Like when you say the loans are coming on a
reserve fund,
which fund is that?
- Thank you through your worship.
It's the CIP Reserve Fund.
- Would it be possible to direct the temporary,
the loans that are the forgiveness that we're
giving
of I think it's 1.5 million to have those funds
being repaid instead of into the CIP,
but back into the Act Dev Fund
that we're looking at for this motion proposes
We're taking money on that fund or that reserve
fund.
Would it be possible to direct initial payments
back into that fund until that's made whole?
- Go ahead.
- Thank you through your worship.
So by doing that, when those repayments
are redirected elsewhere,
then there's nothing else going into that reserve
fund
to be able to support the issuance
of new loans at that time.
So as soon as you stop repayments from going in,
that's when you will stop the ability to issue
new loans
because that's how new loans are funded.
So consider it a coffee cup when you finish it.
You're re-pouring, you're filling your cup
so that you can drink some more.
It's essentially trying to keep the cup full
so that we can continue to issue new loans
when and if they're requested.
- Go ahead, Councillor.
- So I appreciate that.
The originally came out of the SAP fund.
I guess what I'm saying is we are looking
at using the ACT DEV fund, taking 1.5 million out
of there
if Councilor Ferra referred to the concerns there
,
and moving over to make whole what we are losing.
I'm saying, let's make whole what we are losing,
but let's not double down.
Let's take the funds that are repaid of 1.5
million
back into the Act Dev Fund.
And once that's made whole from that,
then can't continue back to going back
to where the initial loans were from the CIP.
CIP doesn't that way contains no effect in the C
IP.
as far as future loans are concerned.
It's the Act Dev Fund that we're looking at
reducing,
but then once 2008, March 2008,
then those funds will go there
and it will be naturally replenished
without a motion from council
or anything to get that particular reserve fund
back to where it was before this whole process
started.
- Go ahead, oh, Mr. Murray, okay, Mr. Murray, go
ahead.
- Sure, let me through you, Mr. Mayor, take a
stab
at explaining it perhaps in a slightly different
way,
but basically reiterating what Ms. Barbone has
said.
So if we look at our reserve fund schedule
for the CIP reserve fund,
we have anticipated inflows for the repayment
of the CIP loans.
We have a consistent amount for those
assumed out into the future.
We also have a consistent amount
of projected issuance of new loans
that effectively recycles the repayments
to issue new loans.
So that, if that cycle is interrupted,
there is a need to ultimately backfill
for those inflows that are not coming into the
reserve fund.
So, in other words, whether there is a disruption
of the projected inflows in the short term
or a reduction of the inflows in the future
because those inflows are being redirected
instead
to the economic development reserve fund.
In either case, it's going to put the CIP reserve
fund
in a precarious spot given that we have assumed
into the future that those repayments
are funding new loans.
So unfortunately, there's no ability to replenish
,
effectively the economic development reserve fund
as has been proposed without causing constraints
or problems to the CIP reserve fund.
- Councillor Layman, I apologize.
I'm not making myself clear.
The concern raised by finance is that we don't
want
to obstruct the inflows, which we would in this
case
because it's used for outflows.
I get that.
What I'm proposing here is that ECDAV covers the
inflows
over to CIP.
It's the ECDAV fund that's going to be affected
has, you know, Councilor Fair are indicated.
The CIP's gonna be fine with Councilor Stevenson
's motion.
It's gonna be fine.
I'm concerned about the Act Dev Fund,
and I don't want a double dip.
So I want, so the CIP Fund would be made whole,
and then the continuing, once the repayments
start,
it will get an extra one,
because we're gonna throw in another 1.5 million
right now
to cover the loss of those payments.
All I'm saying is, let's keep both funds
the way they were by redirecting the first
hundred one point five million of repayments
back to the Act Dev Fund. So that the Act Dev
Fund is not in the long term, it is made whole.
The short term, yeah, it's going to be down one
and a half million. Mr. Murray or Ms. Provost.
So through the chair, so maybe I can try
explaining this. So when those funds, so the
deferral
from a long-term sustainability is delaying those
payments, so those payments are not being
received over that period of time. Over that same
period of time, we expect to issue those same
amount of loans. So at that time, when the defer
ral ends, assuming that it will end at the date
that
is stated in the motion, those newer payments
will begin to come in, so all of the loans will
will begin arraignments at that time of the
additional loans that have been also issued
over this period of time.
When those new loans come in, the repayments,
once they begin, will then fund new loans.
If those repayments are assumed to fund new loans
but are now redirected to the Economic
Development Reserve Fund, you will not have an
ability to issue the loans or any new loans
at that point in time that they are redirected
because there will be no repayments going
back into the CIP at that period in time.
So over the long term, if we're trying to make it
whole,
with the delay, the only ability to actually make
the fund
whole would be to not issue loans for the defer
ral period
of time.
Because we're assuming that as the money comes in
,
it is being reissued as new loans over that same
period
of time.
So that at the end of the day, the repayments
will always be covering the outflows at the same
time.
If you stop those repayments,
then without issuing new loans,
you have to be ensure that that backfill
continues.
So I'm not sure if I'm totally misunderstanding
you're saying something different,
but hopefully that helped Elise clarify
how we're understanding it.
- So let me jump in, Councillor.
I think with Councillor, and funny story, Coun
cillor Lehman,
I actually have language that might deal with
this
'cause I was thinking the same thing you were.
Councillor Lehman is not saying,
put every single dollar in March of 2028 that's
coming in into the Act of
Reserve Fund. I think what he's trying to say is
if we have, let's pretend, 1.15
million dollars of loans out there that we're
about to defer and we think we're
going to issue 1.5 million dollars of loans
because we're
transferring from economic development into CIP
so we can issue them. Now we
have 2.3 million dollars of loans outstanding,
all of which will start to
get repaid after March of 2028.
And so what we could do if we're only
going to issue about $1.15 million of loans
is start to restore the Economic Development
Reserve Fund
at that time with a portion of those returning
funds,
while using the other portion to keep the program
going.
I think that's what he's trying to say.
And that's, I think, where he's moving towards.
And if that's the case, I actually
prepared some language to amend and add
that staff would report back at that time
to look into doing that,
but you could give us your assessment at that
time.
But I think that's what Councillor Layman is
trying to say.
Councillor Layman.
- In a nutshell, yes.
Like what this is doing, okay,
how are we gonna fund this?
'Cause you know, that was a concern brought up at
PAC.
We can't just defer loans and say,
it's all about a cash flow situation.
So what Councillor Stephen says and says CIP,
'cause it reserved funds so low,
let's look at act dev.
Great, let's do that,
but that's replenished the act dev funds
being used for that because this is a loan not a
grant right no loan that gets
repaid. So the cash flow in should go for the one
point whatever it is back to
the fund where it came from to just forestall
that deferment. So at the end
of the day what the cost is to the city it's just
it's the interest it's the
interest that it's honest because it's not a
grant it gets repaid it's the
interest that we carry that extra charge for an
extra period of time. So I think
the mayor is on the same track so being you have
a language I apologize for I
should have gone earlier on this and talked
offline and this apologize for
taking folks time up I'm next on the speakers
list so I'll turn the chair
over to Councillor okay go ahead okay so
following on this first let me say a
comment I support and move came into this meeting
supporting what Councillor
Ferrer was saying and that's maybe we just pause
the program it sounds to me
like there's a significant appetite for people to
continue the program and based
on what Mr. and Mayther said about the importance
of the program I'm inclined
to try to find a pathway to do that. Given the
structure of Councillor
Stevenson's motion which is still a you have to
ask in writing to get to
basically have your loan deferred we don't know
what the uptake will be on
that maybe it's 100% maybe it's not we know what
we do know is even when we
we deferred them some people wanted to repay them
,
just get it off their books irrespective of the
deferral
period.
So we don't know what the uptake will be.
Maybe it'll be significant.
I think a pathway forward might be to propose an
update
in Q2 of 2027, which is, I think,
Councillor Ferreira was going in that direction
to get some information about, what's this look
like?
How's it going?
Are people actually applying for the deferrals,
to what degree, how many new loans have we issued
if we go with Councillor Stephenson's motion?
But I also think we should add a piece in 2028 to
say,
and I'm not gonna commit to just put all the
money back
in the Economic Development Reserve Fund,
but let's get a report from our staff at that
time,
or the municipal council of the day,
we'll get a report from our staff,
to say here's what's happening now,
and what is our ability to now start to repay
the Economic Development Reserve Fund at that
point in time?
Because in theory, if we've got loans
that are outstanding now of X value,
and they've been deferred until March of 2028,
and we're gonna issue potentially another 1.15
million
new loans, we're going to have all of those loans
, ideally being repaid at the same time,
which is a larger inflow into the CIP Reserve
Fund than we otherwise might have projected
if we're still issuing about the same number of
loans each year.
So that being said, I think that there is
potentially capacity to both keep the CIP loan
program going and restore a portion of the
Economic Development Reserve Fund, but I'm
not going to presume that we can do that.
I would, you know, the motion that I'm going to
propose as an amendment is have staff report
back at the time that the repayments start on,
you know, what they think about whether
we could do that or not.
So with that, and through the presiding officer,
I want to move an amendment that basically
says the amendment be further amended because we
can amend an amendment.
The civic administration be directed to report
back in a future meeting of planning and
environment committee with an update on the
community improvement plan loan program once
payments resume to restore the draws to the
Economic Development Reserve Fund.
So that's the March 2028th or after report. And
further the civic administration be
directed to report back at a future meeting of
planning and environment committee by Q2 of
2027 with an update on the community improvement
plan loan program. So just give us a status
update
on how things are going about a year from now to
say this is what it looks like. Are people
actually taking us up? Are we still issuing new
loans? But ultimately by March of 2027,
you're going to get back to us and say yeah you
know we can actually we've got
double the amount of money coming in or maybe 1.7
times the amount of money
come in we can still keep the CIP reserve fund
hole and put some money back
into EkDev at a time when we might need to be
spending it for things like
downtown plans and economic development plans in
the future so that's the
amendment that I would like to put on the floor
if there's a second okay I'll
I'll look for a seconder for that.
Councillor Stevenson has seconded.
I'll look for comments or questions on that
amendment.
Can we get that up on the E-Scribe?
Let me know when that's up there
so the Councillors can read it.
- And I'll just apologize.
They should have just worded those in the
opposite way
so that the Q2 2027 report is first
and the March kind of post March 2028 report a
second,
but they're both there and we can clean up that
language.
- Okay, it's up on the E-Scribe.
I'll go to Councillor Stevens.
- Thank you through you.
Can I just clarify with the mover?
That this is not changing the original motion.
It's just providing information back to council
on what the uptake was on the loans,
what the statuses of the reserve fund in March of
2027.
And again, in March of 2028,
to see if there's any opportunity
to replenish the economic development reserve
fund.
Am I correct there?
- I'll go to the mover.
Absolutely right.
The only difference between the two updates
2027 is a general update. It doesn't change
anything you've done. 2028 is an update with
a focus on could we restore the economic
development reserve fund in some way, but it's
very open-ended for staff to report back on the
conditions of the day.
Can I ask, sir? Thank you. And there's a request
for clarification
that the 1.15 million is still transferring as of
now to make sure the CIP reserve fund
is there, ready for new loans, and that, yeah,
there's not any happening, okay, so thank
you.
I support this.
It's great.
It leaves options available and as updates, I
think it's a great compromise.
I look for other questions, Councillor Ferri.
Thank you.
Thank you for the amendment.
I guess I got some questions here.
So from what I understand, this is a direction to
continue withdrawing from the Economic
development reserve fund to fund the deferral and
also have the program
continue as it as it is and there's also a report
back by Q2 just on an update on
the program but this is still deferring those
repayments back till March 31st
2028 is that that's am I reading that correct
yeah okay so with these the same
thing with the the draw from the act of reserve
fund that's kind of really
what's the sticking point for me. Can staff just
come just tell me again. So I
think I remember you said the balance in the Ek
dev Reserve Fund is about 10
million. What is the uncommitted balance? Sorry
if you could just clarify those
numbers again. I'll go staff. Thank you and
through you yes the current
uncommitted balance to be clear of the economic
development reserve fund is
approximately 10 million dollars. Councilor. Okay
thank you for that and I know we
don't necessarily know what's coming out of the
downtown plan or the economic
development plan. So I just need to kind of see
if I can get some more
information on that. Is there going to be any
interim items that are going to
require money for those two plans? So when they
come to council in July and get
ratified at the end of July, any quick start
actions or anything like that
would that would draw off of the economic
development reserve fund?
I'll go stuff through the presiding officer. We
are still finalizing the plan and however, I I
can just provide you information as far as the
timing. So we're actually bringing it back in
June. So there'll be some time time associated
with that. And as I mentioned, if if this was
taken off as from a program, we'd likely be
putting that back in anyway. So it really is not
a net change to what we bring forward in June.
Okay, I'll go back to the to the counselor just
to remind you that we're on the amendment to the
amendment, which is just a report back in the
future, not to the original amendment, correct,
correct, sorry, thank you for that reminder.
All right, if this is the amendment to the
amendment, and then I get to speak on the motion
as amended, I will, I guess I'll ask those
questions there.
this just for the report back and for the loan
program to,
sorry, I'll speak to the motion as amended when
we get there.
- Thank you, I'll look for other comments or
questions
on the amendment to the amendment, Council
approval.
- Very brief, supporting the Mayor's amendment
to the amendment, I will speak later.
- Thanks.
- Look for other speakers.
I'll just from the presiding officer.
I would have preferred to see a direct commitment
to it going back to the Act of Fund
because this does open a door to taking those
funds
to another direction, depending on the actions
of the future council on this.
That being said, this is good enough for me.
I think different pressures will be at that time.
And who knows, Councilor Ferre mentioned,
we might need even more capital
and get the plans that we had in time.
So I will support this.
So I'll look for any other speakers to this
amendment
the amendment and seeing none we will call the
vote on the amendment to the
amendment. Opposed on the vote motion carries 13-
0 and I'll return the chair to
the mayor. Okay and I'll presume Councillor
Stevenson and Pribler are
willing to move the now consolidated amendment.
Okay so we're now on the
consolidated amendment that Councillor Stevenson
and Councillor Pribble
with my changes all together we're on that debate
and discussion now and I'll
look to other speakers on this. Go ahead Councill
or Ferrer. Okay thank you. So this
is the motion as amended. So I, like I said, I
have the concern.
No, it's sorry to do this. It's the amendment as
amended because that's what we did. So
there's still going to be the motion as amended
later. Don't worry. So, but you can go ahead
and speak. So right now, Councillor Stevenson,
Councillor Pribbles change, changes we just
passed to add to them, all that together is what
we're debating now.
that includes the 1.5 million, 1.15 million. Okay
. So, so still, same concerns. I, because
we don't know what these two plans are going to
have in them, we could be pulling away
from the coffers and reducing our ability to
implement actions from those two plans
when they come. And those plans are just around
the corner. I understand, I guess I'll
go to staff, any possibility of a deferral of
this decision for after those two plans
when they come back, is that a possibility?
- Mr. Mathers, I think.
Go ahead.
- Through the chair, so the only strict timeline
is that the September was when this was gonna be,
when we'd be sending these bills to the
businesses
and the owners of the property.
So that's the main restriction.
Of course, you'd want to get people a heads up
if you're going to start making those billings
for a very short timeframe.
So that's why we brought you the report right now
.
So that the most specific timeframe is that
September date
when we would have to, no, when we're issuing
those bills.
- Go ahead, Councillor Ferra.
- Okay, thank you for that.
So the answer is, if we defer it until after
we get those two plans, which are coming
at the same committee cycle on the same day,
we may run into the risk of not being able
to send out those letters to notify the property
owners
of whatever our decision is, that's, is that
correct?
Okay, I'm, like I said, like I don't,
like I could go with this if I knew
what those plans are gonna have in it.
And that's my concern.
You know, we have already been impacted
with the downtown plan items
with the unwaved steam decommissioning stuff.
So we're already kind of losing some of the
ability
to bring in some of these interim measures
that could be potentially within the plan.
Now I do hear that staff saying like if we go
with this,
the downtown plan may bring these items back,
but then where does the money come from for that?
And I understand that there's a multi-year budget
cycle
coming as well.
I just, I feel really hard pressed to make a
decision here
and pull money from that active reserve fund
without knowing exactly what items
are coming out of those plans.
So I guess I would also say I do have a chance
to speak again on the main motion as amended.
Is that right or is this it?
I do.
- No, you get a chance later.
- Okay, like I, some of the questions that I
asked staff,
just so we're aware of where we're going,
is what is the facade improvement loan principal
amount?
And those principal amounts are quite
on the lower side of things.
I think the highest numbers that we had
was from 10 to 15,000 in below.
And for the upgrade to building code loan,
those principal amounts that are still
owing are largely around the $20,000 to $30,000
mark.
It tapers right off once you get onto the high
end of those.
And I think maybe a big decision to really kind
of focus here
is the monthly repayment amounts.
And the biggest monthly repayment amount,
which is right in the middle for the facade
improvement loan,
is around $200 to $225 per property.
I see a really big increase on the lower end
for the monthly payment amounts.
And then for the building code,
loan monthly payment, the largest amount
is around the $400 to $500 per property.
And then it's below, and then everything is less
than that.
So like if we're considering potentially
pausing this program, some of these amounts
for these properties are quite low to pay back
per month.
The highest ones for the building or after the
400 to 500,
we're talking anywhere from 100 to $200 a monthly
payment
to bring that back.
So it's just, if we were to consider, you know,
really what the impact will be,
like I would be more willing to not pause the
program.
I would be more willing to have the program
continue
for the payments to come back,
rather than pulling from the ECTIV Reserve Fund,
just because we don't know what pressures
we'll have on that within a month's time.
So I'm a little hesitant.
I know I get to speak again,
so I guess I'll hear what committee has to say,
but I would just say just be mindful,
or 'cause I'm being mindful of,
we're gonna have these two big plans that are
coming out,
and these two big plans are really focused on,
I guess the economic engine of the city,
which is the downtown.
And then the other plan is that economic strategy
for the city, for the entire city.
And we're gonna need money to fund some of those
programs
and some of those implementations in there.
And if we kind of make this decision now,
we could be at risk of not being able to fully
fund those.
So I guess I'll speak again once the time comes.
- Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins next.
- Yeah, thank you.
And this is on the amendment,
the amendment to the amendment.
I appreciate my colleagues working together
and coming up with a consensus on the amendment
now.
I hear the concerns from the--
- For clarity, Councillor,
we're on the amendment as amended.
So what we're debating now is,
draw from Act of Reserve Fund to keep the program
going,
get some reports back.
And whether we wanna add those in, yes, B and C,
plus the pieces I added on the reporting.
- Thank you for that clarification.
And just understanding where the councilor is
coming from
and the two plans that we're going to get in June
,
I wonder and needing a little bit more
information.
I'm always reminded here at council
we're making decisions on council when you know,
this to me is like committee work.
If is there an opportunity maybe through your
worship
to staff if there's an opportunity to refer this
back
to PEC and get further clarification.
And I understand notices have to go out to
businesses as well.
So I'm just trying to understand that timeline.
But again, is there an opportunity
to have a go to PEC understand the numbers,
knowing that we've got the two plans coming to us
as well?
I'll go to the staff on the timelines, Mr. Mather
s.
- Through the chair, yeah, it's always an option
to refer things back to staff.
And as far as the timelines,
this doesn't necessarily cause a problem with the
timeline.
I just don't know what additional or different
information
we'd be providing at that time.
- Yeah, and Councilor, I'll just let you know,
it went to the committee,
but then I believe it was Ms. Barbone
who provided some information about the possible
options.
So we can consider for council based on that.
And that's why I think the Councillors are taking
the action here rather than a committee
because it was something that was discussed at
the committee, asked for some information.
Information was given for them to prepare to be
here.
So I just started to clarify that.
That isn't precluded referral.
I just wanted to give you that information too.
Yeah.
Thank you for that.
And I also appreciate getting the information
that maybe there is a little bit more of a
timeline here.
Less pressure on us to make decisions if we have
concerns about the Act of Reserve Fund.
So I'll put that out.
That would be something that I would support.
- Sorry, you're moving a referral or?
- Yeah, I'm happy to move the referral, but.
- Okay, well, I just do, I was just clarifying
when you said I'll put that out
when you talked about a referral,
I didn't want you to sit down, lose your speaking
time,
and then you say you moved a referral and you
wanted to.
- Well, I know other councils have not spoken.
I want to hear from my colleagues as well.
I just want to share with you,
just making a decision right now.
- No problem, I'm just letting you know,
you can do that if someone else can make a
referral,
but you wouldn't be able to speak again at this
time
on this particular amendment.
But you could refer when we get to the main
motion,
of course, so, okay, perfect.
Councillor Stephenson.
- Thank you.
Just trying to make this a little clearer.
I'm hoping that Council can sort of solve
one problem at a time.
We have a problem right before us,
where we've got real issues in our court area
that they're not where we all want them to be.
Property owners and businesses need some support.
There's very little we can do for them.
This is a very small thing that we're able to do
to ask them to start making payments again
is not gonna go over very well
when they haven't seen the results
that we're all committed to.
So we are all very committed to our downtown
and to this downtown strategy.
And so if at the time that is short
that's another problem that could be solved at
that time.
and I think we get to trust that Council has that
commitment.
I also wanna ask through you to staff
just to maybe reassure some of my colleagues
who are concerned.
If in June, we were to regret this decision.
Is there anything stopping Council at that time
from transferring the money back
and pausing the loan program?
Because this particular amendment just says
we're going to continue the deferrals
and we're gonna take the money from the Act of
Fund.
But there was another option to us
to pause any new loans,
any opportunity for new loans,
was option one which I set aside, I like option
two.
But if in June we wish we'd not done this,
could, it's not a decided matter
because it's something different, correct?
We could move a motion to say we wanna pause any
new loans
and fund that with, so I'll let staff.
but I'm just wondering if,
rather than refer this back and talk about it
more,
if we could make this move
and then have another option available to us in
June
to pause the loan program and do a transfer back.
- I'll go to Ms. Barbara.
- Thank you through the chair.
I'll defer to the clerks with respect
to whether it's a decided matter of council,
but perhaps if I can be helpful.
Daph had recommended given the complexity of this
to do a report back.
there's clearly a desire of counsel to move
forward quickly
with the decision for a deferral.
From our perspective, having a sense of the
timing on that
so that we have enough time to ensure we get the
payments
and be able to coordinate the payments
and have enough notice to the loan holders
is certainly advantageous.
The report back next year perhaps might actually
be the most helpful because it would show very
clearly
what the state of the reserve fund is,
what the identification is of the loans that are
projected
and what the repayments are in terms of based on
the loans
when the estimated repayments would begin.
Certainly the reserve fund we manage
on a consolidated basis for all CIP reserve funds
.
So there is some floating in balances
and we look at average payments.
So as we identify, yes payments might be higher,
that there are payments that will end,
and we look at that over a period of time.
The cash flow doesn't match specifically
of we have some assumptions,
but it's a little bit more complex
in terms of the cash management
on the reserve fund overall,
which is why we look at the repayments
to be able to keep that going.
If there are, as Mr. Mathers had already alluded
to,
there are references to looking at CIPs
and the importance of those through the master
plans.
if there is intent to perhaps even, you know,
provide more loans or have more of an emphasis on
loans,
that information and what council decides to make
might actually be very helpful in terms of the
report back
to be able to take all of the information,
give you all of those details so that
the council in 2027 is able to make a very clear
informed decision on the status of those reserve
funds
and would actually be ideal timing to inform
how the multi-year budget would then move forward
knowing if there needs to be top-ups,
or increased reserve fund contributions
going to the CIP reserve funds
to ensure the sustainability of those funds over
time.
- Good.
- Thank you for that.
I do fully support this amendment and the motion,
but just to acknowledge some of the concerns in
the room,
if we were presented in June with the downtown
strategy,
and we wanted to take this 1.15 million back,
- Could we as a council at that time,
decide to pause any new loans and take that money
?
I just want it to be clear that I see anyway,
that the door to that option that is being put
forward
doesn't close, but we can make that as a decision
as we're looking at the downtown strategy as a
whole.
- So I'm gonna roll on that
'cause I'd be the one who would have to decide at
the time.
Given we are not passing a motion in the
affirmative
to pause the loans now.
There's not a decided matter of counsel
on pausing the loans.
So you populated the Economic Development Reserve
Fund
with money, the loan program we're taking no
specific action
on which means we're basically saying,
keep the deferrals going, think so.
Let me just, let me consult with the clerk so I
wanna be,
yeah, so the part that we've decided
is that we'd have to have reconsideration on
is extending the loan deferral period.
that the part that we could still take action on
is pausing the program.
So you're 100% right.
We were not taking an action on that.
We could pause the program as an alternate way
to pay for it in the future.
And that wouldn't be contrary, in my opinion.
- Thank you.
I'm hoping that helps get consensus here
because what we're agreeing to,
well, the motion that we're gonna vote on in a
bit
is to agree to provide the relief
of the deferral of the loan payments.
This amendment, what came out of planning was
we passed the motion that said
we were gonna extend the deferral of the loan
payments
for 18 months.
That passed.
Staff cautioned us that we had a funding issue.
That's what was before us.
What came from city staff gave us two options.
To fund the deferral of the loan payments,
we could either a pause any new loans for 18
months,
which means nobody else gets the facade
or building code loan,
which to me hinders our economic development.
The other option was to take money from the
reserve fund.
the Economic Development Service at 1.15 million.
So that's my motion here.
I just wanna put it out there that if you support
this,
we're not closing the door to the other option
that staff presented and at the time
that we're making our downtown strategy decisions
,
that door remains open,
that council could choose it at that time.
So I'm hoping that eases any concern
that my colleagues might have
around supporting this motion now,
supporting this amended amendment now.
- Council approval.
- Thank you.
So what the mayor just said a few minutes ago
just confirms it that really we got nothing to
lose
potentially to, we got nothing to lose
potentially to gain.
I just want to stay, by the way,
I just want to reiterate, I know I heard
somewhere 1.5,
some people mentioned it's actually 1.15,
just to clarify that part.
But I just want to like,
and I totally understand that we have the plans
coming back
to us the downtown, the economic plan for the
entire city
and yes, that could be for quick starts.
As the staff will have mentioned,
any big stuff is going to go through multi-year
budget anyways, they reiterate it, but everyone
who's been in business, they know that retention
is much better, much easier, much cheaper than
acquisition.
And this is really a potential for retention.
These are the loyal businesses that have been
here and they have delivered for us.
And if there is a need, I believe we strongly
need to be for them.
And actually we even have the letter from both B
IA's that are 100% involved in this,
and they are talking to the members on daily
basis.
They are very much supportive of this to continue
,
not just to defer the payments,
but also to continue because the need is there.
So again, especially what was said now in last
few minutes,
I really hope we can have a clear support
for this, for the amendment, then for the full
motion.
Let's move to another point on the agenda.
Thank you.
- Any other speakers on the amended amendment?
You've already spoken to the amended amendment.
Okay, we're gonna open that for voting.
those in the vote motion carries 11 to 2.
- Okay, now the main motion as amended.
Councilor Stevenson's still willing to move that
and Council approval's still willing to second.
Okay, great, we'll have debate on the as amended
main motion, no.
Go ahead, Councilor Ferra.
- Thank you, Mayor.
So I can't support the motion as it is.
Just because there's still that concern
with the draw from the economic development
reserve fund.
There's some questions that I was writing down.
Like if we were to come back in June,
after we get the downtown plan and the active
development
strategy and say, OK, we know how much is this
going to cost.
We know this is going to draw on the active
reserve fund.
We don't have enough money now because we drew it
from here.
And then we can pause this.
My original question about a referral and asking,
do we need to make a decision now?
Because staff have to do the work,
have to identify the property, send out the mail
outs,
get the properties to respond back.
How will that impact that at that point?
like should we not make a deferral now for the
decision
and wait until we get it back?
Because I feel like if we were to come back
and make that decision in June,
we'll be even more hard pressed to do that work,
that administrative work.
- So I'm not gonna have a staff answer to,
should we question what you said?
Let me just start to articulate what was
mentioned before
and that is the thing that we are deciding today
is essentially loan payments don't have to happen
until March of 2028, but we're not deciding
whether or not we paused the program
at some point for new intakes,
but we've essentially backfilled the CIP program
to prepare for that for new loans being issued.
So if we paused the program in the future,
there would be an excess of funds of the CIP
reserve fund
that perhaps could reallocate it to other,
be other projects, that would be a future
decision of council.
So, but I don't want our staff to answer should
we do this
or that, these are the options before us.
there's not a right answer, these are pathways
that we can pursue.
- Could I, I guess let's confirm,
just kind of reduce it down to like an
administrative process.
Like would staff have a greater difficulty
in I guess processing this work and sending out
the mailouts
if we were to reverse course in June?
- So if we're making a decision to cause the
repayments,
we're not changing that, we decided that today,
there is nothing on the repayment side
that they need to provide notices for.
Those notices will be given.
The work would be the advertising
of the existing program, which could take new
intakes,
and then would not be taking new intakes
at some point if we paused it.
So I don't, like our staff can answer,
but essentially there isn't any work
after you've done the initial notifications on
that you don't have to pay until March of 2028,
and you've got to tell us that in writing.
But you can comment on the administrative work of
advertising
if the program was paused for new intakes.
- Through your worship, so as far as the
advertising,
that's something that's an ongoing thing
that we're always doing.
So that's not a huge delimiter.
Usually we would provide about 60 days in advance
and notice to say that you're a fee be required.
So that's really the only other timeframe
that's involved at this point.
- Councillor Ferrer.
- Okay, thanks.
Can staff tell me what the uptake was for both
programs in this year compared to last year. Do
you have those numbers?
Mr. Mathers
Through your worship. I don't have those numbers
at this time. Sorry. Go ahead. Hey, thanks. I
have the numbers
I don't know mr. McCauley's online, but the
numbers that he gave to me was in 2026 for the
facade improvement loan
We've only had one applicant
Look to get that loan with comparison in 2025.
There was five and then for the upgrade to
building code loan program
We had two applicants in 2026 and last year was
five as well
I like I still have the concern of drawing from
the economic development reserve fund
I would much prefer to just pause the issuance of
these new of these two CIPs moving forward
considering
We have the very low uptake so we don't have that
impact on the active reserve fund
And especially my concern is again going back to
you know
I'm worried that we're not gonna have enough
money depending on some of the actions coming out
of those two plans coming forward if we
Could defer or refer the motion
Until we can make that decision after especially
if there's a discussion about potentially
flipping course once we find out
That would be good. Can I move a motion to refer?
Yeah, motion to refer as our seconder for a
referral this Councilor Trossa. Okay, we're on a
motion to refer
or do you want to provide some rationale for that
?
- Yeah, the rationale is exactly what I was
saying.
I think we should wait until we know
what those two plans are going to have in them
before we make a decision here,
especially one that could directly impact those
two plans
and any type of interim funding actions
that would come through.
So it would be to defer the decision,
this decision, until we find out what's going on
with those two plans.
- Okay, on the referral on the other speakers.
Go ahead, Councilor Raman and then Councilor Tro
ssa.
- Thank you, and through you on the motion to
refer,
can I use my, I'd like to put the question at
this point?
- Yeah, just give me one second, I think you can,
but I wanna double check,
'cause people will ask me about it.
- Chair, there's a lot of side talk right now.
I'm hoping that you can control the room.
- Yeah, and I'm happy to ask Councillors,
well, I'm doing this to not be having
conversation
with yourself that our colleagues will,
they're disruptive 'cause I need to make
just a quick ruling on to put the motion.
Okay, sorry I had to take a moment for that.
There is a piece here that I'm gonna make clear
on my ruling.
So I'm gonna say you can put the question,
'cause I'm gonna say Section G does not apply to
a referral.
If you were putting the question on the main
motion,
I would say it would apply,
'cause it's an expenditure of over a million,
but the referral does not actually authorize
an expenditure by the municipality.
So you've met all of the pieces to put the
question.
So the Councillors ask for the question to be put
.
This is, can't be amended, can't be debated.
we just move to voting on, put the question,
which will close debate,
and then we'll immediately proceed
to vote on the referral.
So this requires a two thirds vote to put the
question,
and the way it's worded is the question shall now
be put,
which is means we're gonna, if you vote yes,
we're proceeding immediately to a vote on the
referral, okay?
So we'll open that for voting.
- And closing the vote, motion carries two thirds
,
and to three.
- Okay, so that means we'll immediately proceed
to a vote on the referral, Councillor Ferrer's
referral,
so we're gonna open that for voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion fails, three to 10.
- On the main motion, I have for Councillor McAll
ister next.
- Thank you to the Mayor for God.
It's been a while, sir.
Thank you for giving the chance to speak to this
item.
I was just waiting for everything
to kinda work its way through the system.
I know in terms of what Councillor Ferrer said,
in terms of what he views as the uptick.
I would still say from an area that has a CIP,
There is still a lot of benefit to this program.
There are businesses that are on it
and would definitely appreciate the deferral.
Apologies that Hamilton Road BIA couldn't submit
a letter.
I'm sure they would have as well,
but they got other things to deal with right now.
I would say there's a lot of value in these
programs.
As an area where often, unfortunately,
I have to resort to demolition.
I think having these options available in areas
that are really struggling is very important.
And I would say from my experience with
discussions,
with these programs specifically.
I think we could do a better job advertising them
.
I take the opportunity whenever it's presented to
me
to bring this up, especially in buildings
where they could have tenants,
they could do the facade improvements,
upgrades of the building as well.
These are important things, especially in areas
where we've got older buildings that really need
the work.
So I would suggest to all my colleagues
when these discussions happen, if you've got a C
IP,
please absolutely put this forward.
appreciate what the Councillors put forward as
well
and all the discussion that happened today
and I will support this, thank you.
- Okay, any others on the main motion as amended?
Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you, I just wanna quickly ask for support
again
on this, it shows Council's continued commitment
to this area and it allows, we want people
to get the facade loans and the building code
loans.
We want them to invest in our core area.
This is our way of doing it.
And again, as Councillor Prabble said retention
is easier,
cash flow is everything to businesses
and even $200 a month makes a difference.
Sending the signal that no,
we start to expect loan payments in September
when we haven't achieved the objectives
that we all want in this area,
I think would have very negative consequences.
So I really hope for your support.
And I will just say again to my colleagues who
have concern
that the door has not closed to options.
This is a support of the deferral of the loan
payments.
Cause of the loans is still available to this
council in June.
So I'm hoping we get as much support as we can on
this.
Thank you.
- Okay, any others on the as amended main motion?
Go ahead, Councilor Troso.
- May I ask before I start?
What time did we start this matter?
- I don't know.
And that's just gonna take time to look up.
So do you want me to do that?
- No, it's all right.
Let's proceed then.
- We have a rhetorical question.
I'm gonna vote no on this.
And gee, we were doing a lot of committee work
here today.
And I think that when people bring forward
emotion,
especially if it deals with a couple of different
neighborhoods,
it would really be great if people could sort of
consult
with each other before coming to council.
And I just, I really feel as if we've lost the
audience,
people have come here to hear about policy
matters
that are on the agenda.
And here we are, here we are.
It's been over an hour, I'm not sure how long it
's been.
But I just think we have to be better
about not doing committee work at the council
table.
So I'm just gonna vote no on this.
And I'm sorry it wasn't referred, but that was
the vote.
So there we are.
Thank you.
- Okay, other speakers.
Okay, we're gonna open the as amended,
main motion for voting.
- Opposing the vote, motion carries 11 to two.
- Listen, I'm going to ask colleagues
if we could take a 10 to 15 minute break.
We have staff in the room as well as ourselves.
We've been doing this for four hours.
I get that the public is waiting for matters,
but we've got to give everyone a chance to do
that.
So I don't know if someone can move at 10.
We'll say, say I want to do 10.
All right, 10, 10 minute break by moved by Coun
cillor Hopkins,
seconded by Councillor Van Mereberg,
and we'll do that by hand.
All those in favor of a 10 minute break.
Any opposed?
- Motion carries. - Okay.
Okay, thanks, please be seated.
Appreciate this short break.
We'll continue on with the agenda.
I'll go back to Councillor Layman.
- Thank you, Mayor.
Moving on to number 10.
This is regarding 63 Greenfield Drive,
Councillor Cudi requested this be pulled.
- Okay, thus is on the floor.
Councillor Cuddy.
- Thank you, worship and through you.
I have a motion and I'm presenting it on the
floor
for Councillor Palosa.
Shall I read the motion or is it on the board?
- Yes, it's not on the added agenda,
so I'm gonna need you to read it out.
- Okay, I will need to read it then.
Thank you.
Oh, you, I'm sorry.
- Sorry, could you read it if you have it there?
- Yes, I have it here.
Thank you.
It being further noted, the applicant requested
to consider the following design matters
through the development of the site.
Number one, six-foot privacy fencing
along the North Line, two non-transparent
materials
used on all north-facing second and third floor
balconies.
And number three, coniferous replacements for any
trees
damaged or removed along the North property line
to ensure year-round privacy.
- Sure, and I'll second that to get it on the
floor
so we can proceed.
Did you want to provide any rationale
or are you presenting on the CAF Council proposal
?
- No, thank you.
Your worship, this is brought,
as I mentioned, this is brought forward
by Councillor Palazzo, it couldn't be with us
today,
and I think it's an excellent motion.
Thank you.
- Go ahead, Councillor Layman.
- I'll speak briefly to it.
Councillor Palazzo would like to get this as an
amendment.
Normally we'll go to site plan,
but site plan is not available option
on this particular development.
- Okay, any questions or comments on these
matters?
No? Okay.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- Closing the vote, motion carries 13 to zero.
- Okay, and now I need the motion as amended,
Councillor Layman, you're willing to move that.
- Okay, Councillor Cudi willing to second it.
Okay, that's moved and seconded.
This is the same staff report with the pieces
we just demanded into it.
Any discussion on that?
Right up in just a moment.
Now we'll open that vote.
- Opposed in the vote motion carries 13-0.
- Councillor Layman.
- Thank you, moving on to number 11.
This is regarding 50 to 356.
When do Mayor, that was referred to PAC?
Councillor Trusso would ask this to be pulled.
- Okay, go ahead, Councillor Trusso.
- Yes, I may or may not through the chair
have an amendment depending on the answer to my
question.
So I might want to amend this to say we should
deny it
without prejudice so it could come back,
but if the motion's okay, as it is,
I won't make the amendment.
So my question is, do we run any risk
that this matter due to time be taken up on
appeal
before you're able to complete the request?
- Thank you, through your worship.
The matter, if it's referred back,
will not meet the statutory timelines.
it will not meet the statutory timelines
if we refer it back.
- In that case, given the intention,
there was a clear intention to try to
sort of get a better traffic study here
and also think about the effect on the hospital.
In your view, what would be the best way of us
doing that without risking, without taking undue
risks?
'Cause I'm inclined to support this,
but I would prefer to,
If that's going to just get us a trip to the,
to the, to the, to the appellate body,
I'd rather just deny it without prejudice
and have it come back.
And can you advise?
- Well, I, that'll put it.
I mean, I don't want you to speculate.
You can't possibly know if we refer it
whether the applicant would appeal or not,
but you can provide any context you can,
where we certainly can't hold you to that
on behalf of that third party.
- Thank you, through your worship.
The staff recommendation is in conformity
with the London Plan and staff supported the
application.
Now it was standing, a committee's decision to
refer back
that does cause delay in terms of meeting the
timelines.
So that does allow the applicant the opportunity
to appeal for a non-decision.
Having said that, there is no mechanism other
than that
to require the applicant to do anything else,
but to make a decision by council,
if council should choose to deny the application,
that the applicant could also appeal.
- Okay, well, I'm sort of at a loss here
because it's my strong belief that the matter
of the effect on EMS and the general traffic in
that corridor
is something that should have been dealt with
much more robustly in the application and it wasn
't.
So I would not be supporting the application at
this point.
I'm happy to have the application come back after
discussion with the EMS.
I think this is a very serious public safety
problem and being familiar with that strip
of land at the north part of the university and
the kind of traffic that we see at the
own wind the mirror, from Richmond going all the
way back, I just think that it could
could have a devastating effect if someone in
that area
needs to access EMS services.
Or if EMS services from a patient out of the area
needs to get to or fro from the hospital.
We need to be giving better consideration
to how these land use applications affect public
safety.
And I think we failed to do that.
And I was just so happy that so many,
I think very reasonable people came from the
neighborhood
to point out a lot of the concerns.
and I just want to once again support what they
did
and ask, I think I'm just going to support this
recommendation
and hope for the best, because I think in the end
,
the position we're taking about having more
regard
to emergency services is very reasonable.
Thank you.
- Any other speakers to this one?
Okay, seeing none, we'll open this for voting.
- Opposed in the vote.
Motion carries 12 to one.
- Councillor Lehman.
- Thank you.
Moving on to 13, it's regarding 845 to 875
commissioners,
Robert East, Councillor Hopkins requested this
to be called Councillor Hopkins.
- Yeah, thank you, Your Worship.
I've been struggling with this one all week.
It's, I'm still not sure where to go,
but I'm getting there.
You know, four apartment buildings,
right next to winning USA, 868 units go towards
housing agreement, which is great. The intens
ification is 275, which is pretty high. I was
pleased
to hear from the applicant that there will be no
development on the ESA and the extra
buffering around the development. I'm pleased to
hear that, but I'm still really stuck on
this one and I'm very supportive of the changes
of the 50% native species in
the recommendation and of course the bird
friendly using the bird friendly
policies. This is what I'm disappointed in though
is that we have removed a part
of the recommendation which allows the building
entrances are to be oriented
towards the public street with pedestrian
connections to commissioners
road east and consideration of a maximum floor
plate as well above the 8th story
to mitigate shadow and provide a slender tower
portion. That's not in that
recommendation. I think these are important
components of having this go
through. The other thing I just want to make a
comment on the updated EIS. I know
in the recommendation it refers to an updated EIS
. So it's in there. But I think we could have made
the recommendation a little bit stronger as we
develop and tend to supply around an ESA. So for
that those are just my comments and I won't be
supporting it. Other speakers, go ahead,
Councillor Troso. Again, through the chair, I
gave a lot of thought to some potential
amendments
but being mindful of people's time and the fact
that this was sort of discussed, I think,
at some length at the committee. I think I'm just
going to state my objections, at least some of
them, at least the ones I can get into five
minutes, about this project and then just say,
"I'm going to vote no." I am exceptionally
disappointed in the way this has come before us.
I think that there were some serious flaws in the
staff report, which I believe some of them were
addressed, but some of them were made worse. I'm
very concerned about the fact that there
is not a complete EIS. Apparently, others don't
share that concern. Not only is there
not a complete EIS, but there are some really
good recommendations in the EIS. Did you know
that there are actually 50 recommendations for
mitigation measures in the EIS? And I guess
I would ask without without going through each 50
, each of the 50, which I wouldn't have time
for it. To what extent are those 50
recommendations in the EIS, in complete as it was
, but in the
completed part of the EIS? To what extent are
those recommendations going to be incorporated
into the project? To what extent are they binding
, or are these just recommendations that the
developer can or cannot adopt? Go ahead. Thank
you. Through your worship, just like to clarify,
the EIS was complete enough to establish the zone
boundary, and that's why staff recommended
approval of this development. With respect to the
EIS recommendations, that's the consultant's
report prepared for the applicant that's shared
with staff, and while it may not be fully
accepted
yet, there's a second part to it. Those
recommended mitigative measures will be
incorporated either
on the site plan or in the development agreement
conditions and so that's how it finds their way.
The next step would be to refine the elements of
the EIS and that's the part that I believe that
the council is referring to that will find its
way on map five and that's part of a housekeeping
matter that staff would be dealing with in the
second stage around the site plan approval.
So thank you through the chair. I'm not to the
mayor. I'm not getting the kinds of assurances
that the substantive recommendations in the EIS
are actually going to be adopted.
They may be, they may not be,
and it's up to the site plan process.
As we know from our further discussion,
past discussions about the site plan,
we know that these are not binding conditions
as would be in the case of a holding provision
for example.
So I'm very concerned that some of the good work
that was done in the EIS, and I want to point to
with the fact that I think there was good
work done in the EIS. I'm concerned that that
good work may or may not, may or may not,
get incorporated into the final project. I'm also
very disappointed that at no point
was there any kind of discussion about, okay, you
've got three 14 story, well, three 14
or so story, high rises, along the main road and
you got one in back. Was there any discussion
about saying, okay, do the ones on the main road
but not the one in back? Was that ever
a serious discussion of negotiation between staff
and the applicant?
Go ahead. Thank you. Through you, Your Worship,
the development application that was submitted
showed four buildings and that's what staff had
reviewed and recommended approval.
That's a true sound thing. I'll take that if I
may take that as a no, no. I think that in many
in many ways, this application raises very
troubling issues about our relationship to to
open space and open space that is particularly
near and adjacent to sensitive areas, and I
understand that we have a lot of constraints in
terms of what we have to do because we don't want
to be taken back to the to the panel and lose and
lose.
but I just feel as if we need to do better.
This council needs to do better to protect the
environment.
This is a failure of policy,
and I'm certainly gonna be voting no on this
application.
And I would urge others to really consider voting
no.
Now, we could unfold a discussion that could last
,
oh, an hour or two, talking about amendments,
which might give rise to amendments to amendments
,
and et cetera, but I can read the room.
I can read the room.
So I'm just going to say I'm very disappointed
with how we've treated this application.
I'm very disappointed that we're going to put
so much density in this area,
and I'll just simply be voting no.
And I'm sorry that it's come to that,
but I don't think I have a lot of choice.
I cannot support this application.
Thank you.
- Okay, other speakers to this application.
I'm gonna speak briefly to it.
I'll hand the chair over to Councillor ramen.
- Thank you, I have the chair, go ahead.
- So I certainly understand the concerns
that colleagues and even members of the public
raised,
but we actually have to be pragmatic here
and recognize the history of the site
and what's allowed to be developed on it.
There are over six hectares of the site
can currently be developed under the existing
permissions
and including significant portions of the site
that under this application would be donated
and given to the municipality for possible future
inclusion
into the ESA.
So I disagree that this is a failure of policy.
I disagree that this is bad environmental policy
decision
making.
This is rational decision making based on the
circumstances
that we have before us.
And we have an opportunity to see some height and
density
focused on the north and west portions of this
site,
the furthest parts of the site away from the
existing ESA,
and a significant over three-hector donation
of the more sensitive parts of the site,
some of which are zoned light industrial,
to the city, to be protected in perpetuity.
This is an opportunity for us, yes,
we have to give up some heightened density
to move beyond the existing permissions on the
site,
but this is a rare opportunity for us
to expand a really critical environmental asset
in the city through a three-hecter expansion
into city ownership of the USA.
You heard, and I don't think it was one
of the best public engagement sessions
because there were a lot of people showing up
saying,
don't do this at all because we wanna protect the
USA.
It doesn't recognize the existing decision
that was made and the existing binding
development opportunities on that site
that we don't have much of a choice
it could move forward without any council
decision making.
So that's why you heard people who are staunch
environmental supporters, staunch supporters of
the ESA,
stand up in the gallery, even though other people
are standing up in support of it and say,
although I don't want to have to say this,
council should support the staff recommendation
because it is that opportunity to take into
public ownership
a significant new asset that we can turn into
an expanded ESA over three hectares.
So I get that this is a difficult one
because we have to navigate circumstances
and decisions that were part of tribunals
and previous decisions that were well before our
time.
But we have to recognize an opportunity when it
comes.
And so the proposal before us allows that to
happen.
And I think that that is an opportunity that we
should seize.
I would also say with density in the area,
we're talking about a significant public
investment
in rapid transit just steps down the block
at Wellington Road from this site.
You know, the density in this site near
significant,
one of the most significant employers in the city
,
the hospital, and access to the BRT.
This is not a bad spot for density.
When you take into fact that we can create
a new significant permanent municipally owned
buffer
to the ESA or even incorporate as part of the ESA
on parts of the site that were zoned light
industrial
and for other commercial uses.
So I'm gonna support the recommendation for you.
I would strongly encourage you to.
A rejection of this means we're back to the
unknown
and possible six hectares of development on this
site
without any municipal decision-making
by this council whatsoever.
So I encourage colleagues to support this one.
- Thank you, returning the chair to you
with no one on the speaker's list.
- Anyone else on the speaker's list?
If not, I have, I need someone to move
to just a small tactical amendment.
And that is just the words attached
revised by-law because the by-law that was before
us at the committee didn't have all
the pieces in it.
So we just need to put that wording in because it
will refer to the by-law that actually
came before council.
Councilor Stevens is willing to move that and
Councillor ramen is willing to second it.
I don't presume there's any debate on that.
No.
Okay.
We'll open that small technical amendment for
voting and then we'll vote on the main motion.
Motion carries 13-0.
And I'll have Councillor Layman move this and
then I'll second it and we'll open the main
motion for voting.
closing the vote motion carries 10 to three.
- Councillor Lehman.
- Thank you.
I'm moving on to number 18.
This is regarding the Midway Valley
environmentally significant area at a wander on
road encroachments.
Then Councillor Hopkins requests this to be
pulled.
- Okay, this has been requested to be pulled
by Councillor Hopkins.
Happy to go to you first, if you'd like.
Or wait, up to you.
- Yes, I was not at planning committee
for the debate that I am just looking
at the recommendation that came out of the
committee
and I do have a concern as it relates to D,
that civic administration be directed to report
back
to a future meeting and look at options two and
three.
I am supportive of option one,
which was the staff's referral.
So I would maybe just for now share my concern
concerns that if we are going to get a report
back, we should understand the consequences
to the whole city.
And not only -- we should get further information
if we are going to go with options 2 and 3.
And the other part of my concern is that, you
know, we have to be very, very cognizant
of allowing opportunities that probably
don't even exist now of encroachment.
And I would really prefer that DEB referred back.
So those are my comments.
- I have Councillor Lehman next.
- Yeah, thank you.
Sure, some of those concerns.
So I just would ask that DEB pulled separately
please for the vote.
- Yes, we can do that.
And I think we'll do D for first when we get to
it.
But we'll do debate on the whole thing
until the vote, and then we'll pull it separate.
Other speakers to this?
Councillor Troso.
- Mayor, through you, I think that we had
a very, very clear and persuasive staff report
regarding the desirability of adopting option one
.
And that is continuing along the lines
with our encroachment program that has been
undertaken
by city enforcement authorities.
I do not think that this council
should be substituting its judgment
for how we should be dealing
with these code enforcement issues.
I'm not gonna make the claim that it's illegal
or inappropriate, apparently we can do it
'cause it's on the agenda
and it would be the direction of council.
I'm very worried about what the implications
of going anywhere besides option one.
And I wanna talk about the fact
that a lot of people are watching this.
There are a lot of people,
not just on how to wander on, not just in Sher
wood Forest,
not just in White Hills,
not just in the other areas that back onto parks,
people around the city are watching this.
And what we should not be doing is sending out a
signal
that says, "Yeah, do you wanna encroach?"
Well, you shouldn't do that, but if you do,
don't worry about it, 'cause we may just decide
to come back and excuse it if enough pressure's
put on you.
And I think that is a really bad way to be making
policy.
I also have concerns about how we're going to
dispose of
with or without a public participation meeting,
the matter of the nature of the trail,
the nature of the park versus in ESA.
So I would be in favor of reinstating the staff
report.
I would be in support of substituting the staff
report
for this recommendation.
And I'm a little bit unclear procedurally.
Maybe I could get some guidance from the clerk.
If I tried to make a substitute motion
to reinstate the staff report,
would that be considered contrary to this?
And would it be necessary to vote this down
before proceeding to the staff report?
I think that's what the answer is gonna be,
but I need to check.
- This is great.
- Yep, just give me one second.
So Councillor, I think if you wanted to put a
different recommendation on you're probably
going to have to defeat what the committee
approved because it's relatively substantive
and then you could put something else on.
Thank you.
And that's into the entirety.
There's the encroachment issue here.
There's also the future disposition of the nature
of what's going to be in that land.
So I'm just going to be voting against the entire
package that came from planning.
I do want to ask legal staff if you could just
sort of tell us worst case scenario,
or what do you think is going to happen?
If we go along and start negotiating
with under option two or option three,
what could some of the implications of that be
in terms of people's expectation
that the encroachments be excused
or in other methods of enforcement?
- Well, I will have to ask the solicitor
if she would answer that or not
in an open session, so go ahead.
- Thank you, and through your worship,
I think those would be questions for a closed
session.
- Councilor.
- Would it be fair to ask whether or not
you concur with the recommendations in the staff
report?
- Yeah, so Councilor, I'm not.
So civic administration wrote a report
that has concurrences on it.
I wanna be cautious about you asking the
solicitor
a question that might get into revealing
what might be her advice in camera on something
or not.
So I'm not gonna allow that question,
what you have is an original staff report
with multiple concurrences and signatories on it
and staff reports are reviewed by legal regularly
.
So I just want to be cautious that the,
'cause the solicitor just answered,
there are components of this
that she would answer questions in camera.
And I want to just express caution
in the way that you're asking that question
'cause it might lead to her essentially providing
legal advice and public by answering a question
in a way that you're wording it.
Then let me recognize that the code enforcement
authorities
have a certain amount of authority,
even though this is somewhat of a legal matter.
May I ask code enforcement staff,
whether they have any concerns
about how proceeding with option two or option
three,
might or might not compromise their ability
to enforce encroachments in the future.
- Mr. Vaylers?
- Through your worship.
So just going back to that,
the committee report that we brought forward.
So we were very clear.
We recommend option one,
which is to ensure that we keep these lands as
public lands.
It makes it much more clear when we're trying to
negotiate
and work with residents,
but that was the staff recommendation.
- Okay, well, I think I've made my position
pretty clear here
and I'm not going to make any amendments.
I don't think I can.
I'll reiterate, I believe very strongly,
that we should go, that we must go with option
one
and that this council is going to have to return
through some type of amending process,
possibly including a public participation meeting
with respect to the disposition of the nature of
the land.
And I'll leave it at that for purposes of this
discussion.
I really want to urge my colleagues
to reject the motion that's on the floor
and return to the staff report.
I believe that we're going to be suffering
a lot of pushback, a lot of loss of confidence
in our boundary system, and perhaps additional
litigation,
although I won't ask about that now,
but I think there is going to be a loss of
confidence
in what we do if we do not go with option one.
So please vote no, and it's entirety
on the motion that's in front of you.
Thank you very much.
- Okay, other speakers to this?
Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you.
I just wanted to point out that this does not
preclude
option one, that we're asking for information
back
to get a report back to a future meeting
to explore options two and three
and report back on an alternative mechanism.
So this is about getting back information.
It's not about making a choice.
We're not doing anything drastic.
We're simply asking for more information back.
And I think the specifics of this area
warrant that extra time and consideration.
So I will be supporting.
- Okay, other speakers to this.
Go ahead, Councillor Ramen.
- Thank you and through you.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this
item.
So to start, I just wanna say,
I spend as much time as possible in the Medway
Valley.
I walk it frequently during the week,
clean it up when I can, including this coming
weekend.
And I'm generally supportive of the CMP.
The motion in front of us at this time
is to request a report back to assist residents
and council to understand the opportunities
and consequences to addressing the boundary
issues.
Personally, I would lean towards a case-by-case
assessment
for option three, which is an encroachment
agreement
where the city maintains ownership,
should residents not comply.
My understanding in my conversations
with residents in the area is as of March 25th,
the letters included in our package,
residents have been encouraged to comply with
enforcement,
meaning option one is actually still live.
There is a cost to comply for homeowners.
And this is something we can't and haven't really
discussed.
We haven't discussed the financial implications
for people in this area to comply with the
enforcement order.
So a few things.
One, and you see it in the letters from ARNA,
the Adawandran Residence Neighborhood Association
.
A survey of this area has not been done
other than an aerial photo.
So when markers are placed in their backyards,
they are very unclear at this time
as to whether or not those markers are as
accurate
as possible when it comes to the encroachments.
They've been told and they've been told
that they are to comply with the orders.
There are things like trees and shrubs.
They're not sure if they're native or non-native.
And they're trying to figure out
what's going to be the implication
for those trees and shrubs
if that fence that they had comes down.
And in their minds, some of them,
in my conversations with them,
they're incensed by the fact that the city
may require those trees and shrubs,
some of them very old and mature
to come out of their yards.
There's an issue with the slopes in those back
yards
in some of the backyards, about five or six,
where the fence line and the slope line,
again, is very unclear.
And if they comply with the order,
it doesn't actually, may not actually allow them
to put a fence in their backyard at all.
So there's lots of unanswered questions,
but yet they feel like all they've been told is
to comply.
So we're a report back actually buys us time
to give people more information as we continue
to explore the conversations with the area.
Conversations within the letters
that we've received, the communication you've
received,
people have been very clear in this area
that there has been very limited communication,
1978 subdivision agreement, 2024 enforcement
action.
And in between that, there was a conservation
master plan
and the conservation master plan had one
neighborhood
representative who doesn't live in the
neighborhood anymore.
So the agreements around the trail, the level
three trail
and all the different components of the CMP
may not have made it to residents in that area.
And because of that, they've asked for more
information.
And so again, this is not a decision point
on what happens next, whether or not we decide
on option two or three, it's another report back
to give people more information, more time to ask
their questions from within those boundary
disagreements
and to find out more information
about the options that are in front of them.
- The speakers, Councillor Pribble.
Thank you, I also had a chance to visit this area
,
like most of us actually even last year when we
were there before and it was on our agenda.
I just want to say that I will support, I will
support what is in front of us because I do want
to receive the report back and again as already
was stated it's not that the number one is not
of the table but I do want to evaluate the
reports back. Thank you. Okay before I get to the
next
speakers I have enough people on the speakers
list that I need a motion to extend past six o'
clock
move by Councillor ramen seconded by Councillor
Stevenson we're going to vote for that in the
system. Opposed to vote motion carries 13-0. All
right I'll go to Councillor Freira next
year next on the list. Thank you Mayor. So I'm
here in the debate and we spoke to this at PEC as
well
but I don't want to like convolute like
everything that's going on to it let's just
reduce it right
down to what is this about and it's about
property owners who are a budding parkland or
or environmentally significant areas
and building whether they build a fence
or something on it and they encroach on the area.
And now there's a dispute between whether that
land
should be, I guess, owned by property owners or
licensed
and whether the city should continue on its
enforcement
for any type of encroachment on the city lands.
I think that, you know, like with options two and
three,
you know, like I understand that this is a report
back
for more info, this is not making a decision
right now,
but it's also a signaling of council being, I
guess,
up for the discussion on are we gonna consider
this potential encroachment?
Are we gonna consider potentially finding the
lands
to be either surplus, selling it to the property
owners
or licensing the land as some type of agreement
and allowing these encroachments to take place?
And I think that's it, that signaling is an issue
.
I think what we should be doing is just signaling
right now and saying, you know, it is not
okay for publicly owned lands to be taken over by
property owners.
It is not okay to basically see these public
lands, especially park lands, especially
environmentally
significant area lands, and potentially give them
up to property owners.
I think these lands are the entire, they belong
to the entire city.
should be enjoyed by the entire city and I think
this would set a precedent and
it would open up the discussion and remove our
ability to enforce any
types of encroachments in the future. Like if we
were to signal this direction
right now that we are willing to have this
conversation, who's to know in the
future a potential property owner who decides to
build a fence or put a patio
stone down on publicly owned land and say okay
that's mine now and then point to
this item and say you guys you did this in the
past what why would you say no to
me now this will hurt our ability to to enforce
such encroachments in in the
future this does set an a precedent that will
undermine our ability to enforce
city-owned land to enforce publicly owned land we
should signal right now
that this is not something that the city is
willing to to look into we should
remove any type of encroachments, we should
recognize that this is publicly owned land
available to everybody in the city, and if
someone were to say, you know, I put my fence
down here, this is now my land, we should say
that no, it is not. This is a city owned land.
And I think that we should just, you know, be
consistent with our enforcement practices
like we have in the past. I worry on how that
will tie the city's hands in the future.
And if we were to make a decision with respect to
option two or three in the future, that
is not going to help the city's enforcement
practice as well.
It could lead to a whole bunch of items that are
just going to not necessarily work in
the city's favor.
So I am not going to be supporting the motions.
I think we should go with option one.
I think we should signal right now that this is
city-owned land.
This is park land.
This is environmentally significant land.
belongs to everybody. And if someone were to
build something there from their private
property and approach onto the land, that doesn't
mean it's your land. You know I worry
about that. What's to say, private property owner
who abuts a park land moving forward
after this decision doesn't decide to build a
fence that goes out into the park land and
say that's mine now. And I'm willing to have a
conversation with the city on how that will
happen. No, we shouldn't be doing that.
- Mr. Speakers, I have a request to vote on D
separately,
which we'll do first and then we'll vote
on the rest of it all together, okay?
So we'll open D for voting.
- Close in the vote, motion fails, four to nine.
- Okay, and we'll open the rest of it.
- Close in the vote, motion carries 10 to three.
- Councillor Layman.
- Thank you, Mayor, that completes the six report
of the Planning Environment Committee.
- Okay, that moves us on to the six report
of Community and Protective Services Committee.
I'll turn it over to the chair
to present the report, Councillor Ramen.
- Thank you, and through you, Chair,
I'm looking to present the six report of caps.
I was asked to pull item four,
item seven and item 10,
but I'll look to see if there's any other items.
- Okay, anyone like anything else
pulled separately besides four, seven and 10.
Okay, go ahead, Councilor.
- Thank you.
I will put on the floor items one through three,
five, six, eight, nine and 11.
- Okay, those items are on the floor.
I'll look for any speakers to those items.
Okay, seeing none, we'll open this for voting.
Hold on.
- Sorry, in the added agenda,
Councillor Frank had an item for 11.
I just remembered.
- It's her item didn't require any sort of action
.
It was simply a letter she wanted attached to it.
There's no decision she's asked us to make.
It's her signaling some future.
- About a future audit.
Okay, perfect.
- Yeah, it doesn't need to be separate.
Okay, so we're gonna proceed with the vote
on all the items that the council mentioned.
- Please vote, motion carries 13-0.
- Thank you, I'll look to put item four on the
floor.
- Okay, item four is on the floor.
I look for any speakers.
Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
- Thank you and through you.
I just had a couple of questions for staff.
I did send them ahead of time.
Not sure if we can get answers tonight
or if they'll come later, but on page 10 of the
report,
it talks about a reduction in the urgent wait
list
by 942 and yet only 321 housed from that same
urgent list.
So just if the public's looking at this
wants to know I just wondered what happened to
the other 600. Mr. Dickens.
Thank you Your Worship and thank you for the
questions ahead of the meeting
today so we can have a response. For the urgent
status so prior to staff the
stopping of the taking of urgent requests council
had actually directed us that
applicants had to be residing in London or
Middlesex County for the past or prior
nine months in order to be eligible for the
urgent status. So the team did a list
clean up where individuals were removed from the
urgent status or removed from
that list for anyone that was no longer
applicable for that definition.
Additionally, there are folks who perhaps found
housing elsewhere that they didn't
respond to or they refused an offer, which means
they get removed from the
list. That's actually a legislative piece that
came in to play shortly
after January 2020. Or the application becomes
ineligible due to a change in income and
a few other various reasons. So there's a whole
host of variables.
Okay. Thank you for that. That's really helpful.
I did have another. Well, I'll just have a
few comments, I think, that I'm really concerned,
as I think everybody knows, about the housing,
The tenancy, placement and profile, the terrible
apartments that I'm seeing and the conditions
that people who are living in some of these
buildings are enduring.
On top of the fact that we're getting damages to
apartments and we're losing those units
and we're losing funding that we could put
towards other units.
So this change was done in September 2024, and I
was really looking forward to this update
to find out and hear the good news, hopefully, of
what was happening.
But I'm disappointed that we don't have the
feedback back.
It says that the request for feedback just went
out in March of 2026, and we don't have
the information back yet, just really would have
liked to have seen that, and I know it
says that it is coming. I'm not sure when the
next reports are going to come. We've talked
about this before, too, about how the act
requires individuals to be able to live
independently,
but being able to assess this seems to be a
challenge. But it's having devastating impacts.
It's having devastating impacts on the people who
are living in these houses, and they're
not able to live independently, the people who
live near them, the cooperative housing
buildings that are trying to maintain these
buildings, and in the neighborhood quite frankly.
So in here it says that there's challenges
related to mental health related behaviors,
substance use and addiction, hoarding and extreme
clutter behaviors, aggressive conflicts
with others, cognitive or developmental
challenges, social isolation and disengagement,
trauma-related
behaviors in general non-compliance with tenancy
obligations that are leading to a loss of housing
.
It says many traditional housing providers are
not designed to deliver the required housing
that many on the waitlist now need and about how
there's staff are going to need to go through
the waitlist and try to reassess and reevaluate
that which is crucial and I'm looking forward
to hearing how we can support with that, but the
immediate need is how do we stop putting people
into these buildings who really just are not
capable of living independently and need those
additional supports. Stopping that is what I was
hoping to see in this report, was that what we
had done with the change in in ratio was working
when I talked to some of the housing providers
they're saying that they're still finding, even
with like taking really great care around
assessing the people themselves off of the wait
list, they're still finding that 40% of
the people that they're putting into the building
are really having devastating impacts.
That's just not sustainable.
And we're seeing that in the toll pedal situation
.
We're seeing it.
I'm hearing about it in others.
report that we got back said that I don't know if
it was 25% of the buildings were you
know at risk and we're only just looking at one
what is the depth of the issues that
we're facing at 122 baseline and I'm not even
sure if it's an RGI housing but it's on this
wait list issue and in terms of placing people.
We created brand new affordable housing and what
's I believe understood is based on bad
tenancy profile and placing people who couldn't
live there independently. We have ourselves
lost affordable housing units. A one-bedroom that
used to be $592 a month is now 1,039.
A two-bedroom that was 689 is 1,238. A three-
bedroom that was 709 is now $1490. And this
This is our affordable housing by guns are in the
past, but we can't afford this.
We all want affordable housing.
We want to maintain it.
We have to identify the problem and fix it.
I'll be voting against this report because I just
don't feel I have the answers that
I'm looking for.
Other speakers to this?
Okay.
Seeing none, we're going to open this for voting.
Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1.
>> Thank you. I'll look to put item 7, 2.7, the
approval of service agreements with White Oak
Heritage Housing Corporation, Inc. on the floor.
>> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look for any
speakers. Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson.
>> It's me again. I'll try to keep it shorter
this time. And for the clerks, although I'm going
to be voting against this, I don't need the bill
pulled separately.
And this, I just want to be clear too that my
vote against this is in no way disparaging
this white oak heritage housing cooperative ink.
It's consistent with my past votes, no against
these agreements.
And my concern is that I just don't have
confidence in the system.
I feel like the system is broken, the model is
broken, what we're doing isn't working.
And until I can feel confident that we're moving
in the right direction and we've dealt
with the issues. I'm not going to continue to
support this. I did want to point out that
I loved on page 99 that it says we're going to
have a public web page that's going to
have the agreements and subsequent amendments and
be available publicly. So I just wanted
to say thank you for that. But we're talking
about hundreds of millions of dollars a year
for this one cooperative housing building. And we
're looking at them contributing to their
capital reserve fund. $378 million in year one. $
385,000. I apologize. I apologize.
That makes a big difference. $378,000, $385,000.
The point was to meet their capital shortfall
of $2.5 million over the five years, which I get.
But it's hundreds of thousands. It's
late after 6 p.m. I'm doing millions instead of
thousands. We're talking about hundreds
of thousands of dollars each year of taxpayer
money that's going to organizations that are
now going to be making capital investments,
spending big contracts, I'm just nervous.
And it could be just a lack of information on my
part, I still need to dig into it, but
I'm concerned about the governance, the oversight
, the risk of fraud, the risk of making bad
decisions with this money and like I said nothing
to do with this cooperative
specifically my concern is with the system in the
model and until I have
confidence I'm going to be voting no. Other
speakers okay seeing none we'll
open this for voting. Was in the vote motion
carries 12 to 1. Councillor
Ramen. Thank you and I'll look to put item 10
which is 4.2 the report back on
basic needs and pathway options feasibility of
contract extension 519
pursuits umbrella relief programs on the floor.
Okay that's on the floor I'll
look to speakers for that. Go ahead, Councillor
Stevenson.
Okay, me again then. So for this one, I just want
to be really clear. This is nothing
negative about the agencies who are doing amazing
work with their staff, with their volunteers,
meeting a desperate and dire need that's out
there, that they're witnessing firsthand,
that they're doing everything that they can to
address that need, to fight for the plight
of people out there. And they're doing what they
need to do coming here and asking us for money.
So I just this idea that I'm not wanting
that I don't honor the work that's being done out
there.
I just wanna make perfectly clear
that I honor all the work that is being done out
there
by everybody.
My concern is the system and the model that we're
using
and the lack of confidence that I have to do my
job,
which is to make funding decisions
and I feel that we don't have the information.
We knew this funding was short term.
We knew it was coming to an end.
We knew the need was going to continue.
These agencies are dealing with all kinds of
uncertainty
every single day.
This is an uncertainty that I don't think
needed to come to us this way.
I feel like it should have been very clear months
ago
that the funding was going to end
or that the motion was gonna come to council
and ask us for the funding.
This could have been done months ago.
So to be dealing with this after the fact
that the funding has already run out
and that we've got uncertainty in the vulnerable
population.
I have a problem with it.
The funding that ran out, we had a bunch of them.
It wasn't just these two.
We had the London Cares 602 Queens
that received 437,000.
I've emailed staff and I found out that the
previous year
it was done through life stabilization funding.
Then in last year it was done through this
temporary funding.
Now they've found the money through life
stabilization again, but I'm I didn't know this.
The
at Losa also had two full-time equivalents for
their outreach funded through this temporary
funding. Have they been able to continue? Did
their funding end? I don't know. We have been
told
that there's a funding cliff coming. We know that
and we also have predictions from the agencies
from staff. Everyone says the problem is going to
get worse. I have a difficult time making
decisions
in little piecemeal bits where it's coming from
motions from colleagues that maybe sympathize
with an agency. I'm not sure where this is coming
from, but we have one that we supported to say
come back and now it's come out of committee with
another agency with funding. So I look at the
added agenda to see if another colleague added
another agency or is somebody going to bring it
on the floor? Is this this doesn't feel like a
well-run city? It doesn't feel like a well-
managed
crisis. I want to know what are the needs? What
are the gaps? What are we prioritizing? What's
coming in the next year? We've got winter
response coming in June with options to us. Are
we going
to have the funding for that? What was the 300,
000 in the reserve fund originally planned for?
Because
staff and the whole of community system response
have not come to us and said we should continue
this funding. We got a staff report months ago
saying the funding was going to end. We're
letting
you know. There was no direction, no advice given
to continue it. And now before council,
we're making a decision as to whether to continue
it or not. And somehow if we vote no, it's like,
oh, we don't think they deserve the money when
that's not how I feel. But how are we making
decisions? How are we assessing the need? And we
still haven't addressed the issue of the drop-in
service in Old East Village. So for three years
now, I've been saying it's a
problem. It's not working. We've talked about
good neighbor agreement that got
rejected. When compassion needs to be widespread,
we've got taxpayers and
residents and seniors and people on ODSP and OW
living right there. Every single
day, they are emailing me in tears. As a city
counselor, as a ward counselor, I can't
support this. I want better solutions. I want to
hear from and be a part of it. I just want
to say in terms of the drop-in service, we're
meeting with Arcade and Kevin from the Old
East Village BIA and myself. We already have a
meeting booked. I appreciated Sarah reaching
out to me. Hopefully, out of that will come some
suggestions. I'm assuming this is going
to pass, but we can't continue the way that we're
going. It's unfair to the people who
live in that area, so I hope to be bringing
forward solutions in the future.
Okay. Other speakers? I have Councillor ramen. I
'll look for other speakers after that.
Thank you. And through you, a well-managed crisis
is an oxymoron to me. Let me just
say that the reason that the letter that was part
and parcel of the caps agenda was in front
of us was because of the federal government
announcement that came out on April 1st.
So it was a response to that announcement that
there was potentially a way forward where
organizations
can access funding.
And so that $125 million announcement didn't come
with a lot of details yet.
And so as we await the details, we have a number
of organizations that had come forward, had
been repeatedly coming to engage in conversation
about what are the funding options available.
And so what's in front of us today is a way for
us to move forward alongside these organizations
with some monthly commitments until such time as
that UHEI funding or other funding from the
province or federal government is
realized because this money is coming from
reserve funds. And so it gives us a way forward
with an up-to-limit of about 350,000 and again
the drawdown from that social service reserve
fund added to that motion. Councilor Hopkins
amended to add that conversation with other
organizations which staff said they would
continue to have so so again I agree this feels
like
an imperfect situation it feels like a response
that maybe came at the last minute but sometimes
when things are out of our hands from a funding
perspective we have to pivot and find a way
and this was a way for us to do so so I'm hoping
my colleagues will support what's in front of us
I know that many of my colleagues are having
really good dialogue with organizations in
this community about the good work they're doing,
and they're looking to work collaboratively.
So I really appreciate that effort.
I think that it's really important.
It's the way we move forward together.
And so, again, what's in front of us today is a
way forward.
Obviously, you know, it's a step in a direction,
but it's not the full answer.
We need more support.
We hear that continuously in order to,
and we need, sorry, consistent support
in order for us to help address some of these
bigger problems.
- Okay, I have myself next,
so I'll turn the chair over to Councillor Lehman.
Thank you, please go ahead, Mayor.
- Yes, so I appreciate the comments by my
colleagues.
I wanna echo a couple of things that Councillor
Ramen said
at the end there, good of a challenging situation
when there's a funding announcement for renewal
of funding
after the funding has ended.
It creates gaps in a system and creates a
tremendous strain
on those who could potentially benefit from the
funding.
I wanna go back though to the genesis of UAGI
renewal,
leading up to meetings that the federal big city
mayors
had in Ottawa with Prime Minister Mark Carney and
his team,
I met with all the various agencies in the city
who were utilizing the previous funding in
conjunction
with support of our staff to say,
we're going to go advocate for necessary funding
that the federal government has put on place
and the renewal of that funding might be under
this program,
might be a renewal of the program,
might be an increase to reaching home funding.
But what are the impacts on the work
that you're doing of this funding ending?
a number of them have been mentioned today,
and there's a variety of organizations impacted.
But I wanna commend, although it would have been
great
to have the announcement a little sooner
than the end of the funding,
and I wanna commend the federal government
for actually renewing the funding.
And I wanna credit the big city mayors federally
for their advocacy on this,
particularly the mayor of Montreal
who essentially spearheaded some of our advocacy
with the federal government on this,
given the impacts that her city is also facing,
and the agencies in her city
and the way that they're using this funding.
So again, I agree with Council Raman.
We deal with many imperfect situations all the
time.
To know that funding is going to be renewed,
but not have a lot of detail,
puts us in a very difficult situation to try to
find ways
to allow agencies to continue their work,
recognizing that we don't want to backfill
federal dollars
on an ongoing basis.
But we do want to position ourselves very well
to try to get those dollars.
And I want to thank Ms. Campbell and others who,
when they said, what can we do to help,
my response was help us advocate to other levels
of government to try to secure dollars.
Ideally, permanent long-term stable dollars
so that we're not in this situation time and time
again.
And so to their credit, I appreciate the work
that they've done in that advocacy piece
to meet with others and to share their voices.
It is difficult for the municipality to be in a
situation
where we do not have enough resources
to do all the good things we want to do.
And we come out with situations and motions
that sometimes are not perfect and could, you
know,
could be better or could be five different
versions of it.
But I think the motion that's on the floor before
you
recognizes a couple of things.
One, the ongoing need in our community
for the services that we're being provided
under the federal funding.
Two, that the municipality can't be the long-term
funder of this, which is why there's a cap on it
and why there is a desire that should we achieve
the funding to restore the reserve fund with the
dollar
that we can use it for other priorities that we
know we already have in the city and support
other work in the space. And three, the need for
continued advocacy on this at all levels of
government. This is only a challenge that will be
solved when we can all get on the same page,
when we can all pull in the same direction. I
appreciate Councillor Hopkins work at AMO,
appreciate the work of my colleagues across the
country at Big City Mayors and through the FCM,
but also the work of agencies and Councillors in
the city to advocate to our local representatives
for the resources that are necessary, and we will
take steps forward when we pull in
the same direction.
This is absolutely necessary federal funding, but
it is great that they renewed it, and
I have to say the city of London and the agencies
here desperately need to secure our
share of it to continue the work that's being
done in our city.
So the motion today is just one step to give us
some time to do that advocacy, but I want
to be clear.
The work is not done to try to encourage the
federal government to say, "You need to
to flow these dollars as you did before,
into the communities that were utilizing them
for the work that was being done,
because that is where the gap is,
and that is where the gap has to be filled.
- Steve, I'm gonna need that chair.
- Sorry, I'm gonna return the chair to you.
- Thank you.
I'll go to any other speakers on this.
Okay, then we have the committee's recommendation
before us, we'll open that for voting.
- Posing the vote, motion carries 12 to one.
- Councillor ramen.
- Thank you, that concludes my report.
- Okay, we're on to added reports,
And I have, I think he volunteered kind of,
Councilor McAllister volunteered to read out
the report out of closed session,
and there are two items that Councilor McAllister
will present today.
- Thank you, Your Worship.
If I volunteered to be in the piece of paper
that was put in front of me, then yes.
Here we go.
This is the central report of Council in closed
session.
This is number one, property acquisition 141
Highbury Avenue, North Highbury Avenue
and Hamilton Road intersection improvement
project
that on the recommendation of the deputy city
manager,
finance supports with the concurrence
of deputy city manager environment and
infrastructure.
On the advice of the director,
Realty Services with respect to the acquisition
of property located at 141 Highbury Avenue North,
and the city of London further described
as South 22 feet on lot 142,
North 22 feet on lot 143, plan 511,
in the city of London County of Middlesex,
being all of pin 08340-0247,
containing an area of approximately 0.1 acres
as shown on the location, a map as appendix B
for the purpose of future improvements
to accommodate Highbury Avenue
in Hamilton Road intersection project.
The following actions be taken.
The offer submitted by David Ernest Wilkes
and Mary Louise Wilkes, the vendor to sell the
subject
property to the city for the sum of 340,000 be
accepted,
subject to the terms and conditions is set out
in the agreement as appendix C
and the financing for this acquisition be
approved
as set out in the source of financing report
here too as appendix A.
Sorry, I've tried to go as fast as I can with
these
but I'm plating a little bit here.
Two, Western Fair Association and City of London,
JAR Expo Center, Redevelopment Construction
and Contribution Agreement.
That on the recommendation of the deputy city
manager,
neighborhood and community-wide services
and the concurrence of the deputy city manager
Finance supports the following actions be taken
with respect to the staff report,
dated April 13th, 2026, related to the Expo
Center
Redevelopment Construction and Contribution
Agreement.
A, the Civic Administration be directed to apply
the financing for this agreement as set out
in the source of financing report
as appended to the above noted staff report.
B, the construction and contribution agreement
as appended to the above noted staff report
appendix B
between the Corporation of the City of London
and the Western Fair Association,
regarding the redevelopment and operation of
portion
of the Expo Center, formerly known as the Agripl
ax
into three core gymnasiums be authorized and
approved.
C, the mayor and the city clerk be authorized
execute the above noted agreement.
D, authority be delegated to the deputy city
manager
and neighborhood community wide services
or written delegate to approve the further am
ending
agreements to the above noted construction
and contribution agreement.
E, the deputy city manager neighborhood
and community-wide services, or written delegate
be authorized to undertake all administrative
steps
and execute financial reports, as required,
under this agreement that progress was made
with respect to items 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.6,
as noted on the public agenda, 6.2/7/ICSC6.1/6/P
EC, 6.1/6/6/PEC.
/6 / cpsc and that is it okay you get to stand up
Councillor because your rocks
so we are presenting that report I'll look for
any questions on both of those
items that colleagues might have or any
discussion okay we're gonna open that
for voting those in the vote motion carries 12 to
1 okay we're on to deferred
matters or none inquiries see any no one can for
me of any okay emergent
there are none. Okay, we're on to bylaws. So I'll
say eScribe is being a little
slow so these might take just a little longer
than normal but we might only have
nine votes depending on what people want holds.
Right now I have it organized as
Bill 181 which is from the Planning Committee,
the Commissioner's Road
Peace. That's gonna be separate and we'll do that
first. Then we have the items
related to SBPC and M2.2 which is the Housing
Accelerator Fund items and then
and I was gonna try to do everything else,
including the confidential items that came out of
CPSC
and ICSC that Councillor McAllister just wrote.
If you want something separate beyond that,
I'd need to know now.
Otherwise we could proceed with those three votes
in that way.
So anybody want to do it differently than that?
Okay, these are someone willing to support all
that.
I'm willing to second all of it.
Someone willing to,
Councillor Layman's willing to move.
So we'll use you and me as the mover and seconder
for all that to speed things along.
Okay, so the first thing we're gonna do
is the commissioner's road item,
and we're gonna start with first reading
moved by Councillor Layman, seconded by myself,
and we will open first reading for voting.
- Motion carries 10 to three.
- Okay, we'll just have one sec
'cause we are faster than e-scrap.
Okay, second reading, and I apologize,
it might take that long for every vote
'cause that's how long e-scrap is taking to
refresh.
Any debate on second reading?
Same move for seconder.
Seeing none, we'll open that for voting.
- It's a purple motion carries 10 to three.
- Okay, and we'll go to third reading,
same mover and seconder and we'll open third
reading for voting. Motion carries
10-3. All right the next one are the two by-laws
related to the housing
accelerator fund report from SPPC moved by Coun
cillor Layton and seconded by
myself wait a moment and then I'll open first
reading bills are 182 and 183 and
I believe it's from item 2.2 of the SPPC report.
This is a memo that Mr.
Mathers circulated to. All right we're all good.
Okay we'll open first reading.
- It carries 12 to one.
- Okay, and in a moment we'll do second reading.
Is there any debate on second reading?
I don't see any, but we'll just wait for the
system
and then we'll open the vote as soon as it's
ready.
Okay, that should be open now.
- Motion carries 12-1.
- Okay, we're gonna open the next reading for
voting.
- Motion carries 12-1.
- Okay, next we're gonna do everything else,
including the stuff that was presented
by Councilor McAllister.
All right, I'm gonna ask because this might take
a bit
if we have to reboot the system.
We're voting on all the rest of the stuff.
Is anybody actually opposed to all the rest of
the stuff
together, like, OK, because it makes it really
easy
to record the vote if we're all in favor.
I'm still going to call the vote by hand,
but we want to have recorded votes.
So if someone's opposed, I'm going
to wait and let people put it in the system.
OK, I don't see everybody's in favor.
OK, all right.
So we're going to do first reading of everything
else
that's left, by hand.
All those in favor?
And that looks like, are there any opposed?
OK, none opposed.
Come on.
We're going to record that as everybody in favor
as everyone present.
Second reading, any discussion on all of those
in favor on second reading?
And anybody opposed?
- Motion carries.
- Okay, and no one was opposed there too.
And third reading, all those in favor,
and anyone opposed?
- Motion carries, not opposed.
- Okay, so we're gonna record that
as it would have been done in these scribe there.
Otherwise, we probably would have had
a 10 minute refresh there.
So everybody can enjoy whatever weather's left
out there.
- Okay, which means we're on to adjournment.
I'm gonna look for motion to adjourn,
Councillor van Merebergen seconded by Councillor
Cuddy.
All those in favor of adjournment?
- Motion carries.
- All right, we're adjourned.