They were fine. Okay, thank you. Please be seated. >> Uh, welcome to the seventh meeting of municipal council for this session. Uh, I'm going to start with a land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anesnabek, Hneson, Lanipewok, 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 wamp and belt treaty of the hodnon confederacy silver covenant chain. The beaver hunting grounds treaty of the hodnon nanfan treaty of 1701. McKe treaty of 1790. The London township treaty of 1796. The heron track treaty of 1827 with the Anesnabek and the dish with one spoon covenant wampam of the Anesnabek and Hneson. The three indigenous nations that are neighbors to London are the Chipua of the Temps First Nation, Onida Nation of the Tempames, and the Muny Delaware Nation, who all continue to live as sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures, and customs. City of London is also committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, you can contact council agenda@london.ca CA or 519-661-2489 extension 2425. And with that, it brings us to uh our national anthem. Sarah Weeb is a core member of London Symphonia's violin section. As an active freelance violinist, she has recorded on Juno nominated CDs with both the National Youth Orchestra and the children's group Splash and Boots, which I have seen many times having four kids. Um, 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. Okay, we're uh turning ourselves to item one, which is disclosures of punerary interest. I'll look for any disclosures that colleagues might have. Okay, seeing none, then we're on to recognitions. I'm going to start with councelor Hopkins. >> Thank you. your worship and uh members of council. I would like to briefly acknowledge International Fall Day which will be observed on May the 8th. This day is an important opportunity to raise awareness of 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, health care professionals and advocates who support them. I want to 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 Zazuta who is a board member of the Thalismia Foundation of Canada and is also a resident in in Lambbeath. Thank you for being here. I'm also pleased that city hall will be lit read on May 8th in recognition of International Thalosmia Day supporting everyone that is afflicted with this disease. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Um I will do the next recognition. So just give me a moment. Uh so I wanted to start today by recognizing that uh uh the national day of mourning uh is a day where the nation remembers uh those who were workers who were killed or injured or made ill on the job. I I think we first have to recognize the families, friends, and co-workers whose lives have been forever changed by workplace tragedies. As a community and 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 must that must be told and remembered. We 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. There are many groups in the city who work to try to make uh workplace uh 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 um or recognize in their own ways. Uh and as a city and a council, we certainly pause to remember all of those who were lost in workplace tragedy, but those who were also injured or did not um get to return home in the same way that they left. Um I just wanted to end because even at the corporation, you know, there have been lives who've been lost over the years. And so I just wanted to end with just a moment of silence for all those who have uh who have lost their lives due to workplace tragedies. Okay, please be seated. Thank you. >> Go ahead, councelor Tessa. Um, thank you very much. Um, and um, I want to thank the mayor for uh, raising that and recognizing it. I was one of the people that was at one of the um, ceremonies today. And I just want to add that the special focus uh, in London is looking at a very very particular and emerging type of uh, workplace uh, injury and that is psychological damage. And there were a number of people in attendance who were able to speak to particular instances of that. And it's also worthy to note that um the lifetime achievement award from the London Labor Council for um on this issue was awarded to Mr. Steve Holmes who who many of you know he's an LTC bus driver and uh Mr. Holmes recounted several instances over his career of uh bus drivers being uh being in harm's way with respect to these types of uh uh issues. So again, thank you. Thank you, mayor, for raising that and uh it certainly is an important uh occasion and I was very honored to be able to attend one of the ceremonies. Thank you very much. Thanks. Any other recognitions? Excuse me. Okay, seeing none, uh review of confident matters to be considered in public. We have none. That brings us to council in close session. We have six items to go into close session before all the reasons are on the public agenda. I'll look >> that's why councelor Tro could just have your microphone. Okay. I'll look for a motion to uh to move into camera for those reasons. Councelor Cuddy seconded by councelor McAllister. Any discussion? Okay. We'll open that for voting. Councelor Ferrer. Councelor Lewis. >> Councelor Lewis votes yes. >> Councelor Ferrer votes yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 13 to zero. >> Okay. We'll be moving to committee room 5. 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 councelor Frank is online I believe uh both councelor Hillier and deputy mayor Lewis uh will be joining us online potentially uh shortly. Uh I appreciate the public's patience that uh was a little longer than uh I had anticipated but uh 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 uh 31st 2026. I'll look for a mover of the minutes. Uh, councelor Hopkins, seconded by councelor Van Mirburgen. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, we'll open that up for voting. >> Councelor Frank votes yes. >> Noted. Thank you. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. All right. Sorry, I was just trying to get out of some reading, but the clerk says no. So, um the uh first two items of the uh uh communication and petitions are actually expropriations. So, uh, we're going to proceed with those two items first and then every other item in the communications, including all of the addeds have, uh, positions placed in the agenda. Uh, they will be referred to those, but we'll do that vote after we do 6.1 and 6.2 first. And so, uh, 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, um, approval authority. uh we then make a recommendation on the expropriations. We 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 um but and a lot of reading on my part but um we'll stick through it as pursuant to the expropriations act. All right. So I I'll uh I'll read the motion. I'll get a move in a second. uh move that council convenes the approval authority pursuant to the provisions of the expropriation act RSO 1990 uh 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 W12A landfill. I look for a mover and a second to convene as the approval authority. Moved by councelor Van Mirburg and seconded by councelor CDY. We'll open that vote. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. Okay. Now sitting as the approval approving authority um the motion is that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager and uh environment and infrastructure with the concurrence of the director of climate change and environmental and waste management on the advice of the director director of realy 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 therewith. A that council the corporation of the city of London as the approval authority pursuant to the expropriation act RSO 1990 uh section E26 as amended hereby approves the proposed expropriation of lands as described in schedule A as uh appended to the staff report dated April 28th 2026 in the city of London County of Middle Sex. 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. Uh B, subject to the approval of A, a certificate of approval be issued by the city clerk on behalf of the approving authority in the prescribed form. Look for a move and a seconder for that motion. Moved by councelor Cuy Van Mirburgen. 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, uh that the meeting of the approving authority be adjourned and that council reconvene in regular session. Moved by councelor Layman, seconded by councelor 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 uh 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 realy 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 W2 12A landfill and that the following actions be taken. A the proposed bylaw as appended to the staff report dated April 28th as appendex A being a bylaw to expropriate lands in the city of Lenin in the county of Middle Sex the expanded W12A landfill project be introduced at municipal council uh at the meeting to be held on April 28th 2026 and B that 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 RSO 1990 section E26 within 3 months of the approval authority granting approval of set uh expropriation and C 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 and D that the city clerk be authorized and directed to execute and serve notices of expropriation required by the expropriations act RSO9 1990 uh section E26 and such notices of possession that may be required to obtain and possess uh obtain possession of the expropriated lands. Uh moved and seconded by councelor Cuddy, seconded by councelor McAllister. Any discussion on that recommendation? Okay, seeing none, we can open that up for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. And just for colleagues, the ecribe is just a little slow, so it just make it might take a moment for those votes to to pop up. Uh for sections 6.3 all the way through 6.10 um 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. Councelor Verber and seconded by councelor Ferrer. Any discussion on the referral of those items? Okay, seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. >> Okay. Item seven, uh motions to which notice is given. There are none reports. We have report 8.1 which is the sixth report of the strategic and priority uh priorities and policy committee. Uh I'm going to turn it over to uh the vice chair, councelor Ramen, to present the report on behalf of the chair and council. Uh thank you and through you I would like to um present the sixth report of SPC. Uh that meeting um so far I've been asked to pull a few items from the list. Uh I've been asked to pull uh five, six and eight and I will just look around to see if there are any other poll requests from my colleagues. Uh would anybody else like anything dealt with separately other than five, six, and eight? >> Okay. See none, you can prepare a motion. >> Thank you. Um I'd like to put items 1 to 4, uh items 7, 9 to 12 on the floor. Okay. So, those items are on the floor. I'll 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, Council Ramen. >> Thank you. I'd like to put item five on the floor. That's 2.1, the micro modular shelters update. >> Okay, that item is on the floor. I'll look for speakers on that particular item. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, we did get a briefing note from staff with a a breakdown of the details on the cost, both both the monthly and the capital, but I shared it on Facebook and there's a lot of um 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 um is it possible to get either publicly posted or shared with council a more detailed breakdown of the costs? >> Mr. Dickens, uh through your worship, uh well, I can't speak for the capital cost. This is why we asked at committee the level of detail the committee wanted, which was a highle breakdown of the operating cost broken into the large chunks of where that operating cost goes. So, we are reflecting in that briefing note what we understood to be the direction from council. Should council have different direction, we're in your hands. >> Okay. Go ahead, Councelor 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 um 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 in the I mean staff gave us exactly what we asked for. So if I would say if colleagues are looking for something with a more detailed breakdown, that would be that would likely be a a motion asking for it at this point. Um only because staff responded to the previous direction and provided the information as we asked for it. Okay, thank you. Well, I'll um I'll leave it with my colleagues to see um because the thing is it would be around the wording of it too. I understand that the monthly is uh a budget at this point and it might vary month to month. So, I guess I was looking for guidance um regarding how best to get the clarity that the public is looking for. Um, it's something I can do offline as well and potentially bring through CAPS. Um, 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 uh being purchased and put into the shelters. I just wanted 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. >> Uh, thank you, your worship. Um, there are TVs installed in the common trailers. Uh, I believe those were uh donated items. However, I will um 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 audio video good. Okay. >> Yeah, we can hear you good. >> Okay. Thank you. And through the chair, yes, Mr. Dickens is correct. There is uh two televisions um in the recreational trailers. Many of the residents, not many, several of the residents do have televisions in their own trailer which they provided uh themselves as well. So yes, donation of two uh provided in the common spaces and there are several others in the cabin spaces, >> councelor Stevenson. >> Okay, thank you. Um 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. Um but one of the things that is coming up with the public is the cost because it is $4,800 per month per shelter when the capital costs were all funded. It is a little mindboggling to the public and to those who are trying to survive on their own uh on a low income on a pension or on ODSP or OW. I know. Um I took a drive out to Hamilton about 6 months after the Tiffany Barton shelter site went up and I had an opportunity to speak with uh someone from there who worked there and I 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 where you 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 um and food is all prepared and everything. I again I'm just sharing what I hear from the public in terms of their concerns in terms of uh 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 we want this to be well I want it's people are asking me what the transition plan is why sort of basic life skills such as food preparation and 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 um while I'm pleased that we've got another opportunity to help people who are living unsheltered, I'm going to be voting no to receiving the report. And I just want to explain why. And it's because I'm hearing clearly from the public that there's not enough uh transparency around the cost. They they they want an itemized listing of costs and invoices. Personally, I I understand that. And they also want to understand why the cost is $4,800 per month and what the transition plans are to to ensure that um we're we're treating people with the care and respect that they need, but also um asking for some uh working towards independence at least. So, thank you. >> Okay. Okay, I'll look for other speakers. Councelor Troau. >> Well, uh, thank you, uh, through the through the chair. I'll certainly be voting to re receive this report. That's all we're being asked to do. Um, I know from time to time, um, members of the public like to leave comments on social media posts. Uh, may I ask the clerk, did we did we receive anything in the form of a uh added agenda item or uh some request to actually put these concerns uh in front of council with respect to this uh item on the agenda. received. >> So, councelor, if you're asking whether all the communications received are on the agenda, all the things that were given to um the clerk are on the agenda if they were there on time. Um I mean, the clerk will not I mean, he's not going to comment on all those, but there things we've received are on the public agenda as per the prescribed time frame. >> Okay. Well, thank thank you very much. Um, I I think it's really important for those of us on council who engage in social media to when when people write in with, you know, concerns that should be forwarded to council that they're that they're reminded that posting something on uh 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, Councelor Fra. >> Thank you, mayor. Um I just kind of following up. Um 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. Um I just wanted to break that down. So is that from what councelor Stevenson is referring to, I think she said 4,800. I broke it down to 4,200 divided by 70 per individual. Um I just wanted to know for that 4200, what services do we provide uh in addition to just housing? So I I believe it's not just housing. I believe we have uh further supports, whether it's um getting people paper ready, whether it's uh I think employment services are included in that, foods. I was wondering if staff could break down the extra numbers on that. >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you, worship. I'll start this this response. Um, as we shared with council members, um, those operating costs include, um, the staffing on site, the contracted, uh, staffing agency, uh, providing supervision, uh, PSW, all of the um, services and amenities that have been articulated, um, daytime transportation services to appointments, um, scheduled, uh, transportation to appointments, uh, custodial and maintenance services, meal service operations, uh and consumable supplies, cups, cutlery, things like that. Uh food services are included in that cost. Uh so the provision of uh daily meals in addition to snacks um so that folks meet their caloric intake. Uh we also have uh the necessary packaging and delivery of those meals. Uh and then a large portion of the operating cost is also the rental of the trailers so that people have a washroom and a shower to access as well as the communal spaces. So uh rental of the support trailers, uh the maintenance materials and operational supplies that go into running a brand new city facility that opened up in about 70 days. Um and then of course throughout the seasonal operating costs, you have snow removal and and garbage collection and things like that. Uh thank you for that. And uh the intent is is this like a long-term stay at these micro uh modular sites or is this more of like a short-term kind of stabilization stay because I understand that uh most or if not all of the uh individuals who are staying there are uh were previously um not with housing. Is that correct? >> Mr. Dickens, go ahead. >> Thank you worshiping. Yes. As is indicated in the SPC report, every individual that is now uh benefiting from the services at that site was current was previously uh living unsheltered uh experiencing direct either street level unsheltered homelessness or encampment uh homelessness. Uh 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. Um, so the cost is the cost for and we we hear it too that everybody can build these things cheaper, but nobody was. Um, 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 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. Um the intent of this space was to open it quickly, get 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. We expect two uh potentially moving in by week's end. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you. Uh 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 out without shelter or neighborhoods around them. I guess uh going pivoting to that just focusing on the I guess the financial costs though uh I did see from the last evaluation report that the cost of homelessness unsheltered individuals is around $70 to $100,000 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 $8,300ish per year uh for individuals who are outside on the street financially and that's only on the financial side to the 4200 in the microo side. I do see uh financial cost benefit there of it costs the city half and I'm not even speaking about the social uh uh cost of um when it comes to individuals uh out on the street themselves. So I was wondering if staff could just kind of point that out for that evaluation report for how much it does cost uh the municipality and the provincial government and the federal government. I guess all the taxpayers together uh how much it costs for one individual being out on the street uh per year and per month. Go ahead, Mr. Dickens. >> Through your worship without having that data handy, but it does ring a bell that that would be correct that there are significant costs of folks living unsheltered both on the municipal system and the provincial justice, police and uh healthcare systems as well. >> Go ahead. So, I think these are fair questions to be asking by the counselor of the costs and everything. Um, I would say that it's not just housing. Uh, there is extra things that are involved with the micro modular sites. The cost when it comes to individuals who are out on the street, what they go through emotionally and without any housing or any stability is is a big cost. The cost of neighborhoods and families who you have individuals in encampments in, there's a cost there, too. Uh but when you were to and and those costs will be relieved if individuals are housed with the microo 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 $8,300ish per month per individual living unhoused to $4,200 in a micro modular site. I I think you know I think there's a an efficiency there for costs. >> Okay, other speakers go ahead. accounts approval. I >> think I'll be very brief, but I'm going to make some comments and yes, I will certainly we all would like uh lower expenses and I certainly want to look at the effect 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 on uh there are other costs on the street encampments and also in the hospital there's actually much lower than lead uh than that with actually very similar services at hospital provides. Uh I'm very happy to hear that there are certainly people that are 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 stabiliz stabilization cost some money. Thank you and please let's stay on track with this making sure people we move them on to move them on for better improvement of light.1 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 and I will certainly uh vote to accept this report >> uh thank you uh myself next on the list I'll turn the chair over to councelor layman Thank you. And uh I'll uh go to the mayor. >> Um thank you. So I was going to ask a question of Mr. Dickens, but he actually answered it in response to uh uh councelor Ferrer's questions, and that was uh one of the things we talked about early on was making this a pathway to housing. I I'm very excited to hear that two people are, you know, after only a few months of operation, uh, not only moving into the micro modular site, but finding the right type of housing for them and 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 I think we should be conscious of the cost of the things we do, right? uh taking action municipally does cost dollars and taking action particularly within the space of serving vulnerable individuals uh does require a cost to it. The micro modular site is a unique shelter option that has number of components to it. Uh it's a site that uh you know serves people much in other ways that bringing people off the streets and 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 going to come out with connections to housing services, we take pressure off of lots of things, lots of areas that cost uh residents money, whether they're paying it through their provincial 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, CR interactions can go down when you provide people with spaces. You know, business impacts are minimized when we have 67 people in housing, 70 people potentially. Um, there's impacts on the public. uh encampments in public parks, encampments in public spaces, you know, 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. But mo most importantly, there's a there's a human cost to not providing the service that we're providing, right? when 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 it too 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 micro module 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, um would I love for this to be part of a system across the province where provincial dollars are put towards it? For sure. And maybe maybe we will build something here with the best practices of others that may be picked up uh by another level of government to be funded in the future in some way. We we may build a model much like we did with the hub system that that that evolved into the hard hub system across the province of which I just met uh with my OBCM colleagues the Minister of Health who talked about the early successes that they're seeing in the heart hubs across the province. You know, we might do something that inspires other action in other community 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. Uh they've done it quickly and they've done it with uh with uh professionalism and expertise and I think they brought us back the reports and information and if council needs more reports or information. We have all every ability to to ask for that moving forward. And I think again we're in the early stages here still. Um I think it's right. You know we're 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. Uh I know I mentioned, you know, Colombia actually donated some jackets to the individuals living there. We've got other other groups saying, "How can we help? Can we donate? Can we support in some way?" And that can also defay some of the operating costs cuz what I hear from the public and members of the public and businesses is we want to step up and help too. What role could we play? And interacting with our staff gives them the opportunity to to support something. That's great. And I just want >> 30 seconds. >> 30 seconds. I just want to say something really brief. I know uh Chris Moss from London Caris is in the gallery tonight. I want to say through the presiding officer, thank you for being an early critic and 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 help very well and I appreciate you uh writing the letter and your organization writing the letter to recognize the success of our micro modular site. Uh early critic but but very happy with the way it's going. Thank you for doing that. >> Thank you. I'll return the chair to you, mayor. >> Okay. I'll look for other speakers on this particular item. >> Okay. Seeing none, then we'll open this for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries. 12 to one. >> Councelor Rabbit. >> Thank you. and uh through you I've asked councelor PBLE to present the next report since I voted against >> councelor Pribble. Thank you and through the chair I would like to present the 2.2 2 housing accelerator fund and I just want to let you know that during the pack committee there were two parts part A uh which was um uh specific uh uh specific initiatives for the current program and that one was passed 9 to4 and part P was administration to report back with future initiatives and that part was passed 130 so it was unanimous so I would like to present this point 2.2 two, housing accelerator fund. >> Yes. And just one second, counselor, because there was a a memo circulated from our staff about a bylaw that requires an amendment to this piece. So, 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 going to make. Uh, in the original motion, Mr. Baylor said we're bringing forward a bylaw. It's going to be this bylaw to do this. Actually, two bylaws 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 uh the motion before us is. I councelor Prible if you're willing to move that amendment. We can you can do that while you're presenting >> and I certainly will move that. Thank you. >> I'll second it just to get on the floor and that's going to come up in escribe 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 bylaw be introduced at the municipal council meeting uh on April 28th, 2026 to amend bylaw number CP 1545-41 being a bylaw to establish financial incentives for the affordable uh housing community improvement project area uh 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. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. So, now we have the as amended motion. Uh I'll have councelor Pribble present that. It needs a second or so. I'll >> Okay. Okay. Now, we can have discussion on this as amended motion. I'll look to speakers. Okay. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. >> Okay, councelor Ple. >> Thank you for that. I would like to return the chair to council ramen the chair of the committee. Thank you. >> Well, I have the chair but she can continue to present the report so you can uh relieve and councelor councelor ramen as the vice chair of the committee will present the further components of the report. >> Uh thank you and through you I will put on the floor item 84.2 the London transit rapid transit operational readiness review. >> Okay that is on the floor. I'll look to speakers to this item. Go ahead, councelor Vanir Bergen. >> Thank you, mayor. If you could call uh B separately. >> So B like section B counselor B. Okay. Yeah, we can for sure do that. Okay. All right. But is there any debate or discussion on the overall item? Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. hear your worship. I just wanted to uh make a comment. I this is on 4.2, but I know we're receiving three items. Uh and I'm I'm really excited about um the transit uh rapid transit uh operational readiness as we go forward. It's been a number of years. I know we are directing LTC to um um come back back to us with a report at the end of uh Q4. I just want to make a comment. I know uh 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, um very supportive of this going forward. >> Okay. Thank you. Any others? Councelor Tro. >> Um thank you very much um to to the mayor. I 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. Um I am a little concerned that this uh if this doesn't come back until the end of Q4 um it could be a new council possibly Q4 is the end of December. Yeah. Um a new council perhaps at one of their first meetings. And I'm just wondering short of making an amendment, is is there some way we could like nudge this a little bit to get it back before um this council before we go because um I just I just am a little uncomfortable with the length of time this is sitting out there. >> Well, I can go to Miss Sher. I'll just note that it says no later than Q4 and um transit commission certainly could endeavor to try to do it faster but it kind of be up to them at this point based on the way the motion is worded but I'll go to Miss Sher. >> Thank you your worship and you have stolen my answer but uh agreed. So this will now go to London Transit Commission to for their receipt and direction to their staff. That would be an opportunity to have a discussion about whether those timelines could be flexible. um the timelines we have in place are the ones that we discussed with our colleagues, but certainly between council and its commission, there may be that opportunity. >> Okay. So, what I'm what I'm hearing then through the chair is I would have the opportunity as a member of the LTC board to encourage them to come forward with the report uh earlier than than the end of Q4. >> Uh so, yes, I think that's exactly what Miss Sher and I said. Uh the council's request is no later than um 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. >> Um that that's right and I appreciate that and in light of the fact that it would be um a request to the transit commission staff I think I'll I'll not take that matter up here but I will take it up later at the transit commission. The only thing that still concerns me is that we don't have a reflection of the receipt of the Stantech report um in our minutes. And I just want to make sure that members of the public can access the Stantech report through um through our minutes or uh agendas. Is is there some way that we could without having to make a motion just just agree that we're going to put that online with respect to these materials or would I need to make a motion saying uh it's further noted that we uh received the Stantech report and that be reflected in the minutes. >> Go ahead Miss Sher. >> Thank you your worship. Uh as per the discussion at IC or at SPC we are looking at 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. that I will not be making a motion. Then I just want to strongly recommend to the public that I feel that the Stantech report was presented in a way different people like to take information in different ways. And the Stantech report I thought was very strong in terms of its uh uh use of graphics uh use of maps, use of charts and I think anybody who's following this issue I would strongly recommend that you look at the um Stantech report. With that, uh, I'd like to, uh, thank Miss Shar and her staff and Stantech for the excellent report. I I think that there are some, uh, items that need to be, uh, dealt with in and somewhat of a perhaps perhaps I think they're more urgent than, uh, than what's in this motion. But I'm going to just show a little patience now. But uh these these issues about how people are going to get on to the um the system through back doors uh fairboxes and and and other matters I think are um very compelling. Uh so I'm just going to leave it like this. Please read the Stantech report and thank you for indulging my questions. >> Great. Any other speakers to this? Okay, seeing none. So that's uh >> part first. >> We're going to do this separate as per councelor Vanir Bergen's 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 going to open that now. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. >> Thank you. That concludes my report. Okay, thanks. That concludes the SPC report. As councelor Roman just indicated, we're on to the seventh report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. I will go to councelor McAllister to present that report. >> Uh thank you. And through the mayor, uh pleased to do the seventh report of the infrastructure and corporate services committee. Uh, I have a request to pull item 10, but I will put uh 1 through nine and 11 through 13 on the floor. >> Okay, so 10 is pulled. Who would anybody like anything else separated from uh this? Councelor 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. Councelor McAllister. >> Okay. Uh with that in mind then uh 1 through 9 uh 11 and 13. I'll move those. >> Okay. The uh chair has put those items on the floor. Any discussion on those items that are within it? Go ahead. Councelor Cuddy. Thank you worship and through you. I want to I wasn't able to attend um committee that day um but I want to speak to six um the Kle Road infrastructure project and I want to thank the committee. I want to thank staff for the work they've done on this. Kle road is one of the fastest growing areas uh in the east end of the city. Um great deal of development going on out there. Uh we had a fatality a few years ago. A young boy had a bicycle. um high speeds, narrow road, but we're we're rectifying that with the uh infrastructure work. Uh a word of um maybe caution to to staff. Um Webster is now or will be the uh the throughway. And I see Miss Sher 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. Um time and time again. Please. Um Webster Webster Street is a um rural road in the city. It has no street lights and it 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 uh during the construction. And again, thank you staff for the work you've done. Thank you committee for the work you've done. >> Okay, Councelor Hopkins, go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you worship. And I'd like to um pass my thanks uh through you to the committee on uh let me see number five 2.4 which was the um contract amendment uh detailed design for selfell road. Um thank you for allowing those additional improvements uh to complete uh selfale road west improvements. And I also want to make a comment on number 11 which is by Ontario act bill 72 municipal implications. I want to thank staff for including uh AMO's report on building Ontario's economy with flexible municipal procurement. There's a lot of work uh that goes into that. Thank you to staff for sharing that with us. Um I I I have such uh respect for AMO staff and the work that they do and uh 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, Councelor Troan. I'm also not going to make a motion, but I just want to um highlight and back up and share the concern that uh councelor Cuddi raised with respect to the um traffic on Webster Street. Um not only is Webster Street all the things he said, but there are also parts of Webster Street, as we know from our other agendas, that are very that are very dense where there are a lot of cars coming in and out. And I I I really am going to be watching this. I I really want to encourage traffic staff um which I know you have a lot of discretion here. Um but I really want to encourage traffic staff to take this very very seriously because I think I think we could be creating some very dangerous and perilous um impacts here. I'm not going to raise today the the question of where where the uh cars end up going if they're on their way to downtown from these northern developments. That's sort of a a broader a broader discussion. Um but uh I just wanted to I just wanted to support and highlight what councelor Cuddi said. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we're going to open this for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Go ahead, counselor. >> Okay, I will 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, Councelor 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 um 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 um that the lowest bidder wasn't awarded and there wasn't um uh a satisfactory for them opportunity to go through that process. I also heard from a local charity that lost a longtime contract to a firsttime RFP. 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 uh the procurement as it is and also some of the things that are going to be coming forward with the new procurement policy that we have. So, I just as I said just wanted to be clear on why uh what my no vote represents and it's not a criticism of the report. uh that the staff wrote here particularly um just expressing some of my concerns through this vote. >> Okay. Any other speakers on this one? Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1. Councelor Mallister, >> I will look to put item 12 on the floor. >> Okay, item 12 is on the floor. I'll look for speakers on item 12. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. This one I spoke more about at committee. I just want to summarize again here. I'm I'm voting no to receiving this report specifically because I 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 4 billion budget and we are being provided one line with a net tax amount to compare. I understand and I' 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 that the level of data that it was available in 2015 I can't find there and second um in the plans. Uh, 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 I I really feel strongly about this and so that's why I'm uh going to be voting no here. >> Okay. Any other speakers? >> Go ahead councelor Pribble. Thank you. I would like to make a comment because part of this uh report is a recommendation from RBC plays our convention center as a surplus. I really want to 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 uh of this facility. So I would like to comment on that. Thank you. >> Thank you councelor. Uh any other speakers? Okay, we'll open item 12 for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to one. >> All right, council Mallister. >> Uh, 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 held. >> Yes. From all the way back to yesterday. Um go ahead and present that counselor. >> Okay. We just have the two items. So I will move item one and two. And I have not been made aware of any poll requests. >> Okay. Counselor's put those on. I don't Well, we're not going to put them separate because it's disclosures in one item. Um, but I'll look for any uh discussion on this one. Uh, I'm going to say some words, so I'll turn it over to councelor uh Layman to present. >> Uh, thank you. I'll go to the mayor. >> Thanks. I'll be brief. I didn't attend the committee meeting uh yesterday on this. I had other matters, but I I think it was a five or six minute meeting. uh which is I think great in that very thorough very detailed report but I I think it's important to continue to recognize that you know the city does have borrowing needs. We do uh have to issue debt to build significant infrastructure projects in the city and we do so at uh at really good rates uh over the time horizons that we borrow at because uh because we have a AAA credit rating and um these are the moments where I know we talk about its importance um but these are the moments where they actually are important because you know going out and getting debt that is you know fully subscribed that is competitive that is at good rates you know that happens because uh people know that they have confidence in uh the city of London's policies, the way that we do financial management at the city. Uh even the even what we just passed as a council where we said uh with the uh operating budget monitoring report uh a portion of that money is going towards you know debt avoidance uh infrastructure gap and the pieces that I know from uh the engagements I have from with our credit rating agency the things that they monitor fairly closely and that continues to allow us to have a good credit rating which allows us to do what the debentures report says and that's borrow at a decent rate uh borrow at a decent rate on behalf of taxpayers where the principal and interest payments are manageable over the long horizon. Other uh municipalities have been downgraded uh across the province. Um we are vulnerable obviously because we are subsidiary to the province of the general situation in the province. But irrespective of that, I think we've done a a great job uh 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. And anyone else excited to talk about deventures? >> Just me. Okay. All right. We'll open that for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. >> And that concludes the eighth report and both my reports. I'm all done. Thanks. >> Thanks, Councelor McAllister. Appreciate the presentations. We'll go on to uh the sixth report of the planning and environment committee and I will go to councelor Layman. >> Hold on. I got just a request. >> I believe I might have omitted uh pulling item 11. >> Windmir road. Uh yes, the 11 was not pulled. Uh we did vote on it. So that would require reconsideration to do something different with item 11. >> Well, we haven't voted on the U. >> No, we haven't. We're just getting to the report. >> Oh. Oh, you mean I mean the PE report? I thought you meant 11 from the last report. >> No, I don't need to vote on the debentures. That That's good. Okay. No, Windmir Road. >> Okay. Okay. If you're talking about uh planning environment committee, we're we're going to circulate to ask you for that in a second. Councelor, >> go ahead. Councelor Layman, >> I just want to make sure we're okay. I'm not going to do anything. I just want to make sure. >> Councelor Troau, can we have your microphone, please? >> Thanks. >> Thank you. Um pleased to present the sixth report of the planning environment committee. I've had uh a couple of requests to pull some items. Um, item six, item 10, item 11, item 13, and item 18. Okay, that sounds like it uh accounts for councelor Tro's request. So, you should be good, counselor. So, so far that's 6, 10, 11, >> 13, >> 13, >> and 18. >> Correct. Okay. Anybody want anything else dealt with separately? >> All right. Go ahead, Councelor Layman. >> So, I'll move items 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 9, 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, Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'd like to um put number six on the floor. It's 2.3 regarding deferred loan payments. Councelor Stevenson requested that to be pulled. >> Uh okay, I'll go to councelor Stevenson then. And I know there's at least one other counselor who wants to talk about this as well. So, go ahead, Councelor 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. >> Uh yes, if you could, that'd be fantastic. Okay. That the motion be amended to include a new part C and revised part B to read as follows. The interest free deferral of loan repayments under the facade improvement loan program in the upgrade to building code load program be extended for an additional 19th month period through March 31st, 2028, where the applicant has requested a deferral in writing and all city of London property taxes owing are paid in full. It being noted that the April 2028th 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 secondary councelor Prible. >> Yep. Councelor Prible indicated he would second. So that's on the floor. Um would you like to speak to that now? >> Yeah, I'm happy to speak to that. So we started this uh 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 uh 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, uh, I had committed to coming back to council with, uh, a cleanup on that and we let it go through at planning knowing that it needed, um, it needed an addition to this, uh, 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 uh 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 uh viability of these neighborhoods. That's why we did these programs and these loans. And so to suspend uh 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 um remembering that these it's a deferral of the loan payments. Eventually these loan payments are going to 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 uh of the property owners and and continues the commitment that we made to them when we approve these loans. So, it's 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. Um, I would really hate to see us suspend the loans. We're 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 um and provide and allow uh people to invest in that area right now and not wait uh for the deferral to end. So hopefully that's clear. Um this is taking money from the ECD reserve fund. I understand that. but it's to allow the uh new loans to still be uh approved and applications to be received over the next 18 months. >> Okay, I'm going to look for uh further speakers on that. Go ahead. I'm going to have councelor Frerah and then councelor Layman. >> Uh thank you mayor and thanks for the motion. I had a similar one that was very similar to this. um it is a different in a little one respect and that's for the 1.15 million from the economic development reserve fund. Uh the reason um I have concerns from drawing from that fund is because we do have other commitments that are going to be pulling from that fund as well specifically the economic development strategy and uh funding implementations therein and the downtown master plan and funding actions therein as well. So I was wondering if I could just go to either uh finance or whoever might be able to speak to this on um uh when those plans come back if we were to be drawing from the ACDV reserve fund. We potentially is it true that we potentially might not necessarily have enough funding with the finalization of those plans coming back and I understand those plans are coming in July I believe. So, uh, without that information, um, I'd be a little hesitant to be drawing from the ECD reserve fund. So, I just wanted to know if I could get any information. >> Go ahead. Sorry, I'm working the language. People are asking for things. Go ahead. >> Thank you through the chair. So, um, yes, the master plan will be coming forward. Um, as I understand it, a lot of those, um, costs and funding will be up to council to determine how to proceed and at what timing. I do suspect that particularly for the bigger ticket items, the ECD 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 um bigger ticket um potentially items that would need to be funded are likely not going to be sufficient through the ECD reserve fund to fund. Um Mr. Murray is online. He can provide what the current balance is in the economic development reserve fund. But um certainly for an interm loan repayments um at this time would be available to allow those loans to continue. Go ahead, councelor. Go ahead, Mr. Murray. >> Oh, thank you. And and through you, I will confirm that the current balance of the economic development reserve fund is in the ballpark of approximately $10 million. Uh there are uh some approved commitments out into future years, but as noted, there is uh uncertainty as it pertains to upcoming plans that may require funding through the the reserve fund into future years as well. subject to of course uh the multi-year budget process. >> Councelor Ferrer. >> Okay. Thank you for that. So uh speaking to both the economic development strategy that we're working on in the downtown plan, are there going to be intram uh items that we would may we would be looking to action and those are coming from the act reserve fund. I understand the plan is not finalized yet, but I was wondering if I could get any hints. >> Okay, Mr. Mayers, go ahead. >> Uh, through your worship, I'll just speak to the down 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 I don't really see it as a net change uh from the downtown master plan perspective. >> Go ahead. >> Okay, thank you for that. Um I did see um there were some other um ways forward that I understood that the council spoke to and we did kind of uh 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 from the ECD reserve fund and with the pause like that we would still be providing I guess the financial relief to uh those properties that pulled these CIPs but at the same time we would still have the ability to, I guess, reverse course in the future if we did get um deferral requests in writing if they were low um or if they were high. So, I I do know that there's other options here. I'm kind of hesitant to support this. I did have, you know, another um motion that's very similar to this, but it just wouldn't draw from the ECD reserve fund because that's really what I don't want to do. I don't want to draw from that fund because I want to keep as much of a balance in there as we possibly can for any of the items that come out of the downtown plan and the active reserve fund. I think uh not knowing what exactly is going to come out, we could be tying our hands moving forward and I worry about that. Um so I would ask uh to not support this motion respectfully. I very I'm right with the counselor on uh on the direction that she's going. Um I would just take a slightly different approach that would not be drawing from the active reserve fund. So, I guess I'll leave my comments um there. I think a report back would be um in order as well. Um but I'll I'll leave it to colleagues to see what you have to say. >> Okay. I'll look to other speakers. Go ahead. Oh, yes, Council Layman. Sorry, I had you. >> Thank you, M. Um just a question through you to staff. When the monies are repaid um on this program, does it go into general coffers or is there a special uh bucket that uh these monies go into on the repayment? >> Go ahead. >> Uh thank you to the 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 um all of the money is contained within the reserve fund and essentially it's a revolving um loan fund where the repayments are funding what those new that is why if you stop the repayments there's no ability to be able to issue new loans. Hence why there is a backfill to support the repayment so that new loans can continue to be issued. >> And which reserve fund are you speaking? Like when you say the loans are coming out of a reserve fund, which fund is that? >> Uh thank you. Through your worship, it's the CIP reserve fund. um would it be possible to direct um the temporary the loans that or the forgiveness that we're giving um of I think it's 1.5 million to have those funds being repaid into this instead of into the CIP but back into the act fund that we're looking at this motion proposes we're taking money out of that fund or that reserve fund would it be possible to direct initial payments back into that fund until that's made Go ahead. >> Uh thank you through the 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 is support the issuance of new loans at that time. So the 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 um new loans are funded. So consider it a coffee cup. when you finish it, you're repouring your filling your cup so that you can drink some more. It's 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, counselor. >> So, I appreciate that, but they originally came out of the CIP fund. I guess what I'm saying is um we are looking at using the ACD fund taking 1.5 million out of there what councelor Farah 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 double down. Let's take the funds that are repaid of 1.5 million back into the act fund and once that's made whole from that then then continue back to um going back to where the initial loans were from the CIP CIP doesn't that way contain contains um no effect in the CIP uh as far as future loans are concerned it's the act fund that we're looking at reducing but then once 2008 March 2008 then those funs 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 whole process started. >> Go ahead. Oh, uh Mr. Murray. Okay, Mr. Murray, go ahead. >> Sure. Let me uh through you uh Mr. Mayor take a take a stab at uh explaining it perhaps in a slightly different way, but uh basically reiterating what Miss Barbone has said. So if we look at our uh reserve fund schedule for the CIP reserve fund, we have anticipated inflows uh for the repayment of the CIP loans. We have a consistent amount uh for those assumed out into the future. We also have a consistent amount uh of uh projected uh issuance of new loans that effectively recycles uh the repayments to issue new loans. Uh so that if that cycle is interrupted uh there is a need to ultimately backfill for those inflows uh that are not coming in uh to uh to the reserve fund. So you know 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 uh we have assumed into the future that those repayments are funding new loans. So uh unfortunately there there's no ability to you know replenish effectively the economic uh development reserve fund as has been proposed without causing uh constraints or or problems to the CIP uh reserve fund. Councelor Layman, >> I apologize. I'm not making myself clear. The concern raised by finance is that we don't want to obstruct the inflows, um, which we would in this case because it's used for outflows. I get that. What I'm proposing here is that ECD covers the inflows over to CIP. It's CF death fund that's going to be uh affected as you know councelor Farah indicated the CIP is going to be fine with councelor Stevenson's motion it's going to be fine I'm concerned about the act fund and I don't want double dip so I want so CIP fund would be made whole and then the continuing once the repayments start it will get an extra one because we're going 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 100 1.5 million of repayments back to the ACDEV fund. So that the act 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 Miss Barbone. >> So, uh, through the chair. So, maybe I can try explaining it 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 deferral ends assuming that it will end at at the date that is stated in the motion um those new repayments will begin to come in but there will be continue so all of the loans will begin repayments at that time of the additional loans that have been also um 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 deferral period of time because the continue 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 and you're saying something different, but hopefully that helped at least clarify how we're understanding it. >> So, let me jump in, counselor. Um, I think what councelor So, and funny story, councelor Layman, I actually have language that might deal with this because I was thinking the same thing you were. Um, councelor Layman is not saying put every single dollar in March of 2028 that's coming in into the active reserve fund. I think what he's trying to say is if we have let's pretend 1.15 million of loans out there that we're about to defer and we think we're going to issue 1.5 $1.15 million of loans because we're transferring from economic development into CIP so that we can issue them. Now, we have $2.3 million of loans outstanding, all of which will start to get repaid after March of 2028. And so, uh, 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 I think that's what he's trying to say. Um, and that's I think what he's moving towards. And if that's the case, I actually prepared some language to uh amend and add that staff would report back at that time to to look into doing that. But you could give us your assessment at that time. But that I think that's what councelor Layman's trying to say. Councelor Layman >> in a nutshell. Yes. Like what what this is doing? Okay. We have how are we going to fund this? Because you know that was a concern brought up at Pat. This we can't just defer loans and and say it's all about a cash flow situation. So what councelor Stevenson said instead of CIP because the reserve funds so low let's look at ACDEV great let's uh do that but let's replenish the ACDV funds are being used for that because this is a loan not a grant right a loan that gets repaid so the cash flow in should go for the 1 whatever it is back to the fund where it came from to just forall that deferment. So at the end of the day, what the cost is to the city, it's just it's it's the interest. It's uh the interest that it's on this 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 I think the mayor is on the same track. So being you have uh language. I apologize for I should have gone earlier on this and talked offline on this. I apologize for taking folks time up. Well, I'm next on the speaker's list. So, um I'll turn the chair over to councelor Layman. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, following on this, um first let me say a comment. Um I support uh and moved came into this meeting supporting what uh uh councelor Fra was saying and that's uh maybe we just pause the program. Um it sounds to me like there's a significant appetite for people to continue the program and based on what Mr. Mather said about the importance of the program, I'm inclined to try to find a pathway uh to do that. Um given the structure of councelor Stevenson's motion, which is still a you have to ask in writing to get uh to 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 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 councelor Ferrer was going in that direction to get some information about like what's this look like? How's it going? Are people actually, you know, applying for the deferrals? To what degree, you know, how many new loans have we issued if we go with councelor Stevenson's motion? But I I also think we should add a piece in 2028 to say and I'm not going to 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 will 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're if we've if we've got loans that are outstanding now of X value and they've been deferred until March of 2028 and we're going to issue potentially another 1.15 million of 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 at a future meeting of planning and environment committee with an update on the community improvement uh plan loan program once payments resume to restore the draws to the economic development reserve fund. So that's the March 2028 or after report and further the civic administration uh be directed to report back at a future meeting of planning 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 uh to say this is what it looks like. Are people actually taking us up? Are we still issuing new loans? Um but ultimately by March of 2027, you're going to get back to us and say, um, 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 coming in. We can still keep the CIP uh reserve fund whole and put some money back into ECD 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 to put on the floor if there's a second. >> Okay. I'll look for a seconder for that. Councelor Stevenson has seconded. Um, I'll look for comments or questions on that uh amendment. Can we get that up on uh describe? Let me know when that's up there so we counselors can read it. And I'll just apologize. I I 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 is second. But they're both there and we can clean up that language. >> Okay. It's up on the eastribe. Uh I'll go to councelor Stevens. >> Thank you through you. Uh can I just clarify uh with the mover um 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 status is 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 >> I'll go to the mover. Uh absolutely right. The only difference between the two updates is 2027 is a general update. 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 I it's very open-ended for staff to report back on the conditions of the day. >> Okay. Counselor. >> 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. Um and that uh yeah there's nodding happening. Okay. So so uh thank you. I support this. It's great. It leaves uh options available and has updates. I I think it's a great compromise. >> I'll look for other questions. Council for >> Thank you. Uh, thank you for the amendment. I guess I got some questions here. Um, so from what I understand, um, 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. Um, and there's also a report back by Q2 uh just on an update on the program, but this is still uh deferring those repayments back till March 31st, 2028. Uh, is that that's am I reading that correct? Yeah. Okay. So, with these the same thing with the the draw from the ECD reserve fund, that's kind of really what's the sticking point for me. Um, can staff just come just tell me again. So, I think I remember you said the balance in the ECD 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. Uh, yes. The current uncommitted balance to be clear of the economic development reserve fund is approximately $10 million. >> Counselor. >> 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 uh plan. So I just need to kind of see if I can get some more information on that. Is there going to be any intrim 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 uh reserve fund. >> I'll go staff >> uh through the presiding officer. Uh we are still uh finalizing the plan and uh however I I can uh just provide you information as far as the timing. So it's 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 as a from a program, we would 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. Um, all right. If this is the amendment to the amendment and then I get to speak on the emotion as amended, I will um I guess I'll ask those questions there. Um, so this just for the report back and for the loan program to sorry Okay, I'll 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 appl >> very brief supporting the mayor's uh amendment to the amendment and we'll speak later. Thanks. >> I'll look for other speakers. Uh I'll just from uh the presiding officer. Um, I would have preferred to see a direct commitment to it going back to the ACTV 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 good enough for me. Um I think different uh pressures will be at that time and who knows um as councelor Frera mentioned uh we might need even more capital and get the plans that we had uh in time. So I will support this. So I'll look for any other speakers to this amendment to the amendment. And seeing none we will call the vote on the amendment to the amendment. Closing the vote. Motion carries 130. >> And I'll return the chair to the mayor. Okay. And I'll presume councelor Stevenson and Pribble are willing to move the now consolidated amendment. Okay. So, we're now on the consolidated amendment that councelor Stevenson, councelor 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, councelor Ferrer. >> Okay. Thank you. So, this is the motion as amended. Um, so I like I said, I have the concern. >> It's sorry to do this. It's the amendment as amended. Um, because that's what we did. So, there's still going to be the motion as amended later. Don't worry. So, um, but you can go ahead and speak. So right now, councelor Stevenson, councelor Pribble's change changes we just passed to add to them. All that together is what we're debating now. >> And that includes the 1.5 million 1.15 million. Okay. So um so still same concerns. Um I cuz 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. Mayers, I think. Go ahead. >> Uh through the chair. So the only like strict timeline is that the September was when this was going to be uh when uh we'd be sending these bills to the to the uh um businesses and the owners of the property. So that's the the main restriction. Of course, you'd want to give people a heads up if you're going to start making those billings very uh in a very short time frame. So that's why we brought you the report right now. So that the the most specific time frame is that September date when we would have to know when we're we're issuing those bills. >> Go ahead, Councelor Feroh. >> 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 um 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. Um, I'm like I said, like I don't like I could go with this if I knew what those plans are going to have in it. And that's my that's my concern. You know, we have already been impacted with the downtown plan uh items with the unwave 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. Uh, 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 I just I feel really hardressed to make a decision here and pull money from that ACEV reserve fund um without knowing exactly what um what we're what items are coming out of those plans. So, um, if I I guess I would also say I I do have a chance to speak again on the main motion as amended. Is that right or is this is this it? I do. >> No, you get a chance later. >> Okay. Um, like I some of the questions that I asked staff just so we're aware of where we're going is, you know, what is the um facade improvement loan principal amount? And those principal amounts are quite um on the lower side of things. I think the highest numbers that we had was from 10 to 15,000 and below. And for the upgrade to building code loan, those principal amounts that are still owing are 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 um 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 uh $400 to $500 per property and then it's below and then everything is less than that. So, like if we're considering um potentially pausing this program, some of these amounts for these properties are quite low to 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 to bring that back. Um 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 um pause the program. um I I would be more willing to have the program continue for the payments to come back rather than pulling from the uh ECD reserve fund just because we don't know um what uh pressures we'll have on that within a month's time. So I I'm a little hesitant. Um, I know I get to speak again, so I I guess I'll hear what committee has to say, but I would just say just uh if just be mindful or because I'm being mindful of we going to have these two big plans that are coming out and these two big plans are really focused on I guess the economic engine of of the city which is the downtown. And then the other plan is that economic strategy for the city for for the entire city. And we're going to 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, um I guess I'll speak again once the time comes. >> Okay. I have councelor Hopkins next. >> Yeah. Thank you. And um this is on the the amendment. Um the amendment to the amendment. I appreciate um my colleagues working together and coming up with a consensus on the amendment. Now I hear the concerns from the For clarity, councelor, we're on the amendment as amended. So what so what we're debating now is um draw from uh active reserve fund to keep program going um get some reports back and whether >> that's whether we want to add those those in. Yes, B and C plus the pieces I added on the reporting. Thank you for that clarification. And um just um understanding where um council fur is coming from and the two plans that we're going to get in June. I wonder um and needing a little bit more information. I'm always reminded here at council, we're making decisions on council when um you know this to me is like committee work. if is there an opportunity maybe through you 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, I is there an opportunity to have a go to uh PE, understand the numbers knowing that we've got the two plans coming to us as well. >> Uh I'll go to staff on the timelines. Mr. Mothers >> uh through the chair. Yeah, that it's always an option to refer things back to staff. And uh as far as the timelines, I just 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 councelor, I'll just um let you know it went to the committee then uh I believe it was Miss Ms. Barb who provided some information about the possible options that we can consider for council based on that. That's why the I think the counselors are taking the action here rather than a committee because it was something that was discussed at a committee asked for some information. Information was given for them to prepare to be here. So I just start clarifying that that that doesn't preclude a referral. Just wanted to give you that information too. >> Yeah, thank you for that. And I also appreciate uh getting the information that maybe there's a little bit more of a timeline here, less pressure on us to make decisions if we have concerns about the active um reserve fund. So I'll put that out. Um, that would be something that I would support. >> Sorry, you're moving a referral or >> Yeah, I'm happy to move the referral, but um >> Okay. Well, I just didn't 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 >> um Well, I know other counselors have have not spoken. I want to hear from my colleagues as well. I just want to share with you um just making a decision right now. >> No, no problem. I'm just letting you know you you can do that and someone else can make a referral, but you wouldn't be able to speak again at this time on this particular amendment, >> but there's an opportunity to refer the main >> but you could refer when we get to the main motion, of course. So, okay, perfect. >> Uh councelor Stevens, >> thank you. Um, just trying to make this a little clearer. I'm I'm hoping council can sort of solve one problem at a time. We have we have a problem right before us where we've got real issues in our core area that haven't 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 is not going to go over very well when they haven't seen the results that we're all committed to. So we are all also 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 you know council has that commitment. I also want to ask through you to staff just to maybe reassure some of my colleagues who are concerned. If in June we were to um regret this decision, is there anything stopping council at that time from transferring the money back and pausing the loan program? because this particular loan, this particular amendment just says we're going to continue the deferrals and we're going to take the money from the ECD 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 it's not a decided matter because it's something different. Correct. we could move a motion to say we want to pause any new loans and fund that with um 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 Miss Barbone >> uh thank you through the chair here. I I'll defer to the clerks with respect to the whether it's a decided matter of council, but perhaps if I can be helpful. Um staff had recommended given the complexity of this to do a report back. Um there's clearly a desire of council to move forward quickly with a decision for a deferral. Um, 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 um, loan holders is certainly advantageous. The report back next year um 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 um projected and what the repayments are in terms of based on the loans when the um estimated repayments would begin. Certainly the reserve fund we manage on a consolidated basis for all CIP reserve funds. So there is some floating imbalances and we look at average payments. So as we identify you know yes payments might be higher but 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. Um if there are as Mr. Mr. Matherthers had already alluded to, there are references um 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 20 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. word knowing if there needs to be topups or increased um reserve fund contributions go into the CIP reserve funds to ensure the sustainability of those funds over time. >> Go ahead. >> Thank you for that. I 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 a downtown strategy and we wanted to take this 1.15 million back, could we as a council at that time decide to pause the loan any new loans and take that money? I just want to 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 going to rule on that because I'd be the one who would have to decide at the time. Uh uh given we are not passing a motion in the affirmative to pause the loans now. There's not a decided matter of council on pausing the loans. So, you populated the economic development reserve fund with money. Um the loan program we're taking no specific action on which means uh we've we're basically saying keep the keep the deferrals going I think. So let me just let me consult with the clerk. I want to be Yeah. So, the part that would be decided is uh that we'd have to have reconsideration on is um extending the um def like the the the loan deferral period. The part that we could stay still take action on is pausing the program. So, you're 100% right. Um we we're not taking an action on that. we could we could pause the program as an alternate way to pay for it in the future. Um, and that wouldn't be contrary in my opinion. >> Thank you. I'm I'm hoping that helps get consensus here because what we're agreeing to, well, the the motion that we're going to 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 going to extend the deferral of the loan payments for 18 months. that passed staff cautioned us that we were 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 servant of 1.5 1 1.15 million. So that's my motion here. I just want to 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. >> Councelor Pribble. >> Thank you. So, what the mayor just said a few minutes ago just confirms it that really we got nothing to lose potentially to uh 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 let you and I totally understand that we have the plans coming back to us the downtown uh the economic plan for the entire city and yes that could be for quick starts as the staff mentioned any big stuff is going to go through multi-year budget anyways they reiterated but I want to uh 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 BAS 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 uh to uh defer the payments but also to continue because the need is there. So again uh especially what was said now in last few minutes I really hope we can have a clear support for this uh for the amendment then for the full motion and 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 going to open that for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carried 11 to two. >> Okay. Now, the main motion as amended. Councelor Stevenson still willing to move that and council privile willing to second. Okay, great. We'll have debate on the as amended main motion now. Go ahead, councelor Faher. >> Thank you, mayor. So, um I can't support the motion as it is. Uh just because there is 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 ecdev development strategy and say okay we know how much this is going to cost we know this is going to draw on the act 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 don't do we need to make a decision now because you know staff have to do the work have to identify ify 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 a deferral now for the decision and wait uh until we get it back? Because I feel like if we were to come back and make that decision in June, we will be even more hardpressed to do that work that that administrative work. >> So, I'm not going to have a staff answer a should we uh question which you you said. Um let me just art articulate um what was mentioned before and that is the thing that we are deciding today is essentially that loan payments don't have to happen until March of 2028. We are not deciding whether or not we pause 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, the CIP reserve fund that perhaps could reallocate 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 um this or that. These are the options before us. There's not a right answer. They're they're these are pathways that we can we can pursue. Could I uh I guess I let's confirm just kind of reduce it down to like an administrative process like would staff have a greater diffic difficulty in I guess processing this work and sending out the mailouts if we were to reverse course in June. So if if we're making a decision to pause the repayments and we're not changing that, we decide 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 um that you don't have to pay until March of 2028 and you've got to tell us that in writing. Um but you can comment on the administrative work of advertising if the program was paused for new intakes >> uh through your worship. So, as far as as the advertising, that's something that that's an ongoing thing that we're always doing. So, that's not a huge limiter. Usually, we would provide about 60 days in advance a notice to say that your fee be required. So, that's really the only other time frame that's it's involved at this point. >> Councelor Fer. Okay. Thanks. Um, 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, >> uh, through your worship, I don't have those numbers at this time. Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Thanks. I have the numbers. Um, I don't know if 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 uh, 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. Um I like I still have the concern of drawing from the economic development reserve fund. Um I would much prefer to uh 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 ACDEV reserve fund and especially my concern is um again going back to you know I'm worried that we're not going to 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 um until we can make that decision after especially if there's a discussion about potentially flipping Of course, once we find out um that would be good. Can I move a motion to refer to? >> Yeah, motion to refer. Is there a seconder for a referral this council Troau? Okay, we're on a motion to refer. 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 uh funding actions that would come through. So, it would be to uh defer the decision, this decision uh until we find out what's going on um with those two plans. >> Okay. On the referral, any other speakers? Go ahead, councelor uh Ramen and then councelor Tro. >> Uh thank you. And through you on the motion to refer, can I use my uh I'd like to put the question at this point. Yeah, just give me one second. I think you can, but I want to double check because people will ask me about it. >> Chair, there's a lot of side talk right now. I'm hoping that you can uh control the room. >> Yeah. And I'm happy to ask counselors while I'm doing this to not be having conversations with yourself that are just are your colleagues will they're disruptive because I need to make just a quick ruling on the put the motion Okay. Sorry I had to take a moment for that. I I I I there is a piece here that I'm going to just make clear on my ruling. So, I'm going to say you can put the question because I'm going to 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 because it's an expenditure of over a million, but the referral does not actually in in authorize an expenditure by the municipality. So, you met all of the pieces to put the question. So, uh the council has asked 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 a vote on the referral. So this this requires a two-thirds vote uh to put the question and uh the the the way it's worded is the question shall now be put which is means we're going to if you vote yes we're proceeding immediately to a vote on the referral. Okay. So we'll open that for voting. Okay, I'm closing the vote. Motion carries. It's 2/3 10 to three. >> Okay, so that means we'll immediately proceed to a vote on the referral uh councelor Ferrer's referral. Uh so we're going to open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion fails 3 to 10. You know what? All right. On the main motion, I have councelor McAllister next. >> Thank you to the mayor. I forgot. It's been a while. So, thank you for uh giving the chance to speak to this item. I was just waiting for everything to kind of work its way through the system. Um I know in terms of, you know, kind what councelor Ferrer said in terms of what he views as the uptick. Uh I would still say from an area that has a CIP, um there is still a lot of benefit to this program. There are businesses that are on it, uh and would definitely appreciate the deferral. Uh, apologies the Hamilton Road BIA couldn't submit a letter. I'm sure they would have as well, but uh, you know, they got other things uh, to deal with right now. Um, I would say there's a lot of value in these programs. Um, as an area where often unfortunately I have to resort to demolition, I think having these uh, options available in areas um, that are really struggling is very important. And I would say um, from my experience with um, discussions with these programs specifically, I I think we could do a better job advertising them. Um, I take the opportunity whenever it's presented to me to to bring this up, especially in buildings where they could have uh tenants, they could do the facade improvements, upgrade the the building uh as well. Um, these are important things, especially in areas where um we got older buildings that really need the work. Um, so I would suggest to all my colleagues uh when these u discussions happen um if you've got a CIP um please absolutely put this forward. Uh appreciate what the counselors put forward as well and all the discussion that happened today. Uh, and I will support this. Thank you. >> Okay. Any others on the main motion as amended? Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. I just want to quickly ask for support again on this. It shows council's continued commitment to this area and it allows uh we want people to get the facade loans and the building uh code loans. We want them to invest in our core area. This is our way of doing it. And again uh as councelor Pribble said, retention is easier. uh 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 uh 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. the pause of the loans is still available to this council in June. So, I'm 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, councelor Troau. >> Thank you. Um may may I ask before I start, what time did we start this matter? >> Uh I don't know. And that's just going to take time to look up. So, do you want me to do that? >> No, it's all right. Let's proceed. more of a rhetorical question. Um, I'm going to vote no on this and um, gee, we were doing a lot of committee work here today and I think that when people bring forward a motion, 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 I just I really feel is we've lost the audience. people have come here to to to to hear about policy matters that are on the agenda and um 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 going to vote no on this. And um I'm I'm sorry it wasn't referred, but uh that that was the vote. So, there we are. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay, other speakers. Okay, we're going to open the as amended main motion for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to two. Uh listen um I'm going to ask colleagues if we could take a 10 to 15 minute break. We have uh staff in the room as well as ourselves. We've been doing this for 4 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 a a 10. We'll say want to do 10. All right. 10 10-minute break by moved by councelor Hopkins. Seconded by councelor Van Marber. 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 uh this short break. Um we'll continue on with the agenda. I'll go back to Council Layman. >> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh moving on to number 10. This is regarding 63 Greenfield Drive. Councelor Cuddy requested this be pulled. >> Okay, this is on the floor. Councelor Cuddy. >> Thank you, Worship. And through you, um I have a motion and I'm presenting it on the floor for um Councelor Pelosa. Shall I read the the motion or is it up on the board? >> Yes, it's not on the added agenda, so I'm going to need you to read it out. >> Okay, I won't 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, 6oot 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 I'll second that to get it on the floor so we can proceed. Um did you want to provide any rationale or are you presenting on behalf of councelor Posa? >> No, thank you your worship. This is brought as I mentioned this is brought forward by councelor Pelosa couldn't be with us today and I think it's an excellent motion. Thank you. >> Go ahead councelor Layman. >> I'll speak briefly to it. PL councelor PLA uh would like to get this as a amendment. Um normally we go to site plan but site plan is not uh available option on this uh particular development. >> Okay. Any questions or comments on these matters? No. Okay. Seeing none, then we'll open that up for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Okay. And now I need the motion as amended. Councelor Layman, you're willing to move that. Okay. Councelor Cuddy, you willing to second it? >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh that's moved and seconded. This is the same staff report with the pieces we just amended into it. Any discussion on that? Then we'll have it up in just a moment. Okay, now we'll open that vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Councelor layman. >> Thank you. Moving on to number 11. This is regarding 350 to 356 windmir that was referred to pack. Uh councelor Trusso had asked us to be pulled. >> Okay. Go ahead, councelor Trussa. Yes, I may I may I may or may not through the chair have an amendment depending on the answer to my question. So, um I I might want to amend uh this to say we should deny it without prejudice so it could so it could come back. But if the motion's okay as it is, I won't make the um amendment. So my question is, do we run any risk that this matter uh due to time be be taken uh up up on up on appeal before uh you're able to complete the um request? >> Uh go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship, uh 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 in in that case given the intention there was a clear intention to uh to to try to um sort of uh get a better traffic uh study here and also think think about uh the effect on on the hospital in in your in your view what would be the best way of us doing that without risking without taking undue risks because I'm I'm inclined to support this, but I would prefer to uh if that's going to just get us a trip to the uh to the to to an to the to the appellet body, I'd rather just deny it without prejudice and have it come back. Can can you advise? >> Well, I I that'll put it I mean, I don't want you to speculate. We can't possibly know if we refer it whether the applicant would appeal or not, but you can provide any context you can. We we certainly can't hold you to that on behalf of a third party. >> Thank you. Through your worship, the staff recommendation is in conformity with the London plan and uh and staffer supported the application. Notwithstanding um uh committee's decision to refer it back that does cause delay in terms of meeting the timelines. Um so that does allow the the applicant the opportunity to appeal with for a non-decision. Um having said that there is no mechanism other than that to um require the applicant to do anything else but to make a decision by council. um if council should choose to deny the application that um the applicant could also appeal. >> Okay. Well, I'm I'm sort of I'm sort of at a at a loss here because it's my it's my strong belief that the matter of the effect on EMS and that the the general traffic in that corridor is something that should have been dealt with um much more robustly in the application and and it wasn't. So, I would not be supporting the application at this point. Um, I'm I'm happy to uh have the application come back after discussion with with EMS. I think this is a very serious public safety problem and being familiar with that with that strip of land at the at the north part of the university and the kind of traffic that we see at the Windmir uh from Richmond going all the way back. I just I just think that it could have a devastating effect if someone in that area needs to access EMS services or if EMS services from from from a from a patient out of the area needs to get to or fro from the hospital. We need to be giving better 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 and ask uh I I think I'm just going to um support support this uh recommendation and um and hope for the best because I think in the end the position we're taking about um having having more regard to emergency services is uh very reasonable. Yeah. Thank you. >> Any other speakers to this one? >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open this for voting. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. Moving on to 13. This is regarding 8:45 to 875 Commissioner Road East. Councelor Hopkins request this to be pulled. >> Councelor Hopkins. >> Yeah, thank you uh your worship. Um I've been struggling with this one all week. Uh it's um it I'm still not sure where to go, but I'm I'm getting there. um you know, four apartment buildings right next to an ESA. Uh 868 units go towards our housing uh agreement, which is great. The intensification is 275 uh which is pretty high. Uh I was pleased to hear from the um the applicant that there will be no development on the ESA and the extra buffering around uh the development. uh pleased to hear that, but I'm still really stuck on this one. And I'm very supportive of the changes if of the 50% uh native species in the recommendation and of course um um the bird friendly pol using the bird friendly policies. This is what I'm disappointed in though is that we've have removed um a part of the recommendation which allows the building entrances are to be oriented towards the public street with pedestrian connections to commissioner's road east and consideration of a maximum floor plates uh as well above the eighth story uh to mitigate shadow and provide a slender tower portion that's not in that recommendation. I think these are important um components of having this go through. The other uh thing I 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 uh the recommendation a little bit stronger as we develop intensify around an ESA. So for that uh those are just my comments and I won't be supporting it. >> Okay. Other speakers go ahead councelor Troau. Um again to the chair I I gave a lot of thought to some potential amendments but being being mindful of people's time and the fact that this was sort of uh 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 um about about this project and then just say I'm going to 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 uh but some of them were made worse. Um I'm I I am very concerned about the fact that there is not a complete EIS. Apparently others don't share that concern. Um, 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 that without without going through each 50 each of the 50 which I wouldn't have time for to what extent are those 50 recommendations in the in EIS incomplete as it was but in the completed part of the EIS to what extent are those recommendations um going to be incorporated into the project to what extent are they binding or are these just um recommendations that the developer can or cannot uh 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 uh staff recommended approval of this development. Um with respect to the EIS recommendations, that's the consultants report prepared for the applicant that shared with staff. And while it may not be fully accepted yet, there's a second part to it. um those uh 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. Um 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 5 and that's part of a housekeeping matter that staff would be dealing with in the second stage um around the site plan approval. >> So So thank you through the chair. I'm not through the mayor. I'm not I'm not getting the kinds of assurances that the uh 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. Um as we know from our further discussion few past discussions about the site plan, we know that these are not binding conditions as as would be in the case of a um a holding provision or for for example. So, I'm I'm very concerned that some of the good work that was done in the EIS and I and I want to I want to point to the fact that I think there was good work done in the EIS. Um I'm concerned that that good work may or may not may or may not get incorporated into 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 highrises um along the main road and you got one in back. Was there any was there ever any discussion about saying okay do the do the ones on the main road but not the one in back? Was that ever a serious uh discussion of negotiation between staff and the applicant? Go ahead. >> Thank you. Through your worship, um the development application that was submitted showed four buildings and that's what staff had reviewed and uh and recommended approval. >> Councor Troa. >> Thank I'll take that as uh if I may take that as a um no. Um, I 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 going to be voting no on this application. And I I would urge others to really consider voting no. Now we we could we could unfold a discussion that could last oh an hour or two talking about u amendments which might give rise to amendments to amendments and uh etc. But I I can read I I can read the room. I can read the room. So I'm just going to uh say I'm very disappointed with how we've treated this application. I'm very disappointed that we're going to put so so much density in this area and I'll just simply be voting no and um I'm sorry that it's come to that but I don't think I have a lot of uh choice. I cannot support this application. Thank you. >> Okay, other speakers to this application. I'm going to speak uh briefly to it. I'll hand the chair over to councelor Ramen. Thank you. I have the chair. Go ahead. Uh >> so I certainly understand um the concerns that uh colleagues and even members of the public raised. Um but we actually have to be pragmatic here and recognize the history of the site and what's allowed to be developed on it. Over six hectares of the site can currently be developed under the existing permissions. uh 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. uh I disagree that this is no bad environmental uh policy decision-m this is uh rational uh decision-m based on the circumstances that we have before us and we have an opportunity to in see some height and density uh 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 3 hectare donation of the more sensitive parts of the site, some of which are zoned light industrial to the city to be protected in perpetuity. You know, this is an opportunity for us. Yes, we have to give up some heightened density uh 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 hector expansion into city ownership of the SA. you heard and I don't think it was one of the best uh public engage engagement sessions because there were a lot of people showing up saying don't do this at all because we want to protect the ESA. It it doesn't recognize the existing decision that was made and the existing uh binding uh development uh opportunities on that site that we don't have much of a choice. It could 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, uh, I get that this is a difficult one because we have to navigate circumstances and decisions that were, you know, part of tribunals and previous decisions that were well 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 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 the fact that we can create a new significant permanent municipally owned buffer to the ESA or even incorporated as part of the ESA on parts of the site that were zoned light industrial and and for other commercial uses. So, I'm going to support the recommendation before you. I would I would strongly encourage you too. 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, um I 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? Uh if not, I I have I need someone to move just a small technical amendment. Um and that is just the words um >> attached revised bylaw um because uh the bylaw that was before us at committee didn't have all the pieces in it. So, we just need to put that wording in because it'll refer to the the bylaw that actually came before council. Councelor Stevenson is willing to move that and council Ramen's willing to second it. I don't presume there's any debate on that. No. Okay. We'll we'll open that small technical amendment for voting and then we'll vote on the main motion. Motion carries 130. >> And I'll have councelor layman move this uh and then I'll second it and we'll open the main motion for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. Councelor Layman. >> Thank you. I'm moving on uh to number 18. This is regarding the Medway Valley environmentally significant area at a wand u road encroachments. Then councelor Hopkins requests this be pulled. >> Okay. This has been requested to be pulled by councelor Hopkins. happy to go to you first if you'd like. Uh or you can wait. Up to you. Um yes, I um was not at the planning committee uh for the debate, but I am just looking at the recommendation uh that came out of the um the committee and I do have a concern uh as it relates to D that civic administration be directed to report back uh to a future meeting and look at options two and three. I am supportive of option one which was the staff's referral. So uh I I would um maybe just for now uh share my concerns that uh if we are going to uh um get a report back, we should uh understand the consequences to uh the whole city. uh and not only um uh we should get further information if if we are going to go with options two and three. And the other part of my concern is that um you know we we have to um be very very cognizant of uh opporting opportunities that probably don't even exist now of encroachment. And I I would really uh prefer that uh de be referred back. Um so those are my comments. >> Have councelor layman next. >> Uh thank you. Share some of those concerns. So I just would ask that D be pulled separately please for the vote. >> Uh yes, we can do that. And uh I think we'll we'll do D f first when we get to it, but we'll we'll do debate on uh the whole thing until uh until the vote and then we'll pull it separate other speakers to this. Councelor Tro mayor through through you. Um I I I think that we had a very very clear and persuasive staff report regarding the um desiraability of adopting option one and that is continuing continuing along the lines with our um in encroachment uh 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 going to make the claim that it's illegal or inappropriate. Apparently, we can do it because it's on the 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 want to talk about the fact that a lot of people are watching this. There are a lot of people not just on Adawandon, not just in Sherwood Forest, not just in White White Hills, not just in the other areas that back on to 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 want to encroach?" Well, you shouldn't do that, but if you do, don't worry about it. Just we may just decide to come back and excuse it if enough pressure is put on you. And I think that is a really bad way to be making policy. I also have concerns about uh how we're going to uh dispose of with or without a public participation meeting the matter of the um uh the nature of the trail, the nature of uh of of the park versus versus an ESA. Uh so I I would be in favor of uh reinstating the staff report. Uh, I would be in support of uh uh I would be in support of substituting the staff report for this recommendation. And I'm I'm I'm a little bit unclear procedurally. Maybe I could get some guidance from the clerk. If I if I tried to make a substitute motion to uh to to uh 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 going to be, but I need to check. This is quite >> Yep. Just give me one second. So, councelor, 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 uh then you can put something else on. Yeah. >> Thank you. And that that's into the entirety the there there's the encroachment issue here. There's also the future disposition of the of the nature of what's going to be in that uh land. So, I'm just going to be voting against the entire package that came from from from from planning. I do want to ask legal staff if if you could if you if if you could just sort of tell us worst case scenario or what do you think is going to happen if if we go if we go along and start uh negotiating with uh under option two or option three. What could some of the implications of that be in terms of uh people's expectation that the encroachments be uh be uh be excused or in other methods of enforcement? >> Well, I will have to ask the solicitor if she would open answer that or not in open session. Um so go ahead. >> Thank you. And through your worship, I think those would be questions uh for a close session, counselor. Would it be fair to ask whether or not you concur with the recommendations in the staff report? Yeah. So, counselor, I'm not so civic administration wrote a report that has concurrences on it. Um, I want to 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, uh, so I'm not going to allow that question. What you have is a is an original staff report with multiple concurrences uh, and signitories on it and staff reports are reviewed by legal regularly. So, I I just want to be cautious that the because the solicitor just answered, there are components of this that she would answer questions in camera. Um, and uh, and I want to be I want to just express caution in the way that you're asking that question. Um, because it might lead to her essentially providing legal advice in public by answering a question in in a way that you're wording it. >> Then then uh, 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 uh proceeding with option two or option three might might or might not compromise their ability to enforce encroachments in the future. >> Mr. Mailers >> uh 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 uh ensure that uh we keep these lands as as public lands. It makes it much more clear when we're trying to negotiate and work with with residents, but that was the staff recommendation. >> Okay. Well, I I think I think I've made my position uh pretty clear here, and I'm not going to make any um amendments. I don't think I can. Uh, I'll reiterate I I believe very strongly that we should go that we must go with option one and that and that this council is going to have to return through some type of uh amending process uh possibly including a public participation meeting with respect to the disposition of the nature of the land. And I'll I'll leave I'll leave it at that for purposes of this um of 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 push back, a a lot of loss of confidence in our boundary system and uh perhaps additional litigation, although I won't ask about that now. But um 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 in its entirety on the motion that's in front of you. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Other speakers to this? >> Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. Uh thank you. I just wanted to um 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 um warrant that extra time and consideration. So I will be supporting. Okay. Other speakers to this. Go ahead councelor Ramen. >> Thank you and through you. Um I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this item. So to start I just want to say um I spend as much time as possible in the Medway Valley. Uh, I walk it frequently during the week. Um, clean it up when I can, including this coming weekend. Um, 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-bycase assessment for option three, which is an encroachment agreement where the city maintains ownership should residents not comply. Uh my understanding in my conversations with residents in the area is as of March 25th and I the letters included in our package, residents have been encouraged to comply with enforcement. uh meaning option one is actually still live. Uh 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 Ara, the Adawand Residents uh neighborhood association, um a survey of this area has not been done uh other than an aerial photo. So when markers were 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. Uh they've been told and and 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 a 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, um, in my conversations with them, they're insensed 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. Um, there's an issue with the slopes in those backyards. in some in some of the um in some of the backyards about five or six where the fence line and the slope line um 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 report back actually buys us time to give people more information as we continue to uh 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 uh disagreements and to find out more information about the options that are in front of them. >> Other speakers, councelor Pribble, >> thank you. I also had a chance to visit this area just like most of us actually even last year when we were there before when it was on our agenda. I just want to state that uh I will support I will support what is in front of us because I do want to receive the report back and uh and 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 uh I need a motion to extend past six o'clock. Moved by councelor uh Ramen, seconded by councelor Stevenson. We're going to vote for that in the system. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> All right, I'll go to councelor Ferrer next. You're next on the list. >> Thank you, mayor. Um, so I I'm here in the debate and I we spoke to this at at PEC as well. Um, but I don't want to like um 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 um property owners who are ab budding park land or environment environmentally significant areas and building whether we build they build a fence or something on it and they encroach on the area and now there's a dispute uh between whether uh 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 city lands. Um I 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 uh I guess um up for the discussion on are we going to consider this potential encroachment? Are we going to 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 to take place? And I think that's that's a that's a that's signaling is 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 uh by property owners. It is not okay to uh basically see these public lands, especially parklands, especially environmentally significant area lands and potentially give them up to to property owners. I think these lands are the entire they belong to the entire city. They 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 uh 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 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. Um, 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 uh with with respect to option two or three in the future, um that is not going to that's 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. It belongs to everybody. And um if someone were to build something you there on from their private property and encroach onto the land, that doesn't mean it's your land. You know, I I worry about that. It What's to say a private property owner who abuts a parkland moving forward after this decision doesn't decide to build a fence that goes out into the parkland 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. Other speakers. Okay. Uh I have a request to vote on D separately which we'll do first. Um and then we'll vote on the rest of it al together. Okay. So uh we'll open D for voting. Closing the vote. Motion fails 4 to 9. >> Okay. And we'll open the rest of it. Closing the vote. Motion carries 10 to three. >> Okay. Councelor Layman. >> Thank you, Mayor. That completes the sixth report of Planning Environment Committee. >> Okay, that moves us on to the sixth report of Community and Protective Services Committee. I'll turn it over to the chair to present the report. Council Ramen. >> Thank you. And through you, chair. I'm looking to present the sixth report of uh caps. I was asked to pull item four, item seven, and item 10. Uh but I'll look to see if there's any other items. >> Okay. Okay. Anyone like anything else pulled separately besides 4, 7, and 10? Okay, go ahead, counselor. >> Thank you. Uh, I will put on the floor items 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11. >> Okay, those items are on the floor. I'll look for any speakers for those items. >> Okay, seeing none, we'll open this for voting. Hold on. Just pause the vote. >> Sorry. In the added agenda, councelor Frank had an item for 11. I just remembered >> it's her item um didn't require any sort of action. It was simply a letter she wanted attached to it. There's there's no decision she's asked us to make. It's her signaling some future intent >> about a future audit. Okay. Perfect. >> Yeah. It doesn't need to be separate. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, that's uh so we're going to proceed with the vote on all the items that the council mentioned. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. >> Thank you. I'll look to put uh item four on the floor. >> Okay, item four is on the floor. I'll look for any speakers. Go ahead, Councelor Stevenson. >> Thank you. And through you. I just had a couple of questions for staff. I did send them ahead of time. Um not sure if if we can get answers tonight or if they'll come later, but on page 10 of the report, it talks about um a reduction in the urgent weight list by 942 and yet only 20 321 housed from that same urgent list. So just if the public's looking at this and wants to know, I just wondered what happened to the other 600. >> Mr. Dickens. Uh thank you your worship and thank you for the questions ahead of uh the meeting today so we could have a response um for the urgent uh status. So prior to staff uh the stopping of the taking of urgent requests, council had actually directed us that applicants had to be residing in London or Middle Sex County for the past uh or prior 9 months in order to be eligible for the urgent status. So the team did a list uh cleanup where individuals were removed from the urgent status um or removed from that that list for anyone that was no longer applicable uh for that definition. Additionally um uh there are folks who perhaps found housing elsewhere uh that they didn't respond to or they refused an offer uh which means they get refu uh removed from the list. That's actually a legislative piece that came in uh to play shortly after um I believe it was January 2020. Um or the application becomes ineligible due to a change in income and a few other various reasons. So there's a whole host of uh um variables. >> Okay. Thank you for that. That's really helpful. Um, I did have another Well, I'll just have a few comments. I think that I I'm really concerned as I think everybody knows about the housing, the tenency placement and profile, the terrible apartments that I'm seeing and the and the the conditions that people who are living in some of these buildings are uh enduring on top of the fact that we're getting damages to apartments and it's putting uh we're losing those units and we're losing funding that we could put towards other units. So when I this this change was done in September 2024 and uh I was really looking forward to this update to find out and and hear the good news hopefully of what was happening. But I'm disappointed that uh you know we don't have the feedback uh back. It says that the 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. Um I'm not sure when the next reports are going to come. And there's a we we've talked about this before too about how the um the act requires individ 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. Um the people who live near them, the the cooperative housing buildings that are trying to maintain these buildings and um 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, and general non-compliance with tenency obligations that are leading to a loss of housing. Um it says uh many traditional housing providers are not designed to deliver the required housing that many on the wait list now need. Um and about how there's uh you know staff are going to need to go through the weight list and try to to reassess and re-evaluate 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 uh 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 um in ratio was working. When I talk 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 weight list, they're still finding that 40% of the people that they're putting into the building um 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. the qu that 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 it it's on this weight list issue in in terms of placing people. We created brand new affordable housing and what's I believe understood is based on bad tenency 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 twobedroom that was 689 is 1238. A three-bedroom that was 709 is now $1,490. And this is our affordable housing. Bygones 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. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to 1. >> Councilor Ramen. >> Thank you. Um 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, Councelor 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. Um, 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, Inc. It's consistent with my past votes no against these um 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 I loved on page 99 that it says we're going to have a um 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 are 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 1. 385. Do I have that right? It's thousands. I apologize. I apologize. That makes a big difference. 378,000. 385,000. Um, the point was to meet their capital shortfall of 2.5 million over the 5 years, which I get, but it's hundreds of thousands. It's late after 6 p.m. I'm doing millions instead of thousands. Um, 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 the governance, the oversight, the risk of fraud, the risk of um making bad decisions with this money. And like I said, nothing to do with this cooperative specifically. My concern is with the system and the model. And until I have confidence, I'm I'm going to be voting no. >> Other speakers. >> Okay. Seeing none, we'll open this for voting. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Councelor 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, Inc. on the floor. >> Okay, that's on the floor. I'll look to speakers for that item. >> Go ahead, Councelor 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 um 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 I just this this idea that I'm not wanting that I don't honor the work that's being done out there. I just want to 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 I we don't have the information. We knew these 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 we were that a motion was going to 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 is already read out uh uh run out and that we've got uncertainty in the vulnerable population in the volunteer base and in agencies that are having to deal with staffing issues. I have a problem with it. The the funding that ran out we've we had a bunch of them. It wasn't just these two. We had the London Care 602 Queens that received 437,000. I've emailed staff and I found out that, you know, 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 um 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 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 peacemeal 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 staff and the whole of community system response have not come to us and 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 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, messaging me in tears. >> As a as a city councelor, as a ward counselor, I can't support this. I want better solutions. I want to hear from and be a part of it. Um, I just want to say in terms of the dropin service, uh, we're meeting with Arcade and Kevin from the Oldiest 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. Uh, other speakers. Oh, I have Council Ramen. I'll look for other speakers after that. >> Uh, thank you. And through you. Um, a well-managed crisis is an oxymoron to me. Um, let me just say that the reason that the letter that was part of and parcel of the CAPS agenda was in front of us was because of a 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 uh 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 uh with some monthly commitments until such time as that UHI 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. Um and again the draw down from that social service reserve fund added to that motion councelor Hopkins amended to add that conversation with other organizations which staff said they would continue to have. Uh 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 uh many of our of my colleagues are having really good dialogue with organizations in in this community about the good work they're doing. Uh 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. Um and so again, what's in front of us today is a way forward. It's obviously um you know it's a step in in a direction but it's not the full uh answer. We need more support. We hear that continuously um in order to and we need sorry consistent support uh in order for us to help address uh some of these bigger problems. >> Okay. I have myself next. So I'll turn the chair over to councelor Layman. >> Thank you. you please go ahead, mayor. >> Um, yes. So, I appreciate the comments uh by my colleagues. Uh, I want to echo a couple of things that councelor Ramen said at the end there. Um, it's a bit of a challenging situation when uh there's a funding announcement uh for renewal of funding after the funding has ended. It creates gaps in a system and uh creates tremendous strain on those who could potentially benefit from the funding. Um, I want to go back though um to the genesis of um UHI renewal. Uh leading up to meetings that the federal big city mayors had in Ottawa with Prime Minister Mark Carney and his team, I met with uh with all the various agencies in the city who uh were utilizing the previous funding uh in conjunction with support of our staff to say we're we're going to go advocate for uh 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, you know, reaching home funding. But what are the impacts uh uh on the work that you're doing of this funding ending? Um a number of them have been mentioned today and there's a variety of organizations impacted. Um, but I want to I want to commend um although it would have been great to have the announcement a little sooner than the end of the funding and I want to commend the federal government for actually renewing the funding and I want to credit um the big city mayors federally for their advocacy on this particularly the mayor of Montreal who uh essentially spearheaded some of our advocacy uh with uh with the federal government on this um given the impacts that that her city is also facing uh and the agencies in in her city and and the way that they're using this funding So again, I I agree with Council Ramen. Um we deal with many imperfect situations all all the time. Um to know that funding is going to be renewed but not have a lot of detail puts us in a very difficult situation to you know try to find ways to allow agencies to continue their work uh 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 um Miss 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. Um, you know, 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. Uh, 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 were being provided under the federal funding. two, that the municipality can't be the long-term uh funer 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 dollars so 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 uh 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 councelor Hopkins work at AMO, appreciate the work of my my colleagues across the country at big city mayors and through the FCM, but also the work of agencies and counselors in this city to advocate to 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. It is great that they renewed it and I have to say the city of London and the agencies here desperately need to secure uh our share of it to continue the work that's being done in our city. So um 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 flow these dollars as you did before into the communities that were utilizing them for the work that was being done. Um because that is where the gap is and that is where the gap has to be filled. >> Stephen going to need that chair. >> Sorry. I'm going to return the chair to you. >> Thank you. Uh 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. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Council Ramen. >> Thank you. That concludes my report. Okay, we're on to added reports and I have I think he volunteered kind of uh councelor McAllister volunteered to read out uh the report out of close session and there are two items that councelor uh Mallister will present today. >> Uh thank you your worship and by volunteer you mean the piece of paper was put in front of me then yes here we go. Uh this is a central report of council in close session. Um this is number one property acquisition 141 Hibbury Avenue North Hibbury 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 realy services with respect to the acquisition of property located at 141 Hybrid Avenue North and the city of London further described as south 22 feet on lot 142 north 22t on lot 143 plan 511 in the city of London County of Middle Sex being all of pin 0834-0247 containing an area of approximately 0.11 acres as shown on the location a map uh as appendix B for the purpose of future improvements to accommodate Hibbury Avenue and Hamilton Road intersection project. The following actions be taken. The offer submitted by David Ernest Wilks and Mary Louise Wilks, the vendor to sell the subject property to the city for the sum of 340,000 be accepted subject to the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement as appendix C. And B, the financing for this acquisition be approved as set out in the source of financing report hereto as appendix A. Sorry, I'll try to go as fast as I can with these, but I'm fading a little bit here. Two, Western Fair Association, City of London. um J A R uh expo center redevelopment construction and contribution agreement that on the recommendation of the deputy city manager neighborhood and communitywide 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 uh regarding the redevelopment and operation of portion of the expo center formerly known as the Agroplex into three core gymnadium gymnasiums be authorized and approved. C. The mayor and the city clerk be authorized to execute the above noted agreement. D uh authority be delegated to the deputy city manager neighborhood and communitywide services or written delegate to approve the further amending agreements to the above noted construction and contribution agreement. E the deputy city manager neighborhood and communitywide services or written delegate be authorized to undertake all administrative steps and execute financial reports as required under this agreement. Uh and that progress was made with respect to items 4.2, 4.3, 4.4 and 4.6 6 as noted on the public agenda. Um 6.27C um 6.1 uh6 PEC uh 6.16 CPSC 6.3 uh slash6 CPSC and that is it. Okay. Uh you get to stand up council because you're actually we're presenting that report. Uh, I'll look for any questions on both of those items that colleagues might have or any discussion. Okay, we're going to open that for voting now. >> Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to1. >> Okay. Uh, we're on to deferred matters or none inquiries. I don't see any. No one informed me of any. Okay. Emergent motions. There are none. Okay. We're on to bylaws. So, uh, 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 pulled. Right now, I have it organized as bill 181, which is from the planning committee, the commissioner's road piece. That's going to be separate and we'll do that first. Then we have the items related to SBPC item 2.2 which is the housing accelerator fund items and then I was going to try to do everything else including the confidential items that came out of CPSC and ICSC that councelor Mallister just wrote. If you want something separate beyond that I'd need to know now. Um otherwise we could proceed with those three votes in that way. Does anybody want to do it differently than that? No. Okay. Is there someone willing to support all that? I'm I'm willing to second all of it. Someone will lay council layman's willing to move all of it. So, we'll use you and me as the mover and second for all that just to speed things along. Okay. So, the first thing we're going to do is the commissioner's road item. And we're going to start with first reading. Moved by councelor Layman, seconded by myself, and we will open first reading for voting. Motion carries 10 to three. >> Okay, we'll just have one sec because we are faster than Okay, second reading. And I apologize it might take that long for every vote cuz that's how long escribe is taking to refresh. Uh any debate on second reading? Same move in secondary. Seeing none, we'll open that for voting. Council Prible. Motion carries 103. >> Okay. And we'll go to third reading. Same mover and seconder. And we will open third reading for voting. Motion carries. 103. All right, the next one are the two bylaws related to the housing accelerator fund report from SPC. Uh moved by councelor layman, seconded by myself. We'll just wait a moment and then I'll open first reading. The bills are 182 and 183. And I believe it's from item 2.2 of the SPC report. >> This is a memo that Mr. Mayther's circulated too. Okay. All right. We're all good. Okay, we'll open first reading. >> Motion carries 12 to 1. >> 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. 121 Okay, we're going to open the next reading for voting. >> Motion carries. 121. Okay, next we're going to do everything else including the stuff that was presented um by Councelor >> Mallister. Sure. Got three All right, I'm I'm going to 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, okay, cuz this 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, we're going to if someone's opposed, I'm going to wait and let people put it in the system. Okay. I don't see everybody's in favor. >> Okay. 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? Okay. None opposed. Motion carries. We're going to record that as everybody in favor as everyone present. Second reading. Uh any discussion on all? Okay. 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. Uh so we're going to record that as it would have been done in East Gribe there. Um otherwise we probably would have had a 10-minute refresh there. So um everybody can enjoy whatever weather's left out there. Okay, which means we're on to adjournment. Um I'm going to look for a motion to adjurnn. Councelor Van Mirburgen, seconded by Councelor Cuddy. All those in favor of adjournment motion carries. All right, we're