← Back to summary
Full Transcript
Council Advances Housing and Transit - Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - April 21, 2026
London · April 23, 2026
Good afternoon everyone. We'll look to get started with the land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Inishabek, Hodnosoni, Lenapoic, and Adawandrin. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Matei, and Inu today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. This is the sixth meeting of the strategic priorities and policy committee. I am filling in today as chair. We send all of our best to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Uh today we are joined in chambers or online by all members except for the deputy mayor and councelor Hopkins. Um and with that we'll move to Oh, just one more thing. Sorry. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication support for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact spclondon.ca or 519-661-2489 extension2425. And with that we'll move to item one which is disclosures of pecunary interest. Okay. Seeing none we'll move to item two which is consent. Uh we've been asked to pull a few items. So uh 2.1 and 2.2 have been requested to be pulled and with 2.2 uh I'll go to councelor Pelosa who's asked for asking for a change of order as well. Thank you madam chair. I was the one who asked to pull 2.2. I have some specific questions that might lead me to vote no uh to certain components of this one based on staff's answers. Also, not having a best health day, so I don't know how long I can stay with everyone today. So, procedurally looking for permission from council to or committee to do 2.2 immediately after the other items on consent versus at the end as we normally would. Thank you. Um, I have a seconder on that and I'll just give uh the clerk a moment with that. We're just getting the wording together. Any other items to pull? So, we are going to deal with uh items 2.3, 2.4, 4 and 2.5 4 and 2.5 after vote of change of order. Just a moment. Okay, we are going to open the vote on a change of order and for the remaining items on the consent just a moment. Just a moment. We're just getting the wording. Okay. So just on the change of order that will be opening in the system. Trusso votes yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to 0. Thank you. So, first we'll deal with the items that are in consent 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5. I'll look for a mover and seconder and then we'll begin discussion. Councelor Cuddy, councelor Mallister. Thank you. And any speakers on these items? Councelor Stevenson, go ahead. Thank you. Yes, I just had a question about 2.5. Following up on the conversation yesterday around accessing line by line uh budgets for each of the departments internally, um I just wondered um if we were to move and pass a motion at council, is that something that could be provided for the 2027 budget? Mr. Murray, thanks for joining us. Miss Barbone, I'll allow staff to answer that question. Go ahead. Go ahead, Miss Burbo. Thank you through the chair. Um, perhaps it might be helpful to define what is meant by line by lines because I believe there might be different interpretations of what that means. When when we think line by lines, we think account by account by account, which is about 30,000 lines of data that wouldn't make sense to anyone or are we talking a more refined um level of information that details the budgets? that would be really helpful for us to understand the amount of work and whether it would be possible or not to provide. Thank you. Uh councelor Stevenson any clarification on that? Yeah, I can I mean I went back to the 2015 budget and I could see that within each of the departments there were multiple categories as we know and then for each category there was about an eight or nine line budget personnel purchase services admin transfers you know that kind of thing. So, I'm open to whatever level of detail can be provided, but currently we're getting one line netted out into a net budget compared to the net actual, and it's hundreds of millions of dollars. So, when we've got the other uh boards and commissions, they are reviewing those line by line, you know, whatever line by line means for them. They're reviewing budget to actual. They're doing the oversight on behalf of council and it comes to us on a on a one line. But this council, it provides oversight all over all of the departments within city hall. And currently I'm concerned that we aren't providing oversight when we've got multiple categories netted out into one net budget. So hopefully that helps. Thank you. I'll go back to staff, Miss Burbone. Uh thank you through the chair. So that information we provide excuse me through our open data. So that was something that Mr. Murray had referred to yesterday at the ICE meeting that that information is provided publicly on that forum. Because um it's in such a very broad um and quite lengthy. We summarize that data and provide that in a report that uh tries to provide as much context and understanding to make it as simple and uh helpful for the public and the average user who might be reading that report. So certainly that information is available. We have it on open data now. Um that is what we do each year in conjunction when we provide the budgets um with the SIRLocks. That is background information that is available online and and certainly not something that you could print pages of but is available electronically. Councelor Stevenson. Yeah, thanks. That's good to know. Maybe I missed it the last time, but I felt like those detailed business plans that are available on the website weren't available until after the whole process was done and and maybe I just didn't see it till after. But I'm just looking for more information to come forward at the time. I understand it's a strong mayor budget. I understand there's not much that can be done, but the public's really interested and especially interested in having council know the details. So, in in that open data, I tried to have a look. It's it's, you know, not that easy uh for the public to see. So, just any thoughts on I didn't didn't pull it. I'm not planning to move a motion. I'm just looking for input on how we can improve it. Okay. Thank you, counselor. Was that more common at the end or were you looking? Well, it was cl clarification in that like what is it when when we got the budgets previously, my recollection anyway was we got business plans for the ads but not for the 1.4 billion or whatever our portion of that is. The business plans are on the website now, but they weren't part of the package as they were in previous years. So, I'm just looking for it to be easy for new counselors and the public to see where the 1.4 billions allocated and the changes from one year to the next. In the 2015 budget, it actually had 2013 actual uh 2013 budget, 2014 budget, that kind of thing. That is really helpful when I look at it. I don't recall getting the chance to see that uh in this term of council. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Murray. Uh thank you three madam chair. So I uh I want to distinguish first between business plans and business cases. Uh business plans are documents that are available on our website. Uh they provide a short uh couple page summary of the 90 or so services that the city delivers. uh those are always updated uh or uploaded to the website prior or at the same time that the budget is released and then subsequent to the budget approval they are then uh updated with any relevant material changes that that need to be reflected in the business plans. Uh so those business plans are always available on our website and available to the public uh and and uh accessible through that format. Uh business cases on the other hand are the documents that you see in the budget uh sirloss the the budget uh book itself uh that speak to uh the impacts and the rationale associated with budgetary changes whether that be budgetary increases so additions to the budget service improvements service enhancements that sort of thing. Uh or potentially reductions as well. So council uh has of course recently seen some business cases as it pertains to reductions that have come forward for council's consideration as well. So uh I need to distinguish between those those again are always provided uh in every uh budget document uh for any uh changes that are being proposed either increases or decreases uh to to the budget as it uh relates to service improvements or uh service reductions. Uh as uh Miss Bravo noted uh the level of detail uh that the council is referring to uh that was previously presented uh you know 10 10 or so years ago uh that is uh almost identical to what is now uh available on the open data portal uh should those uh who are interested in that level uh and that specificity uh choose to go and and look at that. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I'm not going to blabber it here, but I I would say I feel as though I've been kind of flying blind in terms of the bigger portion of the budget. We we spend a lot of time looking at business cases at budget time, but we've not really looked at the main piece. I don't know whether costs are going up or down. The business plans show the budget for that year, but there's no compared in my recollection to the previous year and to the actual. What I saw in 2015 was a was very helpful. I thought when I read through it last night, it was great. It had one page for each department. It had everything laid out very easy for a counselor uh and the public to see. I would like to lean more in that direction. I'm interested in what my colleagues have to say. Um and I'll be working behind the scenes on that. Like I said, I didn't pull it, but I really think this is something we need to talk about. And I think uh what we were doing 10 years ago, in my opinion, was much more helpful than what I'm seeing right now. and I'd love to, you know, make things a bit better, especially for the next term of council. They're going to come in and be doing this really fast. If there's some recommendations or changes that we can make ahead of time, I'd like to be part of that. Thank you. Um, okay. So, I have Mayor Morgan next and then councelor Chasa. Yes. So um as someone who now and not at the start of the term has some level of responsibility over tableabling the budget uh I can tell you I actually find the information that Mr. Murray referred to the open data portal is quite helpful in the both the development of that budget looking at past budgets like and although it's not you know 300 lines per department like you could pick a department on the open data portal and you can say heritage you can see the personnel costs by year you can see the administrative cost purchase services materials and supplies vehicles and equipment uh you can see them every year of the multi-year budget uh you can see where there are revenue lines where there are expenditure lines you can see how they change over time um I think if there's additional information council ers are looking for uh having a good sense of what's there and then saying here's the types of enhancements I I I would like to see. I think that that's helpful to know. But um I certainly want to emphasize there there is a lot of information out there on the open data portal not just with the budget but with uh digging deep into many pieces of the corporation as part of the commitment that was made years ago to uh to participating in the open data model and sharing you know raw data. I mean and the document I'm referring to is all Excel tables. So you can do your own you can manipulate them, you can download them, you can change them if you want to work through your own estimates of budgets or find out percentage changes, you can you can play with that yourself. So um not to say that we can't do more or do differently, but I I just wanted to emphasize for the public that there is a lot of data out there. If anybody has any trouble accessing it or would like to see it in a different way, I know our staff are always willing to to help people access that data in whatever way they'd like to access it. But there's a lot of information on the open data portal as Mr. as emphasized. Thank you, Council Traso. And we are on items 2.3 through 2.5. Thank you um to the chair. I just want to briefly um state that I I support what councelor Stevenson is saying. I think that um somewhere in between getting thousands of pages and one chart, there's sort of a happy medium. And I think the mayor is quite right. This is available. Um, and I think that once you've gone up that learning curve to use that system, it seems easier than it is for somebody, particularly a member of the public who may be casually looking for information the first time. It's it's not it's not exceptionally it's not as easy to use as I'd like to see. What I'd like to suggest is if in the staff report there can at least be a link to the um to the open data and says more information is available here along with an indication of where where the um there there's got to be some training material that members of the public can access to use this. I think once you start going up that learning curve, it's a little easier. But I just want to make it easier for the public and for the next council to find this uh additional level of detail. I know it's there. I know it's not confidential and I I know that there is a desire quite rightly to keep our our principal reports from becoming too cluttered. They they do tend to get really long at at some point and uh it's it's a lot of printing. So, I just I just want to move this along in a in a productive way and just indicate that I think some really good questions are being asked here today. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on these items. Councelor Purple, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And on the 2.5 I was frequently on during the last years on open data portal and uh it is truly detailed and any information you can find there. Uh any of information you really honestly need it is there. Having said that I think the link or information for public would be great. Uh I haven't seen the reporting from 2015 but I will take a look at it if it's if it is something that potentially would be beneficial. But that's uh I just want to talk more about uh uh in the edit agenda on page 65 the graph and multi-year budget annual tax levy increase and uh I just wanted first of all our finance to confirm that if you look at the first two years of multi-year budget if we take out the impacts of the tax policy decisions and educational tax that in 24 it was actually 7.7% in 25 6.6% 6% and now in 2026 when it says 3.4% my question is the 3.4 is it before or is it after the provincial uh provincial adjustments and uh tax policy decisions. Thank you Mr. Murray. Uh thank you madam chair. Uh so the figures in the uh graph in question uh reflect the uh budgetary increases. they do not uh reflect uh the impact after the application of uh tax policy and the impact of provincial education taxes. So for 2026 uh that figure uh is reduced uh or changes from the 3.4% that's noted on the graph uh to in fact 3% uh after the impacts of uh education tax and tax policy uh which went through the last cycle of ICC. Councelor Purple. Thank you. So just a follow-up confirmation. So based on these adjustments, even though the graph shows the numbers which we see in front of us, but based on the adjustments, the first year of the multi-year budget ended up being 7.7%, second year 6.6 and this year we are anticipating 3.0. Mr. Murray, uh thank you, Madam Chair. Uh just to be clear, those uh figures that the uh councelor is quoting, that would be the impact on the average residential uh taxpayer. Uh the graph shows kind of the the global budget picture of the uh impact of the budget decisions. But uh as far as the what the counselors indicated, those are correct for the average residential uh property taxpayer. Councelor Prible. Perfect. Thank you for the confirmation. No more questions, comments. Thank you. Looking to other members for speakers. Okay. Seeing none online, seeing none in chambers. I'm just wondering if Mayor Morgan can take the chair for a moment. Sure, I can take the chair. I'll go to Council Ramen. Uh, thank you. And through you. Uh, I just had some questions uh with respect to item 2.3, the amendment to the affordable housing community improvement program guidelines. Um my question through you uh Mayor Morgan is uh just looking at what's uh in front of us today for this item um what do we anticipate to be the uh expected outcome in terms of number of units or whether or not it's going to change patterns with with developers or um with those that are um currently building uh ARUS or are we just talking about the $20,000 grant for current uh ARU uh builds that are coming through uh from you know people adding on to their basement or so on and so forth. Uh Mr. McCauley, you're going to go. Okay, go ahead. Thank you. And through the chair. Um we don't really um know the exact impact. However, we do have a very high level of interest in these programs. We continue to get a lot of inquiries from members of the public about building ARUS. We have heard from members of the public that they would prefer seeing these programs not as a loan program but more of a grant program. Uh certainly when we launched the detached program and it was uh did not apply to basement units. We had uh homeowners sharing us with feedback. So we know that there's a large appetite out there. We know that there are a lot of lenders who are interested in these programs and have also identified to us that there is financial implications with building ARUS in their basements or additions onto their homes. So, we see this program as a solution to that, not only uh to helping homeowners build more units, but also because we are under um a timeline to uh pull in more units to meet our housing accelerator fund targets. Uh so, we see this as a win-win. Um, you know, even with this report having been made public in the last week, we've already uh gathered some interest through our shared inbox about homeowners that are already wanting to know further details and wanting to participate in this program. So, we are very optimistic that it will uh bear fruit. Um, and we're also optimistic that this will help us move toward um meeting our housing goals. Councelor Ramen, thank you. Um, could you just remind me or take us through the timelines for for accessing these types of programs? Mr. McCauley, thank you. I might ask for a little more clarity the timeline for like the application timeline, how long the process takes. Sorry, councelor. Thank you through you. Um, sorry. If we were to put this in place for April 28th, what's the timeline that people will be able to access funding? Thank you. through the chair. Um we would be looking to stand this program up almost instantly. It is dependent on when the building permit is issued. So that um is will be dependent on council approval which we're anticipating to be April 29th and then this would be valid until September 7th where this specific grant program would be eligible. We are looking to that specific permit window in order to support these units getting built. Go ahead councelor. Uh, thank you. And, um, my understanding is that the federal HST rebate also applies to renovations. Is this something where somebody would be able to access both dollars at both of that those programs, Mr. Mayers? Go ahead. Uh, through the chair, we don't have all the details on the HST program, but um, ideally they would be able to if they are eligible under under that program. there's no reason that they wouldn't be able to to uh stack this funding with any other kind of uh other programs available from the federal government and province. Go ahead. Thank you. So, it's my understanding that there is a possibility to stack these programs which I think if we're looking to spur um construction uh um startups and we're looking to cons to support the industry, I think is helpful um from that perspective. So, um, that's part of the reason why I'd be supportive of what's in front of us today. Um, and I'm just wondering again when it comes to new construction where there is an ARU if these are eligible or not. Go ahead, Mr. McCauley. Thank you. So the program uh that are tied to 2.3 that is for existing homes and existing home owners who are looking to build additional residential units. There is also a proposal in front of committee today that is tied to item 2.2 which is um a new program that would uh be provided to builders or developers who are building new homes. And that program provides the opportunity for that builder or developer to outfit that new home with an ARU pre-built into the basement or an addition and then package that as one uh one sale to a pro p prospective homeowner. So what that does is in turn that homeowner can then purchase not only their primary dwelling but also have a readybuilt ARU that they can then instantly within a month or two apply for the rental uh unit license and start renting that out and earning a little bit of side income. that could also possibly help pay down their down payment or other loans that they took in order to purchase that home. So, it's also helping with the affordability side of things and construction uh constructing new units. Go ahead, Council Roman. Uh thank you. So, yes, I understand that that's in 2.2, but as this program's constructed, it could not apply. And I'm just trying to confirm that it does not apply to new home builds at this time. Thank you. And through the chair, that is correct. The program for 2.3 does not apply to new homes. Thank you. That's all my questions. Great. I'll turn the chair back to you. Thank you. I'll go to councelor Traso. Thank you very much. I'd like to ask through the chair in terms of the general program terms and conditions. Um I I see that all property owners must be natural persons. Um no fees. um and that it it be used as a principal place of residence. And ever whenever we talk about that, it does raise the um persistent issue of um how we enforce that. And um I'm I'm I'm happy with these provisions. Uh I see no no Airbnbs are are permitted here. Um you have to have a residential license. um h how are these uh sort of issu is issues going to be enforced because I'm not satisfied that we've really thought that out. Mr. McCauley. Thank you. And through the chair, as part of the monitoring aspect of this program, uh there is an annual attestation that the principal homeowners require to fill out. Through that att testation, we request documentation such as the current lease, the amount the unit's been rented, um copies of the notice of assessment, which will designate the principal address, uh sorry, the primary address of the primary owner. Um that then reaffirms that that building or that home is still owner occupied. We do that on an annual basis throughout the monitoring term and ensure compliance uh through that process. Councelor Trusso. Um, I guess my next question is is is I don't want to say is that it, but is there anything else other than uh the the the property owner filing uh a document? I'm not I'm not sure what workflow that document goes through or when whether any of them are going to be um checked or is this just you file the document on its face and if there's a complaint there's a complaint because I I'm still not satisfied that uh this is not going to create additional enforcement problems. I I don't want to stand in the way of additional ARUS, but I want to make sure that we've really thought this out because it's going to create it's going to create problems in particularly um certain neighborhoods. So, what else is there to uh ensure this is done? Mr. McCully. Thank you. And through the chair. So, the it is not as simple as just filing some documents. There is a staff member who is monitoring these applications and checking in and there is a back and forth. In addition to the attestation, there is the collection of these documents and they are put on file. They are assessed and vetted to make sure that the uh principal homeowner is still in compliance with the terms with the legal agreement. Um if it's determined that uh that principal homeowner is no longer uh the occupying that residence as their primary residence, then uh we do have provisions within the legal agreement to take action. That's everything up to including requesting the principal amount back and any acred interest. So there are are penalties included in that. Um but there is it is a little more than just filing some paperwork. There is some back and forth with the staff member to ensure compliance all the documentation. One thing that we have found as we've moved through this program is that um there's a lot of a lot of um questions that we have from the public in terms of process and how how to navigate. there's a lot of assistance that we've had to provide the pro uh the pro public in navigating these programs and we're happy to provide that level of assistance and that level of customer service. So there's certainly um a lot of back and forth between my team and members of the public participating in the program. Um thank you. Um my next question deals with what is the anticipated effect of this uh expanded program on the workload of the committee of adjustments? Mr. McCauley. Thank you indeed chair. Uh we don't anticipate there being any additional workload placed on the committee of adjustment as a result of additional ARUS. Thank you. Councelor Trussa. I'm having a problem with understanding that because it it seems to me as if that's exactly the sort of thing especially if there is a um these are these are as a matter of right but if you if you want a variance from a setback requirement I I see these pending all the time in my area um it it's it's very typical that the owner is going to want to um cut into the setback a little bit there's one pending now where well I'm not going to go into the details about the one that's pending now on Mateland. But but mo mo mo most certainly most certainly this is going to give rise uh e either either either it's not being reported or there is going to be a proper procedure at at the committee of adjustments. So I think just to say that there's no anticipated effect on the workload of the committee of adjustments is really missing a very important piece of what in reality is going to happen or what should happen. Mr. for me. There's and councelor just so you know you have 45 seconds remaining. Yeah. Through the chair. Um so so we don't want to say there's not going to be any additional work. It's just the magnitude of it. Right. So we've been seeing that over the last few years we've been getting upwards of 400 ARUS a year. Um our our hope and of course we'd be we'd love even more than this but if if even if we can get 40 or 50 um additional ARUS through this process that would be wonderful. So, um it might be it those could lead to um community adjustment related submissions. They may not. Um but it should should only be like a marginal increase if there is an increase. Council Traso. Um I'm not going to push this further today. I would at some point in the future like to see a more wholesome staff report about this. It's it's really going to be a problem in the near campus neighborhood. I can already foresee that. Um, I don't know how to raise that in the future, but this is an issue that I think you're minimizing. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for other speakers. Seeing none, opening the vote on 2.3 through 2.5. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Thank you. With the change of order, we're dealing with 2.2 next. Um I had uh councelor Pelosa uh requested to speak on this item. So I will go to you first, councelor. Um I have no amendments at this time. I'm chair. I don't if you want to look in chambers for a mover and second or get on the floor and then I can ask questions from there. Okay. I'll look for a mover and second. Councelor Frank. Councelor Layman, thank you. And councelor Pelosi, go ahead. Thank you. Just procedurally trying to keep it clean. A few questions for you to staff on uh several items within the report. I appreciate the report and realized it came from a strong mayor directive uh directing civic administration. This is the report that came back. I still have a few um concerns within it. Uh page 18, it speaks to uh people with outstanding fees. Just looking through you to staff, is there a timeline for those outstanding fees uh that have not been paid or like is it just a few months people might be seeing outstanding fees or is just they've been sitting there for years and they might get them waved now? Mr. Mayers, go ahead. Through the chair. So if um I don't want it to seem like there's people who have fees that they haven't paid that that they've been issued that they haven't paid. These would be um any kind of a unit that um that has uh is ready to be or is currently being evaluated by staff for from a permit perspective. So, um, the way that it works with these permits is that, um, you would provide a deposit, then it's provided, then the permit submitted for staff review, and then, um, prior to issuing the final permit, then we assess all the fees, and then the those fees need to be paid before providing the actual uh, permit to the to the individual to be able to move forward. So these are just uh people that are are they have uh um permits that are underway being reviewed and it just allows that they won't be excluded from this process. And the reason and the rationale for that as well is that for say for example um a large apartment building um it may be up to like a year to 6 months that it takes to be able to bring forward um and move through the process of approving a permit like that. So those are the exact types of permits we'd like to be able to move forward quickly. So, um, it could be up to like a a 6 months or a year that they've been acuring these fees, but they wouldn't have been issued an invoice for them yet. Councelor Pelosa, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that. Uh, especially as the city's budget chair of what kind of outstanding fees we're talking about. Um, a question for you to staff. Um, on page 17 is recognizing Linen Transit uh, bus routes and 1500 meters. Um, looking for clarification on that one as some LTC bus routes are temporary, some only operate at sporadic hours to certain areas of the city, some are actually detours. Uh, looking for clarification if this is the parameters of the program. Uh, just for staff clarification, Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. So, it does include all uh current routes. So, we have the mapping that's available. Um so it may uh so it would include any of those temporary or the other forms of of routes as well. We did take into account because uh we know that there's even over the longer term like consideration of other routes but for the um from the current period of time we've just taken the existing mapping and used that as our basis. Counselor. Thank you. Uh just I know I have some bus routes that normally come into war 12 that have been highly impacted by West Rapid Transit that are highly utilized that um I think we're maybe routes uh 95. So was just concerned for that. Um I appreciate the the report uh also talks about the missing middle and hoping that the some of these uh programs can address that as well. Um some of my other concerns I know we have uh projected grant money for even just one unit. Uh some concerns that that could just be a really one large mansion home. I know it wouldn't be a lot of money for that person, but um not the type of housing I was trying to get uh built. My last question um might take a couple staffers. Um, if we're talking about, and I really appreciated the housing accelerator fund, um, the 11 goals that it was trying to address and especially number seven, which was partnering for affordable housing projects. I have one approved through council in W1 12. It would bring a 100 units uh, in including affordable housing and rent geared to income. prior it was uh it's located on Jelino Boulevard. Uh it is serviced by an LTC bus. Looking to see it was currently outside of the bus too far from the bus rapid transit corridor that this program seems to allow that since their LTC would have a bus route nearby it would qualify. Would staff actually reach out to items like this on the book that have been approved by council but have not moved forward yet? Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Mathers. Uh through the chair. So, we will absolutely make um sure that everyone's aware of the program moving forward because we we're very excited to try to get these units move forward um and especially before that September 7th deadline. So, it um be happy to reach out to any any of the individual um builders, developers that you're that you have any concerns with and um there would absolutely be an opportunity for them to be able to capture this if they haven't already had a permit that's been approved. Um, as far as targeting permits that have been approved and getting them to move to that um uh to the point of of being uh actually starting and building the construction, that's absolutely what we can turn our mind to after we get to the September 7th date. And that's the part of the recommendation just highlights that there will be opportunities once we know we've got the full amount of funding that we can turn our heads to trying to get some of these other opportunities that maybe have a permit um or and or to be able to get them to to push them over the edge to to get uh into a start and foundations being constructed and getting homes for folks as well. So uh the current report it really is just focused on uh getting those permits issued at this point. Council Pelosa. Uh thank you, Madam Chair. I will follow up offline uh with that specific um development uh as it they are on the city's radar because they would pull from our housing weight list uh and they are just having some financial issues that maybe this could help since they didn't qualify for some of our other programs. Uh that concludes my questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. I had councelor Ferrer next. Okay. Thank you, chair uh through you. Um I appreciate the report. Appreciate the direction. And I just got some questions um with respect to the housing supply growth targets. I know we made some revisions for the targets uh and what council was speaking to with the missing middle and I think with the multi-unit uh housing uh changes. I just wanted to um ask I do see in the report that it says um it's not possible to amend the CMHC agreement and that CHC agreement originally was originally depended on the original target. So, I just wanted to know with these new target numbers that we're using, um, are we still able to be, um, receiving or would we be able to be approved if we hit the new target amounts for the additional funding for the, uh, fourth payment, Mr. Mathers? Uh, through the through the chair. So, we've been working very closely with the CMHC staff on this. So, um, at this point, uh, there's a lot of municipalities that that are going to be having some challenges with with their targets and and, uh, um, and how they've been have been outlined. So what they've suggested to us is that that um when we issue and provide to the CMHC the final year report, we document all of this and we make that case the decision will be finally made by the the minister uh the housing minister at the time to be able to decide on on uh who gets the funding and and and that moving forward. So um we're not able to say because we don't know how what kind of criteria are going to be used at that time. We hope there'll be a bit more information that comes available between now and then. Um that's why we were suggesting we should still be very much focused on trying to meet that overall target that was initially provided. But um we are much more comfortable in working with CHC and letting them know that uh that we're much closer to the missing middle um value than we uh originally uh uh thought we were. So that's uh that's really great news. Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thanks. Uh so from what I understand like the overall 3-year target of 11,83 like if we were to hit that target uh and potentially as long as we hit that target and we did have the revised target amounts for the missing middle um it seems likely that we may still be able to get that fourth installment of funding. Mr. Mayers through through the chair. So that is very much our hope. Um uh the only way to actually understand how the final payment is going to be provided is to to know how the housing minister is going to make the final decision. So um we think we're in a good position for that, but there's we can't say definitively at this moment, councelor. Go ahead. Thank you for that. Um okay, and I guess my last question, um I guess it's with respect to the temporary waving of building permit fees program. I do see that there's some level of retroactivity here except for the deposits or fees that would already be paid. I just wanted to know how far back would we go? Mr. Mayers. Yeah. Through the chair. So, it's it's it' only apply to folks that haven't don't have their permit issued yet. So, in most cases that uh would only go back to like if it was a large apartment building, it might be back eight 8 months to a year because they may have been working through the process. um anybody that already has an a permit that's been issued would not be eligible for the program. So if you already have your permit, that's not something you're going to be able to be able to get money back retroactively. Um so really it is only uh uh any of those permits that are currently sitting with the city and haven't been approved yet would be eligible. Councelor, all right, thank you for that. Um thank you for the answers. Um I I supported uh the last one. I supported this one. And I know when I saw the um new uh ARU uh construction and then I saw the all ARU construction, I like the two. I see how that they're working together. So, I just wanted to make those comments. I'll be supporting this one, too. Looking for other speakers. Councelor Chasa, go ahead. Thank you. Um and through the chair, I want to follow up on what councelor Pelosa raised regarding the LTC routes. I think saying any LTC route is a very imprecise and shifting and very tentative and very iffy way of making this determination that is going to determine the rights and obligations of people with respect to their to their property. I've just brought up on my screen an LTC root map and I'm trying to uh I'm trying to look at the uh I'm trying to look at the uh you know 1 cm equals uh I'm trying I'm trying to look at the scope of this and I'm wondering has staff actually looked at this map with respect to uh this number uh and can you give me an overlay map or something approximating it in terms of what what would be taken in with that LTC uh rule that would be very helpful. You're shaking your head. So, Mr. Mayers. Yeah. Through the chair. Absolutely. So, um if council if committee moves forward with the the recommendations here, we will bring to council um the specifics within the form of a bylaw that would include um a figure that would highlight the area that's covered. I'll be very open with you that that area with that 1.5 km is for the most part covers any areas that's are in the builtout city or any air and most areas that are um that are uh where development is occurring currently. So it is a very expansive area. The reason why we've done it that way is just to ensure that we can cover off um uh optimize the number of opportunities to be able to get permits at this time. Um and uh uh so that will be available to you. Also, just so that we're all clear as well, um this this program would only last until September 7th of this year. So, it's only the next 5 to 6 months. So, if there are some tweaks or changes to um uh over that time, uh the uh the route schedule, it's it's unlikely to change the overall map substantially. And um so uh and but either way, the figure that's provided as part of the package would uh uh very much be the basis of how we'd make these decisions, but it does cover for the most part most the areas that are under development currently. Thanks. And I don't see a bylaw attached to what we have today, which means the bylaw is going to come back at a future date. And even if council passes this, we still have to see the bylaw where we can make refinements. Mr. Mthers uh through the chair. So the bylaw will go to the council. We'll be putting it as part of the p council package. So you'll have the opportunity to look at it um once it's uh once it's provided. Um the reason for that is we just we want to make sure that if there's any other tweaks or changes that uh that committee would like to make that we can uh make those changes as part of the package. But um you'd have the opportunity to um see that for council and may make the decision at council whether you want to proceed. Okay. And my my last question is um through the chair. If it takes in most of the city, which I think is what you said, why don't we just say that? Why do we have to refer to the LTC um roots, especially given the tenative nature of those roots? The other thing the LTC the LTC reports that we're going to be talking about later today are going to be differentiating between feeders and spines and uh neighborhood special uh special specialty things. And I'm wondering if we could be more precise if this is going to expire soon. I don't think we have to worry about it. But in the long run, I I don't like the idea of saying near a LTC route period. So that that that's my question here. and I'm gonna support this but I'm going to be watching this very carefully. Thank you Mr. Mathers to the chair. That is absolutely that's it's a great question. So the right the reason why we're using the method that uh reference to transit is because the we're right here we're suggesting a financial incentive pro uh program that is under a community improvement plan. The community improvement plan that we were using is the transit related community improvement plan. If committee or council wanted to look at a completely different type of CIP in the in the future that uh could be just over all encompassing of the city and looking at development, you could do that. It just the the process because it's a regulated like a legislated process usually takes 6 to9 months to be able to come up with a new CIP. So, we're trying to look at at at of of uh creative ways to be able to use our existing CIPs, but also um meet some of the timing uh requirements for the the housing accelerator program and and get those permits approved. Councelor, nothing further. Thank you. Thank you. I have councelor Prible and then Mayor Morgan. Thank you, sir. Chair to the staff. Uh last November when we received the annual update, it st it stated and talked about the 11 initiatives and the milestone actions. It stated there are a couple of them that are outstanding and they will be completed by Q2 2026. I just want to receive a comment if they have been or if we are on track there. Thank you Mr. Mathers. Uh through the chair absolutely happy super happy to announce that we are completed all of our initiatives all of our actions and all of our mind milestones for all of that housing accelerator work which is really really great because it's a it was a heck of a lot of work and uh not every municipality can say that for sure. So uh that is absolutely all complete now. Councelor Pival. Thank you sir chair and thank you and congrats to the entire team. Very glad to hear that uh the update uh the updated agenda on page 13 there's the table one and the third and fourth uh item is investments in housing related infrastructure and investments in community related infrastructure that supports housing. First of all, when I saw it last time in the fall, when I look at our budget amounts, I'm very glad that we move forward and we have actually these initiatives in place. But I want to ask you for example on page 16 where we have the housing related infrastructure investments and it says for example Kyle road 4 and a half thousand plus homes and then we have a contribution from the half and then when I look uh compared to the other ones this certainly doesn't seem like a huge amount for the infrastructure but then there is amount still that uh could be allocated to this. I just want to explain if you can explain it to me. How do we allocate it to specific projects to satisfy our infrastructure needs? Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. So yeah, this is a really great example of us moving uh the projects forward. So at the previous report, we reported that an estimate of $2 million for this item. So we've uh just at yesterday's ICSC the we brought uh Kelly's team uh Miss team brought forward the clearly road infrastructure improvement project and it came below the budget that was initially anticipated. Um this project is both funded from building faster fund and from housing accelerator. So um it was a total of 2,447,000 that was required and it's in the source of I was able to pull it just before the meeting and it is in the source of financing and like that. So they've been able to reallocate some of the funding from that to one of the other projects that are on the list here. So um but that's one of the really nice thing about the flexibility between these programs that if there's a if projects um uh come in at lower dollar amounts, you can easily like uh apply it to different programs and projects. Counselor, thank you. No more questions or comments. Thank you. I'll go to Mayor Morgan. Thank you. So let me uh provide a couple of thank yous to start. Uh first I want to thank the federal government for the housing accelerator fund money. Um now we do have targets to meet with that money but uh I I think our staff have done a really great job of bringing forward some ways that we can use some existing money we have to not only drive housing but set ourselves up for getting the the next trunch of money from uh from the federal government. Uh the second thank you is to our staff. um you were asked to do a lot of this work on a fairly tight timeline and you brought forward I think some really great uh programs that are both creative in nature but also I think really effective and and just from the when the report came out in my consultation with members of the industry who might access these I think there's going to be significant interest in in a number of these programs um to the level where the numbers start to get us close to meeting our targets people are going to be able to move on you know uh hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of units. Uh and that's and that's a really positive thing. Um I want to talk about just a couple of the programs briefly. Um the ARU program uh construction grant at the time of new home construction. I think this is a really uh great way for us to use housing accelerator funds to actually drive a little bit of light density in the new home constructions. Uh this is not something that is completely new. there are uh there's at least one developer uh in our city who has done this of their own accord on a very small scale uh to try it out. Uh and what they found was there's a lot of interest in people in not only moving into a new home but having you know the ability to have a ready to go ARU for either their aging parents or or as a possible income opportunity to defay the cost of housing and make it more affordable in the community. uh that developer actually partnered with RBC to have that taken into account in the calculation for how they were working towards uh their qualifications for their mortgage, which is great that that there is models already existing in the city that that this can actually be leveraged to help people get into a home in in an affordable way by having that income accounted for in in some of the calculations to qualify for homes. So, I think that this is a really uh great and innovative way for us to use some housing accelerated funds to move numbers quick. To some of my colleagues uh questions, I know that parts of this might not feel perfect um especially the alignment with LTC roots. Um, but we're talking about a program that is going to be temporary uh that is going to expire uh at the end of September that is meant to drive uh some numbers uh in the community and also allow us to decide, you know, if some of these things work out and we get the next trunch of money. You know, this doesn't mean we can't do this in a slightly different way. Um perhaps in a more focused way across the city than, you know, the widespread way across the transit uh CIP. um we would have time to actually do some of that work and actually bring that into place. But for now, you know, one of the critical pieces we have to get to here is, you know, meeting our targets so that we can continue to have what is absolutely necessary money for creating housing in our community flow to us. Uh we've done a great job of meeting our housing accelerator fund targets so far and I think we will I have a lot of confidence that we'll meet the next one because of the really great work of our staff and bringing forward programs like this and and the supportive comments that I've heard from uh my colleagues. So, um I'm very supportive of uh what we have before us and and you know, I look forward to uh to the updates along the way. Uh but again my my what I've heard is really positive feedback from those who are likely looking to access both this programs and the one that we we voted on um subsequently um which may actually move housing and and leverage some of the changes that you know is already being made by the provincial and federal governments with you know HST discounts and those sorts of things. Like we've got a little bit of momentum here and that's it's really good for us to do some actions at the municipal level to to try to accelerate that. Thank you. Looking for other speakers. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had two questions and one of them I've answered as I was looking uh closer here, but I'll just confirm with staff in case anybody else reading it has the same question. So on page 17 for the pre-construction housing grant, it says source of funding subsequent report back to council. But I can see in the recommendation that um it's once there's confirmation that the city receives the fourth and final advance of the housing accelerator fund. So I just want to confirm we're not looking at municipal funds and uh approximate timing on that. Mr. Mayers, uh through the chair, yeah, absolutely. At this point, we're not um suggesting using municipal funds. Their hope is to be able to uh a couple uh pieces. Hopefully we the we're targeting trying to get that entire $20 million um which would have some opportunities to be able to bring forward a program like this. Also, if there's any other programs that we're currently offering that still have funding remaining in them, then we can look at repurposing them into a new new opportunities as well. even if we don't get the complete $20 million. Um, no one noting that we are kind on wood, I just want to let everybody know that's what we're going for and that's our target. Um, and then the next piece of it um is that is for the timing. Uh, so uh the September 7th is the date that we need to be uh to get those permits. We issued the report to um CHC uh in the middle of October and then this year they got back to us at around in February of the following year. Hopefully it would be a little bit sooner than that. But um we'll start preparing reports even in uh uh before we hear directly back, but we will uh hopefully be able to get back to committee and council uh either in December or January. It just is very much uh uh related to the timing that we get the information back from CHC counselor. Yeah, thank you. That's very helpful. Appreciate that. And my other question is around uh 3.2 and the investments in half action plans and affordable housing. And it's the affordable piece that is really confusing um for the public a lot of times. So I noticed in 2.2 2 the uh affordable ARU construction grant is actually 100% CHC average market rent. So in these other ones are are they all that way or is does it depend on projects just so that when we're telling the public when when we're issuing these affordable programs is there a standard that we're using at the city? Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. Um there there absolutely is a is a standard. Um uh if we're look and it does depend on on the program because you like to try to have a variable program to allow for different types of affordability. Um for the most part like our road map and our dollars to indoors program um is focused on 80% of of market rent. Um but we might have other programs that allow for slightly larger amounts just to target different parts of the the housing spectrum. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thanks. So, last followup then. I'm assuming 100% is the maximum. And what is the CHC average market rent that we're using right now? Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. Yeah. For um for an the program I can provide you. So, for a studio, it's $1,066. That's 100%. And then for one bedroom, it's $1,370. Counselor, thank you. That's all. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Councelor Taso, go ahead. I'm I'm sorry I keep jumping back back and forth, but when counselors say something that resonates with me, I have to follow up on it. I'm a little concerned that there's not much of an affordability component here. Now, I understand that there's a trade-off between adding more of an affordability component and hitting our aggregate housing target numbers. And I'm wondering if there's anything this council can do at this date to maybe enhance the inffort affordability aspect of this because based on what's in front of me, I don't even want to use the word affordability. I think it's it sets it sets the wrong we shouldn't be telling the public that we're using this money for affordable units if we're really not. And maybe we need to build these units anyway. I'm not disputing that, but I'm really uncomfortable using the word affordability at that at that level. Can we do something to decrease the um percentage so maybe some of these are a little more affordable? Mr. Mthers uh through the chair. What what we're finding is most of these ARUs are a bit more inherently affordable compared to like your typical apartment um building, especially if it's a new build apartment. So, if you're looking at our hope is that expanding this to the pro to allow for either an extension to the house or a basement apartment that it can even be at at a lower cost than what can be a very substantial cost if you're constructing a completely separate ARU. So, we're hoping that that's going to be more inherently um affordable. Um the uh the aspect of this that looks at the planning fees that can also be stacked with any other type of program that we already have existing. So, if there is somebody coming in um with a an application that has affordable housing, they would also be able to access this as long as they uh provide the get through the permitting process by September 7th. So, that that's our hope. Um we wouldn't necessarily at this point um suggest reducing that 100% because um there this is we're we're absolutely working with uh uh residential home owners and uh there's a a bit more risk associated with that then um if you were able to have many units that were at an 80% profile but uh of course that that's up something for council to consider as well. Well, I guess I guess I learned a new term today and that's inherently affordable. And I'm not sure that if something's inherently affordable, it it helps the target population that's the most impacted by the high cost of living and the lack of affordability. So, I really think we have to be careful with um terminology creep here. Affordability inherently affordability. Um how long is this? This is a temporary program. If we if we okay this will the next council be able to come back and revisit this early in the term in terms of maybe maybe looking at um more of an affordability calculus Mr. Mr. May uh through the chair. Yes, absolutely. This uh this portion or the additional portion only extends till September 7th. So, it is a very limited time frame. Okay. So, again, I don't want through the chair. I don't want to hold this up. I'm going to support this, but I don't know. Inherently affordable just does not do it for me. So, there it is. Um we'll see what happens. Thank you. Um, I was going to turn the chair over to Mayor Morgan. Is it okay if I come back to you after I do my questions? Thanks. Okay, I'll turn the chair over to Mayor Morgan. Sure. I'll go to Council Ramen. Thank you. And through you. So, um, just picking up on some of Councelor Traso's points and um, looking at this from an affordability perspective um, on the ARU piece. Uh part of the reason for my line of questioning around new home construction um is in my word I'm seeing a lot of new builds where there are separate units in the basement already. What's the difference between that and an ARU if there's already uh let's say a builder is already building a product. These products happen to be in the 1.2 million plus range where there are separate entrances, separate bedrooms in the basement plus a kitchen. Would that qualify as an ARU? Uh through the sorry um through the chair. uh if it's an actual ARU and it's additional unit then there's specific building code related requirements that will be put onto that unit related to um fire uh like having appropriate like fire protection and HVAC requirements and there's a quite a few different requirements that are required that would need to be uh um uh approved and assessed within any of those units. So if they went through that process and uh they brought forward a permit that shows a sec secondary unit then yes they would be eligible for the program um there uh if if if a builder decides and chooses to go through the program but um I'm not aware of a lot of those at this at this point. So, uh they would have to um it would have to be a formal unit as as far as the the building uh requirements as uh move forward. Go ahead, Council Ramen. Thank you. Uh and through you. So, I'm happy to share some listings uh for some new builds in my area that have those separate components to them where they are a separate unit with a separate entrance point to them. They have their own kitchens. They have their own bedrooms and so on and so forth. They not may not be intended for uh additional residential units for rental purposes, but they may be intended for um you know um families with multigenerational members where there's separate living arrangements. Um and like I said, these are in the 1.2 plus million range. Um, and I personally am not comfortable with adding an incentive to housing at that level. So, I won't be supporting this until we can create some parameters that uh address this being for more affordable forms. Um, I think just having it as a blanket form creates an an incentive where maybe it isn't needed. Um, and I want to speak to the 1.5 m or sorry, 1.5 km from uh transit route. Um, I have some concerns with uh moving forward with uh adopting this part of the report and my main reason is I think we're creating a new definition of transitoriented when we do that. Um, I understand that there is a desire to spend this money to incentivize housing. Personally, I don't think $100,000 on an apartment building that is, you know, 100 units plus um is a big enough incentive that it's going to stop a developer. But my concern is it does create a new definition that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Right now with transit, when we talk about proximity to a transit stop and being in and being proximal to it, we usually talk about 400 m. This to me provides additional definitions that I think opens a door um for not just our CIP definitions but also how we define transit in the future. And I just want to be very clear about whether or not a building is considered in a transit area or not. Um because I think it it makes us look at the form of the building differently. And we have a lot of conversations happening right now about where we're building and whether or not it is on a transit route, whether or not it should have more parking or not, etc. And part of my concern is that we're opening a door for a conversation that I'm not sure that we've fully uh decided on what the correct definition is right now, but I'm more comfortable at 400 m than I am 1.5 m. And so um at this time, I won't be supporting either of those options in this report. Okay. Thank you, councelor. I'll turn the chair back to you. Thank you. And I, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Just a through you. Just a quick question. I've had some questions on this myself. So, a bare bones ARU. What type of cost would that be? I know it's a hard question to answer, but just just very ballpark when when we look at these grant amounts. I've been uh people have asked what percentage of the cost we're we're looking to fund. Mr. Mathers uh through the chair. So, we do get to see some of those costs because that's part of like the submission requirements and we do have a loan program available for the units that we're looking at in including right now. So, on a if you're looking at for a external unit that's separate from the house, it could be anywhere from $1 to $130,000 for a unit like that. Um basement units, it's um in the ballpark of $50 to $60,000. Councelor Stevenson. That's good. Thank you. Other speakers on this item. Okay, seeing none, uh we will look to open 2.2. I'm just one moment. Okay. Um, so I'm going to turn the chair over to the mayor so that I can let you know which parts I'd like to vote on separately. Sure. Let me know how you want this separated. Uh, thank you. And through you. So, I would like to vote on part uh AI uh separate and AI and I'm okay with the rest being packaged together. Okay. So that means we do AI and A III separate. Does anybody else I guess sorry you'd have to you'd have to I I guess is connected to A. So I'll just vote A and B separate. A and B separate. Everybody okay with A and B separate? Okay. All right. We're going to do A first. So this is going to be a uh which includes all the subcomponents of A. Correct. Clerk. Yes. Okay. Perfect. All right. That's what we're going to do. Uh I'm going to use the same movers and seconders if you're comfortable for both. Yeah. I see nods. Okay. We're going to open A with all its components first. We'll open that for voting. closing the vote. Motion carries 9 to 4. Okay. And next we'll do B and we'll open that when it's ready. Councelor Stevenson. I vote yes. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 130. Okay, I'll turn the chair back to you, Councelor Ramen. Thank you. Uh we are now going on to item 4.1 which is our delegation request for May 28th from Lenin Hydro Inc. regarding the revival of London Holding Inc. New Co. Looking for a mover and a seconder on this item. I have councelor Cuy and councelor Mallister. Any speakers on this item? Seeing no speakers at Oh, councelor Ferrer. Go ahead. Thanks chair. Um just uh I don't have the report in front of me but from what I remember it was looking to appoint a board member to um on this item. Is that correct? For the new for the new corporation. Thank you. So just to clarify this is to deal with the delegation on May 28th and at that time they would look to bring forward the um members that they're recommending and then council would also appoint a member at that time. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for clarifying that. Uh looking for any other speakers. Seeing none, we will open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, we are on item 4.2, the London Transit Rapid Transit Operational Readiness Review. I'm looking for a mover and seconder on this item. Councelor Cuddy, Councelor Frank. Thank you. And we'll begin discussion. Looking for any speakers. Councelor Stevenson, and then I have councelor Van Weirberen. Thank you. Um I just had a couple of general questions like it talks about customer comprehension and there are concerns around the east link how that's going to work as Dundas lane Dundust Street goes to one lane with all of the cars that are turning right. Right. We have all these areas where cars can turn right and also the the fact that we've got bicycles in you know there's a a little bicycle design right on the red pavement. And so people are wondering like how this is going to be rapid transit with both of those things. So is that explanation going to be part of of this or is there anything that can be shared now to help people understand what that's going to be like? Thank you. I'll go to Miss Sher. Thank you very much Madam Chair. Uh the rapid transit in the context of what's being built does not refer to the speed of the buses but the reliability of the service. So the time between each bus that it is reliably there on a rapid schedule. While you do have some compromises by going to curbside running, which does allow more right turns that can impede momentarily the buses in those lanes, there are other offsets with respect to the ability to maintain other property access to introduce station at major spots like 100 Kellogg that we we went through and we modeled the performance of the corridor. The bike sharing certainly can reduce the speed that's available to buses in the lane. Generally uptake is quite low in these facilities and we do have bike facilities in other parts of the neighborhood. So all in all those were reviewed as part of the design planning much further back than the operational planning that's in case here and we're confident we can maintain the headways that are required for this service to be reliable for its users. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you. So just one followup on the bike sharing. So that wasn't a temporary thing. That's actually part of the overall design that we're going to have buses what every five minutes or so and yet we're going to have bicycles in that lane. M shar. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh yes, the majority of the lanes are designed to accommodate cycling where it is a curbside running lane as well and the bus headways vary throughout the system between five and 10 minutes once we get to pre- peak operating. Uh, as I said, in many cases, we have cycling infrastructure on parallel streets that will move the majority of cyclists, but there is the ability for cyclists to use that lane much as they would a traffic lane for cars, counselor. Yeah, thank you. I guess just cars aren't allowed, right? So, bicycles but not cars. Okay, thanks, Councelor Van Miren. Thank you, Chair. Um I'm uh I'm hesitant to use the words bus and rapid together in the same sentence. Uh this is a hugely um ownorous taxpayer uh expenditure and I know in the case of my my own ward uh there's minimal support. Um therefore, and I've I've been consistent uh for the last two councils uh in not supporting uh this concept and certainly the cost um and the benefit. Um I would like A and B called separately, please. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Looking for other speakers on this item. Councelor Trasa. Um, it's hard to follow that cuz Yeah. Um, so so I I think I think I'm just going to keep I just going to I'm just going to keep going. First of all, first and foremost, thank you so much for these staff reports. Um, and I want to direct this um to Kelly and your department and everybody that you worked with on these reports. Um, I learned a lot about transit policy from reading these reports, both 4.2 and 4.3. And what really struck me reading this report, and by the way, I'm the one I'm the mysterious person who asked for the full Stantech report to be sent around. um surprise, but um I'm just I'm just reading that now. And as good as I thought the summaries were from your staff, I really I'm really thinking that the Stantech report is something that we should all read, particularly if you're involved in transit policy. You know who you are. Yeah. Um good. Um, in any event, I I need to have more time for this to sit and I'm going to support this in full today, but I see that part of this is directing LTC to review these following opportunities. I'd like to see a little bit more specificity on that. And I don't know if that requires an amendment to the motion, but I I want to I want to say what my concerns are and what I'd like to see if I may. What I don't want to see is this just sent back to LTC without further procedural guidance. Um, is this going just to LTC management or is this going to go to the board for a discussion? Is the board being asked to hold a public participation meeting before Q4 on these items or are we just leaving that to the discretion to the board or are we just telling the board not to do anything other than let management come back in Q4? because I think um we are going to have to pace ourselves on this file and and take some purposeful action. There are a lot of things in this report and I'll have more to say about 4.3 and 4.4. But with respect to 4.2, um I I really want to get into a little bit more detail about the alldoor boarding for the rapid transit network. How is that going to work? I I I'd like to see a little bit more discussion about exactly what we're asking for here. And if we go through um stop my time. No, if we if we go through um if if if we go through the entire Stantech report or even or even the summary that Steph sent to us, you can dig out some answers to that questions. But in order to help LTC, could could we be a little bit more explicit about what we're asking for here? And I'd particularly be interested in hearing from my um colleagues who um are on LTC. So, I'll I'll just uh yield at this point, but I'm really happy to see this report and um I I thank you for it. Counselor, just to clarify that you didn't have a question for staff there. It was just to spur dialogue. It's to spur dialogue. I guess ultimately I would ask staff if they would like to say a little bit more about some some options for all door boarding, but I don't think we want to get into those types of operational details um at this at this meeting. I think that's something for LTC. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Sher. Thank you, Madam Chair and councelor. There's a few others who asked through the report, but we appreciate the interest in the the detail. So um with respect to procedure, the request would use the existing transit bylaw to refer this as a matter of strategic importance to the commission. So it would go to the commission via the chair who would then provide it to staff. Staff have at LTC have been part of the process through this work. Obviously we needed their input and insight into developing the work. Uh there are a number of ways that you can do dual uh door boarding and it depends a bit on the fair collection system, your security processes and even the type of bus that you're choosing. So we would be looking to our colleagues at LTC to evaluate that and report back as to what they believe the best path forward is. It is imperative however as as from our perspective in Stantex as the system becomes busier in order to maintain those frequent headways that we have all uh both door boarding in the future. It's probably not required day one but certainly will be in future days. Counselor I'll yield for now. I'd really love to hear what some other people think. Thank you. I'll look to committee. Okay. I'll go to councelor Frank then councelor Ferrer. Thank you. I appreciate these reports and I am also reading the Stantech report but taking a little bit longer because it's 175 pages. Um through the chair I was wondering in regards to the communications for the public awareness programs. I know in KW when they launched their um LRT system as part of their promotional efforts they did a month of free ridership to really get people on board and checking out the new system. And I'm just wondering what timing and who is responsible for that kind of idea. I assume it would be a budget case to to be able to provide that. So uh through the chair to staff, I was just wondering kind of at what point that kind of promotional opportunity could be discussed. Thank you. I'll go to the chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the responsibility for the ultimate operation promotion of the system is with LTC. We will however be at city staff be working with them collaboratively to ensure we have a successful launch and we're leveraging our shared strengths and communications our media channels to ensure that we're promoting this for Londoners and visitors to the city to try out. Uh certainly we're open to things like some fair free days fair free periods promoting for various types of events even we've had conversations about engaging with things like the music office and encouraging an entertainment route on the east link. So there's a lot of ideas that have been sort of tossed around at a high level at this point. We're not quite there yet. We're still focused on the final ends of construction. Um, but we will be as we start talking about moving buses on parts of the system in the next few years, working on how we have that conversation to promote and ensure that Londoners understand the transportation choice it provides. So, we'll capture those as potential ideas and if there are other ones, we're happy to hear them. Councelor Frank, thank you. Yes. And just in followup, I think that um sounds good to me. I think it'd be great to have uh the two comms teams in lock step just because I know kind of leading up to this we've had a lot of city comms communicating the infrastructure changes and like the the red paint on the road um and I know that LTC will be responsible for the operations of it but it' be great if that kind of was seamless for the community because um I think both the physical infrastructure as well as the bus and the actual operations it should all blend hopefully into one beautiful service. So uh I look forward to seeing that. I know that at LTC we have been chatting about enhancing our communications as well. So, um, no further questions on this one for me. Thank you. I'll go to councelor Ferrer next. Thank you, chair, through you. I appreciate the report. I'll I'll be getting through that 175 page document as well. I haven't yet. Um I do I I did appreciate kind of I guess the focus on just making sure the efficiency of the rapid transit system itself and the quickness of it and that's really what the whole um goal of success is about just making sure that people can get on the buses can get moving people can get off and everything is flowing like that. So, some of my questions might overlap, but I just wanted to go back to, I guess, the expanded fair uh retail network, like some of the ideas that I did see kind of in the report. And I don't want I understand we may not have the operational details specifically yet. Uh but just from what I'm getting, um there's going to be, you know, potentially more stores that are going to be selling, uh fair tickets, potentially a move away from fair tickets and being more digital or actually having that option so people can reload on their phones or have some kind of uh profile that they can load there or even at the transit stations as well. I was wondering if you could just if there is any information that we have right now if you can just expand on some of the ideas that could be out there uh to expand uh the way um passengers can pay their fairs. I'll go to Miss Sher and team. Uh, madam chair, we actually do have our consultant online and they may be able to provide some insight into some of the things they contemplated. Ultimately, we all be looking back to our friends at LTC to report back on those that are most appropriate. But you have touched on a number of them, which is more places to access um, purchasing cards or tickets as well as the ability to move seamlessly with an electronic card or with your your electronic wallet on your phone. But I do believe we have our consultants online as well. Thank you. We do. Um, I believe it's Mr. Gibble if you'd like to go ahead. Yes. Hello. Thank you. Can you hear me? Okay. We can hear you and we love your background. Go ahead. Wonderful. Thank you. Well, through the chair, thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Um, yes. Uh, there are several options for moving forward with um fair payment, a retail network. Um we understand that LTC does uh sell um paper tickets through a variety of retail locations. Um at the present date um what the Stantech team more or less envisioned was a retail network in which um cards could be reloaded and it gives the opportunity to reload fair media with cash um at these various retail locations. Um and that lessens the burden of L of uh cash handling by LTC. Um which is an expense that they have to take on. Um but it also just broadly expands the wider opportunity for for persons who may not have the resources to tie their um their their their fair media with a credit card um to be able to reload their fair media by with a cash option. Thank you. I'll go back to councelor Ferrer. Thank you for that. I understand that we still have to send this to LTC and there's some more discussion about that but I just wanted to get that information. Um with respect to the all door boarding um I understand that there are already agreements with the new flyer um company with for purchases of new buses. I just wanted to ask uh staff or the consultant online stand um if we were to let's say decide that maybe doors should be expanded or we're going to be using both doors. Is there what's I guess what's the the feasibility or the likeliness that we'd actually be able to have an all-door boarding system when we already have these agreements in place? Is it just a matter of like some minor adjustments because the buses are being built for us or is is are there any barriers that we might be that we should be aware of or any risks? Thank you, Masher. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think it would depend on the nature of the Aldor boarding system LTC ultimately selects should that be what's approved. Uh there are options to modify the rolling stock that is being ordered or that stock could ultimately transition to conventional transit service and we be replaced with new buses at that time as well. So there are a number of options available and we would be looking to our colleagues at LTC to report back what options they think are best to suit us. But no, there's no risk in having ordered the rolling stock buses to start the RT service. We needed to be in the queue to ensure they arrived and there there are opportunities to either do some minor as we with every bus we receive and almost every vehicle we receive. There is always some minor customization that is required to ensure that they meet our fleet needs. Counselor. Okay. Thank you for that. And my last one, um, I read this one with some excitement. Um, and I understand that this is, uh, not necessarily for the system itself, but it's just for, I guess, the awareness, and that's the, uh, the the brand, the new identity that the rapid transit, uh, is going to have. I just wanted to know if I get I'm not asking you for what the name is going to be, what the colors are going to be. U, but I just wanted to know any information you have. When should we expect that? Um, will that be coming within the next year or so? Uh, just any information you have there. M shar thank you in fact thank you for the moment to confer with my team. There's a lot of information in the report. Uh so yes, we would need to make a decision relatively in a relatively straightforward and timely way with respect to what a potential branding scheme could look like for the buses. So I'd say yes, within the next year is a reasonable thing. We have not at this point selected a name or colors. We would obviously need to be working with some experts in that marketing and visual identity space with our colleagues at LTC. There are some trade-offs that go with that with respect to the ability to spareboard buses. um we can have continue to provide that information working with LTC as part of the report back towards the end of this year. Counselor. Okay. Thank you for that. Uh well, I'll be in full support of this. I appreciate the work. I I appreciate the information that I got from this and uh like my colleagues, I'll be uh checking out that Stantech report in full as well before the next council. So, thank you. Thank you. I will look for other speakers on this item. Okay, seeing none, we will open that to vote. Sorry, we were asked to separate. We'll start part A. Closing the vote. Motion carries 13 to zero. Okay, we'll open part B. Closing the vote. Motion carries 11 to2. Madame Chair, councelor P is just going to take her leave for the rest of the meeting at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, with that we'll move on to item 4.3, which is the London Transit route uh planning and management review. Looking for a mover and secretary on this item. Councelor Cuddy and Councelor Trasa. Thank you. And looking for speakers. Councelor Stevenson. Go ahead. Thank you. Yeah, I just had a question around C. It says um the administrations at the corporation and the London Transit Commission be directed to collectively create a more structured collaboration process to better integrate and achieve alignment on planning, operations, and administrative initiatives. There's no report back or anything. So, I'm just wondering why that's in there and what what the expectations are. Go to Miss Sher. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh while we work very closely with our colleagues at London Transit, uh with the exception of a meeting between the general manager, the chief treasurer and myself that happens by by monthly, it tends to be either project based or ad hoc. So it'll be in response to a funding opportunity, it might be in response to a development, uh it may be in response to direction from council or it may be project based like the mobility master plan. So the vision for this was just to let council and the LTC know that our desire was to set up perhaps a quarterly forum where we see senior staff not just from engineering and from finance but potentially from neighborhood and communitywide services from planning getting together to proactively look at the things that might be before us and review things that we've done together to learn from those opportunities. So just a staff to staff opportunity that's a bit more structured minuteed agenda to ensure that we're having those conversations and everybody who should be at the table is reliably at the table. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you very much. That that sounds good. And I guess I will just ask one other question around um the route planning because it still is a recurring concern in the old east village area around the impacts of the rapid transit routes taking from the valued routes along Dundas Street and I hear different things. Uh and so what what will be the involvement in the public or the council in terms of um ensuring or or awareness or input into maintaining those Dundas Street routes. I'll go to Miss Sher. Madam Chair, I believe uh Miss Pletchney is on the call and may be better equipped to speak to how they are going to adjust their routes with respect to bringing the rapid transit spines online. Uh we also have our consultant available, but I think Miss Pletchney might be the the right person to go to. Thank you. Okay, we're just going to give her a moment to log on. I did have one other question. Maybe I could ask it. Madam Chair, Mr. Hall canon uh provide some information on the original question and certainly while we're waiting for Oh, there's Miss Pletching. Okay. So, counselor, would you mind just uh restating your question? I won't count it on your time, just so that uh Miss Plesian can hear the question. Yes, and thank you. I was just asking around the route planning portion of this uh report and the there's a lot of ongoing concern in the Old East Village area regarding the impacts of the rapid transit and concerns that the buses are going to shift down to King Street and they're going to lose the um the uh short stops along Dundas Street. So, I just wondered what the public input process or council's input will be in those decisions. Thank you. And I'll go to Miss Pleshi. Thank you for joining us. Please go ahead through the chair. Just want to make sure you can hear me. We can hear you. Okay, perfect. Um through the chair. So So any adjustments like that would be part of our annual service planning process which LTC has a um a consultation process and specific when there are adjustments like that in a specific neighborhood, we would have um dropin sessions targeted uh for that neighborhood. We do direct mail to um identified areas like that to make sure that everyone in that area is aware of the the consultation that's going on so that we can gather that feedback. But the overall intent is not to reduce levels of service in any specific area. Routes may be adjusted so that they're not all traveling on the same corridor, but but the intent is to maintain service in areas that it already is in. just better better spread it out and utilize it so that those those feeder routes are feeding that rapid transit line. Councelor Stevenson, thank you. Okay, that's great to hear that there'll be feedback prior to the changes being or an opportunity for feedback prior to the changes being made. And uh like I said, just the concern I hear is there's a lot of dependence on that route, on the frequent stops for people uh especially with mobility issues versus the longer walk to the rapid transit points that are a little further south south. There's also um some safety concerns in the neighborhood. So maybe just as a an initial feedback. The the other question as I'm talking about safety is in this management review, maybe I missed it, but there's a lot of concern about safety on the buses. Um, and I just wondered if that's being uh put in here as well, either in KPIs or in terms of really discussing how to ensure that people feel safe and want to get on the LTC buses. Miss Plesi Um well certainly that's that's something that we continue to to work on. I'm not sure that was identified specifically in the report um that's in front of council, but it it certainly is an issue that that we are aware of and we are continuing to work on various solutions to to improve that. Counselor. Okay. Thank you. I'll just leave it there that it's um I think a critical piece to the success of expanding transit in our city and so wherever that can be incorporated explicitly too so that the public can see what's being done and how these problems are being addressed would be helpful. Thanks. Thank you. I'll look for other speakers on this item. Councelor Trusso, I'm going to um through the chair just repeat a concern that I tried to raise though not very forcefully before and I think I'm going to be a little bit more adamant this time. Um I don't want this to just go back for a report in Q4. Um, in particular, report number 4.3 has a number of items that go well beyond this is something that we routinely do and plan for as as a transit agency. And when we when we look specifically on page 97 and under 3.1 transit planning and operations, this this resolution is is asking LTC to to look in some detail at the um those six bullets. And the notion of writership versus coverage raises some very compelling questions which could well if we if we take seriously the um the difference between wrership versus coverage that's being outlined in this report which I hope to um read a little bit more before the council meeting. Um, there could be there could be there could be major changes here and I think I think LTC is going to have to look at a new way of thinking about how they operationalize their roots. When we talk about how transit systems can be created in layers and maybe I should ask that as a question since uh the consultant and staff is is is is here. Um could you just explain in a little bit more detail what is meant by layers and how will the different layers play out? What do we what are we exactly what are we asking LTC to do between now and Q4 with respect to looking at layers because this notion of layers is fascinating. M chair. Thank you madam chair. I think this is a good opportunity to take advantage of Mr. Gibbble's expertise and provide that information. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Gibble. Well, thank you so much. Um through the chair. Yes. Um so when we talk about layers in the in the overall service network, those are really kind of tiers um of of the service system almost like a pyramid. So um your baseline system is your your local network. Um, so those would be um uh currently like the the community circulators or or the frequent services. Basically the feeder routes that will go into the BRT system. Um that's your baseline network that gets people from their homes to to other rapid transit services and then if they need to make a transfer ultimately to their final destination. Um but as the as you go up those those layers, the frequency of service, the intensity of service and the intensity of transit prioritization and transit infrastructure tends to increase. So as you go from local services to limited stop services to rapid transit to express um that the the speed and frequency of service tends to increase with the exception of express. Express can can be point A to point B. Although the way London Transit currently operates, Express is a little different than how some service uh regions currently do. Um so that's generally what we mean by by layers. You have your baseline local network, you have your rapid transit system, and you have your express network. Um thank you. Um could you through the chair um talk a little bit more about how you see the potential ways of having this evolution from a radial to to a grid network and perhaps that would require talking a little bit about defining a radial network and a grid network. Mr. Gibble. Absolutely. Uh through the chair. Yes. Um, so as an agency, I I've worked with a couple of agencies who transition from radial networks to where they're largely focused on people getting in and out of downtown. Um, however, London has historically uh and currently operates a fairly strong system that could be identified as a grid. Um however, as rapid transit services open up, um you the the the need to kind of minimize duplication of service um along these high investment corridors is really necessary. Um and to really maximize the investment in rapid transit um services uh really need to be oriented towards feeding those those high-capacity um corridors. Uh so some routes may be adjusted to where um they are no longer paralleling or operating interlining with the um the BRT corridors, but rather they may be shifted to intersect with them um to enable a higher degree of transfers um into that rapid transit system and then the rapid transit system will carry um the high volume of riders on these high demand corridors uh as well as the riders who transfer over from the local system. Councelor Traso. Thank you. Ju just based on my reading of the summary um which um if I haven't mentioned yet, thank you very much for the summary. It was very good and I'm looking forward to reading the Stantech report. But um the idea of transfer options is I think crucial if uh if LTC wants to deal with the problem of uh a better public perception of its service which should result in increased wrership. Um, I think the transfer option problem is is a sore point because what I hear time and time again, it's it's the transfers that that that create a lot of the problems for people. And could you just sort of uh expand a little bit on uh what you found from other from other jurisdictions and what you wrote in this report about different ways of thinking about transfer options. Thank you. I'll go back to Mr. Gibble. Thank you. Um yeah, through the chair. Um yes. So uh transfers um when they are uh in a place that is uh useful to say more or less. Um but in places with high degrees of activity or where one frequent route meets another that really opens up the network um to a lot more trips to a lot more people. Um and so when we envision transfers between rapid transit and local or feeder services um we we certainly looked at a variety of locations um and and and regions throughout the United States and and throughout Canada um to identify best practices uh as it comes to navigating and and identifying and designing uh transfer opportunities and well-designed transfer areas. Um we did find that uh wayfinding is of critical importance um when it comes to facilitating transfers um excuse me uh particularly as it pertains to where the passenger needs to go to go in a specific direction uh once say you know if uh if I put in the shoes of someone who's riding rapid transit and I get off the vehicle uh but I need to make a transfer I need to know which side of the street to go to in order to go the proper direction uh instead of getting maybe getting to the wrong bus stop and then heading the opposite direction that I want to. So, signage, wayfinding, maps. Um uh and then in some locations, uh this wasn't necessarily included in the report, but international examples do include um uh uh texture uh textured uh sidewalk materials that help those who are visually impaired get from bus stop to bus stop. But signage is also really important um in which transferring to bus stops that might not be visible from the rapid transit station. Um that's where it's it's really most important. The goal really should be to keep them visible within one um uh visible from one another. Um but that's not always going to be feasible based on roadway geometry, sight lines, building frontages, size of intersections, things of that nature. Um so the wayfinding aspect of it and then um expanding in on that to include wayfinding methods for those who may be hearing or visually impaired um are are really important to the over functionality and usability of the system. Councelor Trusso, thank you. Um, you also speak about the concept of mobility hubs and I found I found that part of the uh report that I that I read particularly um particularly insightful because under our mobility master plan, we're supposed to be thinking about ways of doing a shift in the mobility from automobile trips to not just public transit but um also al also cycling um I should say scooters and I should say uh pedestrian uh uh foot foot traffic. And your discussion of mobility hubs really raises a a number of uh very very um potentially um innovative appro approaches to making it more comfortable for people to use transit at least for at least for part of their trip. And uh you talk about the uh mobility hubs on on page uh I think it's on page 99 right before recommended next steps. We're currently planning mobility hubs at Fshaw, White Oaks, White Oaks Mall, and downtown. 30 seconds. Um, I I would like to hear a little bit more about what we could be doing to to to to push along the concept of mobility hubs in the in the uh medium range term, not just in the long term, because this is something we need. We need it at Oxford and Wonderland. We need it downtown. Um, could could you expand on this portion of your report? Thank you. Uh, I'll go to the Mr. Gibble and then you have about 5 seconds remaining. Thank you. Yeah, I'm happy to expand upon that. Um, so mobility hubs are are almost like transit centers, but they're more um they are hubs for um accessing all kinds of mobility services including transit um shared vehicles, hailed vehicles, shared mobility services or shared bikes. Um and then uh um but when it comes to um accelerating that program or or getting them into the the medium-term future, um there are some smaller um examples of mobility hubs um that are a little less robust in uh Minneapolis, Minnesota, where it may just be um a sign that shows the available mobility services there, including transit. Um but they can also be quite expansive. um into the larger transit center facilities that include community resources and other shared mobility services. Um so in terms of a a medium-term strategy to getting this done, I think that's probably best left to to LTC to discuss. I don't I certainly don't want to uh to commit them to anything. Um um but there are a variety of scales uh and options that can be pursued for a mobility hub that can accelerate um or lengthen a timeline. Councelor, Mr. Sher, go ahead. Uh, Madam Chair, I may ask Mr. Hall to provide some additional information on the city of London specific plans with respect to integration to active transportation, micromobility, uh, walking modes. Those are pieces that the city delivers on the non-bus side of the integrated network and it is, as the council has noted, an integral part of the mobility master plan as well. Thank you. I'll go to Mr. Hall through the chair. Uh mobility hubs can be many things and serve many modes and so I think the examples provided Fshaw College it primarily will end up being local transit to to rapid transit as sort of within a mode but also at Fshaw College there's lots of pedestrian access with new development nearby um potential cycling access and the examples provided in uh Toronto and LA being sort of leaders in mobility hub creation often it's to do with cycling parking um and the land use context around it. So allowing increased uh zoning permissions near the transit villages and we have a robust system in London for that as well already in in our zoning. Um so we're talking about everything here in we talk about mobility hubs and mobility master plan as well as this report. Uh there's a potential park and ride in the south end. Um that again would allow people to drive their vehicle to access transit and a recommendation within this report to proceed or to pursue a uh downtown mobility hub that would facilitate better access between regional buses uh local transit rapid transit and our regional rail system. Thanks. Thank you. And and to close um next steps, I I am really uncomfortable just saying come back to us in Q4 with a report. Can we do something in the interim to to get some evidence that we're moving this along? And just to finish off your question, it was something else that can be done uh before Q4 to move along. I'm wondering if we could just ask that question for you. Yes. I I think I've made my my point. Go ahead. Leave this sit. Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. With respect to the the work that is going to be requested of LTC should council pass this report at its next meeting, I believe that Miss Pletchi and her team do need that time between now and year end to report back on how they might address some fairly complicated changes to how they route and plan and manage their system. Uh, I believe Miss Pletchney is still on the call, but I I do understand that this is a significant ask of her and her team, and I suspect they will need that time. Thank you. And uh Miss Ples, if you wanted to comment, please feel free to go ahead. Um uh through the chair, as Miss Shear uh just indicated, this is a significant undertaking, some of which will um require some fairly in-depth analysis. So, we will I'm certainly be discussing that with the commission in terms of the timelines when when the report eventually gets over here. Thank you. Uh I had councelor Frank next. Thank you. And again appreciate the report and the um consultant report as well. A couple questions to the chair to staff. I'm just wondering in regards to um BII. It suggests some interim service enhancements for the north and west routes while we await hopefully some provincial and federal funding. Um I'm wondering if that uh is feasible in the next you know 5 years if we are able to do that kind of infrastructure like Q jumps on Sarnia to Wonderland that kind of things where we you know uh change an intersection put down some paint um and if that's kind of what they mean by interim service enhancements. Thank you Sher. Thank you Madam Chair. I will start and Mr. Hall may wish to add something to that. We have done a previous review of the former what were called the north and west corridors under the original bus rapid transit plan that did include some interim improvements to accommodate transit uh on the locations where there was not uh rapid transit approved at that time. So we believe we have a fairly good basis for what those could be uh with respect to things like Q jump lanes um potentially some enhancements to service some stop expansions. So yes, I believe those could be delivered if we have bud both budget and property available and those are things that we could see in advance of what is a more lengthy process to do the rapid transit lane along Western Road that was approved as part of the mobility master plan. Mr. Hall may have a few additional details as well. Mr. Hall through the chair. Part of what was envisioned to explore further with LTC um for this north and west corridor could be anything from infrastructure at the street level like enhanced bus stops u more information uh but certainly uh with our consultants help um the encouragement for anything that can increase reliability on those corridors and serve more passengers in the interim while we uh await the full roll out of rapid transit. Councelor Frank, thank you. Yes, I think um that kind of enhancement is desperately needed given how long it can take to do a full RT route. So, appreciate staff looking into that. Um I do notice a couple mentions of the need for micromobility to be able to connect the folks for the first and last kilometer and I'm just wondering if staff could refresh um our minds as to where we're at as a city with those options. Thank you. I'll go to m share. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh the city had previously gone out to the marketplace to look for a vendor for an ebike share program. So a rental program that can be accessed at various locations for users. At that time, the respondents indicated a need for an ongoing operational subsidy on an annual basis or the ability to exclusively operate uh an escooter rental program. As council knows, we opted out of doing an e- scooter share pilot under the provincial legislation. So even if there were way to work that into an RFP, it was not an incentive we were able to offer a potential vendor and there was no funding available in this multi-year budget to provide an ongoing operating incentive uh to a vendor who would operate said systems. So we're exploring what potential future microobility programs could look like and that would be something that we would bring forward in the next multi-year budget. Um, in the interim on sort of a a more private ownership side, we we do have a number of plans to enhance things like secure bike parking that while not a microobility shared system does allow folks to use things like personally owned bicycles, ebikes, e- scooters at this time, although there's a report coming certainly next cycle on that to enhance their first and last mile journeys as well. So, um, we're continuing to work on those active transportation and microobility connections. The ability to go back to market with a subsidy is not something we'd had direction from council to continue with. Councelor Frank, thanks. And then my last question is just in regards to again there's some reference for folks to be able to walk up to a station and tap a card and be able to pay and add top up their card instead of what we have right now which is online and then it cycles in the next day. I'm wondering those gray rectangles that are at the BRT stations, are those intended to be those fair boxes where people could walk up and and load up a card. Miss Sher, uh, thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, yes. The intent is to have a ticket vending station that can allow people to engage in e- purchases related to their transit journey in the future once those systems are in place with the LTC. Counselor, thank you. And my last question, um I was just going past the Queens Street RT station in front of Canada Life and I noticed they had the signs up and right now the signs say, you know, no buses coming at this time, which I assume is a placeholder because I know that there are buses coming. I'm wondering when will we be able to see I know that RT for that area. I'm not sure when it's going to officially roll out. Can we start seeing though like the schedule show up on those things for the regular conventional um uh buses that we have now because it does seem deceiving for people to be standing there and saying no buses are coming when there's totally buses coming. M shar uh thank you madam chair where LTC's conventional service is tied into the locations of the new rapid transit stops they are already using those stops. So, there are a number of places that the stops can be used, but not all of the stops coincide with current services. So, uh, if Miss Pletchney is still on the line, she may have some comments on how she's integrating the new assets into her system in advance of the RT buses starting to run on the RT routes. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Plesh. Sorry about that. Was having trouble unmuting. Um through the chair, my understanding uh specifically to the reference from from councelor Frank is there are some issues currently getting hydro connected to those signed those signs at that particular station. Um however the the um the ones that are working are showing local bus services that are coming the the the GTFS feeds are working but there is an issue at that particular station with respect to to getting everything connected and we are working on it. Councelor Frank oh the chair my apologies councelor madam chair I misunderstood the question Mr. Spu has some information on the progress on that particular location. Thank you Mr. just saw you go ahead through the chair. Thank you. Um it is intended to show the buses that will be uh serving that stop. However, there's a few locations where we are having some errors or some issues with the system and we're working with supplier to get those fixed. So, it is intended to show all the bus arrival information for the stop including local local stops. Councelor Frank, thank you. I am delighted to hear that cuz I thought, you know, might as well use it if it's there. So, great to hear. Um, no further questions at this time, but again, look forward to this rolling out. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Councelor Ferrer. Uh, thank you, Chair. Just the one question for the Stantech report that was released after, is there any way we could have that just to be noted on the public record attached to the council agenda or distributed uh somehow to the public? just conferring. I'll go to Miss Sher and then maybe to the clerk. Thank you, Madam Chair. Certainly, we have no concern about the We're just conferring on the best way to do so because we did not establish a get involved for these particular reviews. We don't actually have a website to connect it to. So if the clerk has a suggestion on the best best way to handle it, certainly we'd be open to sharing it. There's nothing confidential in the document. We are just waiting for the very final signed version of it which we haven't shared. Go to Mr. Sheltus. Thank you for the chair. Uh certainly we could arrange to distribute it directly to council and work with civic administration for means to make it uh publicly accessible. Attaching it to agenda. There are some complexities procedurally with doing that but certainly happy to work with uh civic administration. Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Madam Chair, uh we will talk to our colleagues in communications and see if there's not an easy way to provide it in the public forum for people's review. And I'm sure we can figure something out. Thank you. Go counselor Ferrer. Thank you for that. Uh that's all. Okay. Uh looking for any other speakers. Okay. Seeing none, we will open the vote on 4.3. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. That takes us to item 4.4, the review of subsidized transit programs in London. I'll look for a mover and seconder for this item. Councelor Frank, Councelor Ferrer. And with that, I'll look for speakers. Councelor Trasa, go ahead. I was looking around hoping somebody else would put their hand up first because I'm talking too much. Paul, you got All right. Um I I'll I'll say what I want to say then. Um first of all, I want to make it very clear. It's in the report and I want people to really fully understand this. The university students and the fans students pay for their service 100% fully. There is no public subsidy for the university service and for the fansaw service. And I just want to make sure that I have that right because there have been reports, there have been comments that have been made uh in in the past about how we're subsidizing uh students. And I just I just wanted to be really clear that everybody understands and I'm not getting this wrong. So somebody verify this. There is zero public subsidy for the Western program and for the fans pro program and that is paid 100% by student fees. And in fact, if there's any subsidy, the students that don't use the transit are still paying. If there's any subsidy, it's the students who are paying for the service and aren't using it who are subsidizing the students who are using it. But I just want to make sure I have that right because this is an important foundational point. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, you're correct. All full-time students are automatically enrolled in the program. there's no option to opt out and it is fully covered by uh students councelor trust and it's also noted in the report that the uh the fairbox revenue the fair revenue of LTC is approximately um 49% I may have the the the the decimal off a little bit but it's approximately 49% of their revenues come from Fshaw and the University of Western Ontario USC program. Is is that correct? I'll go to Miss Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, the tuition pass accounts for 49.7% of the total system ridership. Councelor Shasa, th this may call for speculation, but I just want to get some general sense of what would be the implication for the financial uh viability of the the system if either or both Western students or FCHA students decided they were not going to renew the program, which is something that they would have the legal right to do at the end of the program. I'll go to Miss Smith uh to see if she cares to speculate on that matter. Thank you. And through the chair, as outlined in our report, it's the single largest revenue source for the LTC, but if Miss Plesn is still on, she may uh wish to provide any additional comments. Uh Miss Plesn, any additional comments to add speculation on this item? Um through the chair. Um, I think what's important to recognize is that um, certainly as as the counselor indicated, it's a it's a contract where either party um, has the has the opportunity to opt out. However, the majority of students based on our ridership analysis do continue to use the bus to get to and from campus as well as around the city. So, um, if that program didn't exist, any students wishing to take the bus would revert into the remaining fair categories that are available, whether it be monthly pass, ticket, cash, whatever, whatever option they chose. So, it's it's it's not like that revenue would entirely go away. Students that were using the bus would just choose the the fair that would be appropriate to them. Councor Tessa, thank you. through the chair. Do we have any way of estimating what what leakage there might be? In in other words, if if those programs went away and we were dependent on the same students using the fairbox, do we have any estimates as to what percentage of students would continue to do that and pay as you go through the fairbox? Has any study been done? Uh through the chair, no, there's not been a study done. Thank you. Um, councelor, I think I'm just going to yield to see if other people want to talk because I have some questions about the other um, uh, programs. Thank you. I'm looking for other speakers. Councelor Frank. Thank you. And through the chair to staff, I just had one question. Um, so I just want to confirm like I am interested personally in a universal income based program. I see a lot of value there and it makes a lot of sense to me. But I'm just wondering um staff are going to be bringing back those three different budget cases that are listed I I I and I I future council would pick one of those options. I'll go to Miss Smith. Thank you. As outlined in the recommendation, our direct our direction would be to report back on all three unless at this time council a wish to remove one of those options once they finalize the recommendation. Councelor Frank, thank you. Yes. Well, I personally have strong support for the third one, the universal income based program. Um, but I don't necessarily um want to pull it if it's only going to be like one or two votes to only have that. So, I'll just say I really like that idea and look forward to a future report on that and would prefer that. Okay. Looking for other speakers. I have uh councelor Stevenson next. Thank you. I just wondered um we've got the subsidized transit programs increasing while we've got ridership the same or decreasing. And I just wondered if there's any comments that can be shared around what that means for our transit ridership. Like it seems to me we're losing um a demographic to offset this. And I wondered if we know what that demographic might be. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Smith and then I'll go to Miss Plesh if she has anything to add. Thank you. And through the chair, I can only speak to wrership of our subsidized transit programs. In actuality, uh both seniors, uh seniors programming and our income related programming have caught up since the pandemic and are even exceeding it. So if you look at the demographics with seniors, our seniors are increasing and that's building part of our cost pressure. Our other part of the cost pressure is the income related program which is also in increasing year-over-year too. Um probably tied to affordability and uh people's ability to pay everything. So if they are eligible for an income related bus pass, they are applying for it more than they have in previous years. Our other programs are either maintaining or slowly catching up preandemic, but it's really the seniors and the income related that are putting the biggest cost pressures on our uh subsidized transit program currently. Miss Ples, did you want to add anything on to that? Uh the only thing that I would add, Madam Chair, is is that the decline overall in ridership is is tied directly to the decline in participants in the tuition pass program which is a result of the caps on on federal um or sorry on foreign students. So so that they really are unrelated. The as as Miss Smith indicated the increases in terms of subsidy go handinhand with increases of ridership in those in those categories. Thank you. I'll go back to councelor Stevenson. Um is what can be shared around the um the number of people who are riding the bus and not paying. I'll go to I I'll just explain because I can see some confus but I've been I've heard from several people around the issues particularly along the uh core area corridor where there are uh people who are just riding the bus and they're riding it for free and that the policies allow them to do that and what I'm being told is it's contributing to some of the safety issues on the bus. So, I just wondered um how that ties in to maybe these subsidized programs if we're not like it just seems like there's Well, I'll put it this way. Is there what are the policies around people uh getting on the bus and not paying? Thank you. I will go to Miss Smith and then I'll go to Miss Pleshnney on anecdotally people not paying to ride transit. Thank you. And through the chair for our subsidized transit program, we do allow children 12 and under to ride the bus for free. So for us, that's the only allowable. The rest provide either we either provide tickets or passes that are uh shared at the front of the bus when they enter. But I can turn it over to Miss Plesnik for anything else. Thank you. And I'll go to Miss Pleschnney. I don't believe the counselor was speaking about children uh uh through the chair. So um with respect to LTC policies, it is in fact our policy that an operator um will remind passengers that the expectation is that they pay a fair um and and but they will not not let them ride. That's that's part of our health and safety programs. Um, with respect to, you know, making efforts to to avoid uh potential um altercations on the bus, operators do also have the support of our inspectors. If there are repeat offenders, they can um engage with an inspector and have them have a conversation with that rider. And repeated abuse of of fair policies can result in in someone being banned from the service. So, we do certainly have programs in place um and and we do have expectations that fairs are paid, but we we do uh operators will not deny someone a ride because they aren't able to pay. Councelor Stevenson, thank you. And um my understanding is that the bus drivers track the number of times people come on not paying. Is that correct, Miss Ples? through the chair. Uh through the chair, yes, there is a there is a um uh a recording mechanism on the fairbox that operators can keep track of that. Again, depending on the the route and how busy things are at the door, that's probably not happening consistently, but there is a mechanism for operators to be able to to do that. Counselor, thank you. and through you. Um just um wondering if that is something that could be tracked and reported and shared with council in terms of the impacts um that that's having on safety because my what I the stories that I'm hearing is that it's you know say people who are homeless who are riding the bus it's causing um safety issues might be impacting our ridership and some of our overall goals here and knowing that it is being tracked. Um I would just like to support that in some way. So maybe it ties more into the previous thing around operational review and management, but addressing those issues and what we can do about them as a council um I think goes a long way. Some of the stories I've heard are really really concerning actually. Um so um I'll just leave it there. Thank you. Um so just to reframe this back to the topic of subsidized transit uh because a lot of this is getting into operational um things that uh the commission deals with. Um I will go to Miss Pleshi to see if you have any final comment on how that information is reported to the commission. um through the chair. We do track um incidents obviously any kind of incidents of violence in the workplace or or that type of thing on board buses and that is re reported to the commission on an annual basis at at a high level. in terms of incidents, the the root cause of those incidents and and that type of thing. That is something that is reported annually, not necessarily tied directly to non-fair payment. Um but but incidents of that nature are tracked and reported on an annual basis. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Uh on my speakers list, I have councelor Ferrer next, followed by the mayor. Uh thank you, Chair. I won't be too long. I just wanted to have some questions. I appreciate uh the report. I do want to see all the options and potentially maybe a mix of options. Um like looking at option three, the universal income based program. Like the way I read that is obviously it's based on income alone. And I just wanted to ask um if like in the future if we were to get that option back and the universal based uh income program would be based on income, would we see uh I guess the 12 and under free pass go away? Would we see um senior tickets um and their prices go away? Would we see those um I guess those more targeted uh discounts uh be removed and just focused on the the income base going to Miss Smith. Thank you. Thank you and the chair. So we have six existing subsidized transit programs. For option number three, the universal incomebased, we would look at which programs we would include or not include in that. We could provide uh options for if you brought all programs in versus options if you brought in two or three. Um children 12 and under ride for free is more a ridership increase program in future riders versus some of our other income related. Our seniors program for example right now um is a universal uh discount on tickets only not on passes. it's 25% versus a deeper uh subsidi subsidization we do for example for income related or youth. So that that are the ideas we would look at and what other municipalities are doing around a uh universal excuse me income tested program. So we would look at which programs would best fit that and where the benefits may be may have more impact for some of the riders. Councelor Ferrer. Okay. Thank you for that. So is there the potential maybe under option uh two or another type of option that we would have like the universal incomebased program and potentially some targeted programs as well? Uh just kind of the mix between the two cuz uh from what I understand some of these more targeted programs um may not necessarily fall within the uh incomebased category. I'll go to Miss Smith. Thank you. And through the chair, that would be covered probably in option number two where we would look at maybe increasing the subsidy levels, expanding the fair types, the types of subsidies to other subsidized transit programs, but not a universal program. It would be just some modifications, counselor. Okay, thank you for that. Um so I I would be interested in seeing um all the options like I think the maintain current program the current programs um obviously we have some some issues here um but I would like to be able to see all the options when the report comes back. So uh those are those are all my uh questions. Thanks. Thank you. I'll go to Mayor Morgan. U thank you. I just have a couple questions um on the options coming forward. So given some of the responses and the related decline in uh ridership particularly associated with um a decline in uh international students or student passholders. It seems to me that first off I want to I want to recognize a significant amount they contribute to the transit service. Um and I when I was on the student government was fully supportive of the transit pass system. In fact, it's an exceptionally great deal for students. Um, at 280 bucks a month compared to the for the full cost, you know, City Pass, you're talking about a discount of 78.5% like the that that that is off the annual cost. So, it's a really great deal. Now, I I know not every student uses it, but it seems to me if there's fewer people buying that bulk discount, perhaps, you know, at the appropriate time and negotiation and the rate to be reflective of the kind of volume that's being purchased, uh, and still getting an incredible deal might be one of the options cuz the options before us seems to be mainly focused on enhancements to the program, but given the the revenue um piece is directly associated with this and that there are a significant number of fewer uh passes being basically sold uh as part of the the student transit program at at uh the secondary institutions or post-secondary institutions. would we not at some point have a conversation with the students who probably have a vested interest in the strong viability of the transit system to say listen you got way less passes that you're purchasing um so the price is going to be a little bit more instead of 288 it might be still a great deal at 3 something so I just wonder that doesn't seem to be clear that that would be discussed in any of the options and I wonder if that's part of the discussions in any way for the things that are coming back or is it all you know basically potentially more discounts or adjustments to them. Is there anything any assessment or discussions about the related, you know, bulk volume passes that that are being purchased that would be part of this assessment? Thank you. I will go to Miss Smith and then I'll go to Miss Pleshi, but I believe because this report is about the subsidized transit program that what you're asking is more an LTC question, but I'll go to to our staff first. Miss Smith, thank you. And through the chair, you're correct. the uh agreements uh with the university and college are are with the university college and the LTC. So Miss Ples is best to respond. You're correct. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Ples. Um through the chair, um the mayor is is quite right that that is certainly the basis of discussion each time the contracts are renewed. What what we endeavor to ensure is that the amount of ridership that's generated by the tuition pass program is in balance with the amount of revenue that the program generates. So that's something that's revisited each time the contracts are renewed um to to ensure that we continue to have that balance and essentially make sure that that particular demographic is paying their fair share. um when we look at it systemwide, I'll go back to Mayor Morgan. Yes. And I think that's that's an exceptionally fair way to do it is to look at the the usage and the cost and that sort of thing. So that will I guess ultimately balance itself out uh through the discussions in the future at the end of the current um iteration of the contract. uh and I recognize through the chair that this is not part of our staff report back but given the context and some pieces of this are about um you know the way that the system is subsidized and passes and writership I I I appreciate that the question was answered today rather than uh in a different form. So um with that I don't have a lot of other questions I I certainly support getting options back to look at at these pieces and I think decisions can be made in the future once we have that information. Thank you. I have councelor Traso. Go ahead. Um I just have two questions and I'll I'll wrap up. The fir the first one uh deals with um it follows up on the um mayor's questions about the student uh passes. Can we break down between Fshaw and Western the loss of wrership? We're we're hearing that the uh international student cutback has been responsible for a loss of writership. Could we break that down between the um revenue that we're getting from Western and the revenue we're getting from Fshaw? Uh I'll go to Miss Ples. Oh, sorry. Through through the chair. Yes, we can we can break down where the where the declines have have occurred with both of the programs. I think it would be important to get that either either here through to our staff and and actually to the commission as as soon as possible and I I will be asking for that again at the next um commission meeting. Um my final question deals with the relationship between conventional um transit and the special transit. And uh I I have to mention this because I'm very much involved in in working with the disability community on their on their special transit concerns as a member of uh the advisory committee that LTC has. What is um what are the implications of of these potential changes in programs on the services that we're able to provide to to uh people with disabilities. Thank you. I'll go to Miss Smith first. Go ahead. Thank you. going through the chair as we go through option two and three and look at modifications potentially in option two to enhance access and then we look at a universal incomebased that is part of the conversation um we work collaboratively with the LTC on this report with our consultant and we will do that too as we as we roll out what these options look like and thank you that is one of the um parameters we'll take into account as we prepare these options thank you council you have a minute left. Oh, sorry. Go ahead, counselor. Um, thank you. And I think there are members of the community that are very, very sensitive to that because people have fought very hard for improvements in the specialized transit. We're finally starting to see the possibility of those coming into fruition. People are very happy and excited about some of the changes that are going on. And I just want to make sure that the uh this important part of our service doesn't fall through um the cracks. In in closing, I think it would be important to also um thank 30 seconds. Thank the staff members who worked on this. Um they say at the end of the report, there's a broader shift towards viewing transit as essential social infrastructure. And I think that is such a profound and important statement. I think that's a good place to stop. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Okay, seeing none, we will open the vote on this uh item. 4.4. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. This takes us to item 4.5, which is a letter from councelor Frank. Uh I will let you put your letter on the floor, counselor, and then look for a seconder. Councelor Mallister is your secondary. Didn't know if he wanted to introduce it, but I will go to you as the first speaker. Go ahead. Thank you. Yes. Um, I won't speak too long because I feel like I got all of my points out in my letter, but um, the main point being that, uh, Care Point will shortly be closing in our community. And as you can see, as outlined in the letter, they have done a lot of good work for the community and provided a service that, um, when it closes, there will be really nowhere for people to go. And so this letter outlines the financial impacts of that closure and how it will ultimately increase a lot of municipal costs including paramedic services, bylaw enforcement, waste management, parks and public spaces. So again, I won't speak too many to those. Um the main thing being that I would love to see us continue to retain the provincial uh financial investment in our community. And if the intention is for the province to encourage um treatment and uh um detox and treatment beds, then I would love to see that properly funded so that when people are ready to make that step on their recovery journey, they have uh spaces available to serve them. And so this motion is simply requesting the mayor and councelor Hopkins to do some of that advocacy. And as we can see um from councelor Hopkins, there's a lot of good work being done at AMO. Um but would love to see the continued push be that we need to provide these services to our community. not only for the folks who need the services but also for the broader impacts that happen in the community when we do not have proper health care uh services available for people who are trying to recover from from drug addiction. So that is the motion. That's my rationale and I hope for uh support on that. Thank you. And just to clarify what's the wording that you've got up on screen because it's different from what's in your letter. So, I just want to make sure that that's the wording that you're looking to put forward do. Thanks. I do actually think it's exact same wording as the bottom motion in my letter. I do. I think it is. So, I'm good with it. Thank you. Uh, okay. Looking for other speakers. I'll go to Councilman Mallister and second of the motion. Go ahead. Uh thank you and through the chair. Um appreciate councelor Frank's letter. Um regardless of which model we go with, I think the message that we hear consistently is capacity issues. Um I previously come to council and asked in terms of expanding local shelter capacity. Uh I know we have ongoing discussions in terms of uh the need for the highly supportive housing to increase capacity as well. Um, so I think generally there, you know, what we've heard in the community, the conversations we've had at council, um, there are serious capacity issues and we have to continue that advocacy work in terms of getting those resources to really make headway on this. So appreciate uh, councelor Frank bringing this forward. Uh, I know the mayor and councelor Hopkins brought this up uh, number of different forums and likewise for other counselors when we've had the opportunity. I think we've all brought this up and uh I think uh reiterating this is an important message that we have to keep uh sending to Queens Park as much as we can. So, thank you. Thank you. Mayor Morgan next. I have one clarification and I have a few comments. Um in the uh motion says that Mayor uh me and Councelor Hopkins uh we requested to advocate to the province on Ontario through the association of municipalities of Ontario. So just so we're clear, councelor Hopkins would do the association of municipalities of Ontario piece. I if you're asking me to advocate, I' I'd do it directly through Ontario big city mayors and and that. So I we don't need to add that in. I just wanted to be transparent that if I'm directed to advocate, I'll use the the the most useful and and appropriate forms that I have. Thank you. I see a nod. Okay. Um my comments are so I'm very supportive of this. I appreciate councelor Frank um and I having a discussion about it um before she brought it forward. Always appreciate the heads up when I'm going to get asked to advocate for something. And I would say this uh particular motion is not out of alignment with uh previous council motions and directions as well as uh positions of OBCM and as councelor Hopkins has outlined some AMO positions. First, Councelor McAllister is right. Uh there's been a request and a motion passed through this council about shelter space in our city. Uh, I brought forward a a a motion that council supported about increased uh uh detox rehab rehabilitation um spaces and beds in our community after the premier made some comments about wanting to expand that um provincewide. Uh and the highly supportive housing piece we know we're already advocating for and and creating spaces in our city. Um I this also aligns with um you know the Ontario big city mayors talked about uh the need for entry increased treatment and capacity uh beds across the province. Um with you know decades ago the closure of a number of mental health beds and the reliance on the the private sector for uh treatment and recovery beds. What we know is there is an under supply of these across the province and it's a general advocacy position of of all 29 large municipalities uh that we would like to see you know more of that. Uh one of the interesting things that came up through our discussion is you know it need not always be the government creating a bunch of new beds with new institutions. Yes, there are hospitals doing their master plans. Yes, there might be beds created through that process. But uh it was pointed out by I believe it was the mayor of Ajax um if I'm correct that there are private treatment and recovery beds in some communities that are not being fully utilized and that the province could endeavor to to fund or subsidize the cost of those beds to let people access them quicker and at perhaps a cost or a rate that uh would uh would be more approximate integration with the local healthare system rather than you know private sector uh rates of treatment and recovery. So all that to say these are things we've talked about. I'm very happy to uh to advocate in a new way. I would say that I think the timing of the motion is appropriate. Um we know the government with previous closure uh of these sites in other cities has endeavored to keep the resources in those communities uh and invest them in different ways. So I think uh you know there's a good case to be made to the minister to say I if the government is making a change of direction here with the way that they're going to resource this particular facility. Keeping those dollars in the community for things that that the government might support I think is a good case for us to make individually as a city. So I think I would make this case both as a city of London issue specifically, but also continue to echo the advocacy of the the larger municipal group about the the general need for more treatment and recovery spaces and options uh as was described across the province. Thank you. I'm looking for other speakers on this item. Councelor Trusso, I see that we have a very detailed letter from uh Councelor Hopkins, who I believe is not here. Is she Is she online? Okay. Um here I'm going to I'm going to do my best to um represent what was in her letter. AMO has consistently engaged in exactly this type of advocacy work. And this letter is sort of a very very good although um abbreviated um sort of uh analysis of what they've done. So, what makes me a little uncomfortable about the way this motion is drafted is isn't so much that I'm opposed to it. Yeah, of course, we should continue. We should we should advocate and uh I think the points that were raised in in councelor Frank's um preamble were we're all we're all right and I I I agree with all of it. I'm a little uncertain and I I need to I need to say this honestly. Could we be doing more And uh if I could get a little bit of clarity from the city clerk about what is what is the jurisdiction of the different committees of council, my my understanding is if we're going to talk about advocacy work, it should come to here, the SPC, which is what this is doing. But if it goes to um more particular uh assistance and support, it would come through CAPS. Um is is that correct? If I may ask the clerk. Go to Mr. Schultz. Thank you. Uh through the chair, not necessarily uh to the counselor's question. Uh depends on the nature of the advocacy. We've had advocacy requests come through various committees, come through SPC, and ultimately it's a council that decides uh that makes the uh the request of the mayor or uh whoever the representative is on the uh the uh advocacy group such as AMO or FCM. Um, let me follow that up then. Thank you. Uh, by asking would it be in order for a a subsequent meeting of of CAPS to uh take take this up with respect to further support for keeping the um the facility open which I do not want to debate right now. I know that would be a robust debate, but that would be that question would be within the jurisdiction of uh CAPS as as CAPS deals with funding arcade and 519 pursuit. If we wanted to talk about actually funding uh the the the uh the agency to help keep them open past June, that would be something that would be within the scope of what CAPS could discuss. Is that correct, counselor? So that's kind of outside of the scope of the letter. So you're just asking for one moment, please. So you're just asking the clerk for his opinion, which could be done online and doesn't need to be done on your time on this meeting right now. Uh I think it does. And the reason for that is if the fact that this does not talk about taking further action, I just want to be assured and I want to make sure. Sorry. But it also doesn't say that to take no further action. So, it's open for you to interpret and have that conversation often. Thank Thank you. And I' I'd appreciate hearing from the clerk's mouth that since this doesn't say take no further action, I shouldn't worry about this. And I appreciate the chair saying that. I'd love to hear it from the clerk. Thank you. But the motion's in front of you as well. Well, I I think it's a simple enough request and I just don't see why you won't let me make that request. Thank you. Point of order. Go ahead. You don't have to snap your fingers. I would like One moment, please. Okay. On the point of order, go ahead. Thank you. I would like the member to stop interrupting the chair. And I don't know if I need to clarify that any further, but I feel like it's rude. I heard your point of order. Uh, I don't think it was intended to be interrupting, but I'll I'll hear the counselor. Go ahead. Okay. So, I'm I'm based on what the chair has represented that has not been uh contravened by the by the clerk. And since there is no take no further action, I'm I'm going to take that as uh this can come up at a at a later time should should the need should the need arise. I do want to say however that AMO has been exemplary and the the mayor can speak for the mayors in terms of what they've done but councelor Hopkins here is making it very clear that AMO has already been engaging in this act activity. May I ask if it would be considered to be a friendly amendment if we add the words continue to so it would say councelor A. Hopkins be requested to continue to advocate etc. through AMO continue to which indicates that they're already doing it which I think uh doesn't detract from the intention of the motion but it actually um it actually supplements it a little bit by recognizing that um AMO has already been doing this. Thank you counselor. I read the motion as for increased and sustained to mean to continue. Um, okay. Is that the intention of the maker? Thank you. And just a reminder, there aren't friendly amendments. So, I would like I can go to the mover just to clarify if that was her understanding. Um, I'm happy to have that word added if it pleases the counselor and uh, yeah, in no way was this motion intended to indicate that AMO was not already doing some of this work. Yes, I would counselor. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Um, yes, I would like the words to continue. I think it's respectful to AMO and it recognizes the the the the extraordinary contributions that they that they've been making to this file all along. And I don't know, does that need a motion or can that just be inserted? Thank you. The clerk indicated it needs a motion. So, you'd like to add the words to continue? And I'll look for a seconder. Councelor Frank, just a moment while we put that into the motion. Thank you. So the amendment would read that Mayor J. Morgan and councelor A. Hopkins be requested to continue to advocate. Thank you. And seeing agreement from the counselor who moved the item, any discussion on the amendment. Seeing no discussion on the amendment, I will look to open the amendment. Trust votes. Yes. Can't keep it. Ah, there it is. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. So, we're on the as amended motion and same mover and seconder on the as amended. Okay. Seeing nods of agreement. Okay. Thank you. And on the as amended motion, councelor, the floor was still yours. Do you have any further remarks, Councelor Trasa? Uh, no, no, nothing further. Thank you. And looking for other speakers on this item, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, so this one's a little awkward for me because the first half of the letter I I don't necessarily agree with. I see the closure as a positive um move and moving that the province moving that money to treatment. I also question some of the data in not in what's been presented but in how it's been presented because when Care Point says they reverse 218 overdoses and I've done some inquiries for other reasons and there's on average 20 overdoses a day in London. So that's 7,300 overdoses a day with CarePoint saying that they've had 218. So we're talking about 3% of the overdoses based on my math. And then they say they have 15,000 visits, assuming there's one injection per visit. And I don't know exactly how it works, but I'm assuming that's it. Well, we're giving out a million needles a year in this city. and only I was actually very surprised that the numbers were this low in terms of um the impact. So the the the first part of this and and and I just you know I I'm tempted to not receive some of this the commentary but then I do support the um on the second page I I do think there's a structural mismatch. I do think that there's not sufficient treatment capacity. I do think we're failing people at the moment they're most ready to recover. I'm very concerned about this, but I find that we as a council do a lot of advocacy to the province and we fail to look at what we can do as a council to to do what we can municipally. We have a huge amount of power. I mean, we're asking the province to do more treatment while we still support a model of care that's harm reduction model, the model that the province rejected 2 years ago. We are still on that on that path. We're saying we're advocating for increased shelter spaces to expand local shelter shelter which I support and have wanted but my understanding was the whole of community was moving away from shelters. We heard in 2023 to expect a decrease in shelter beds and a move in a different direction. So I feel like we're not clear here ourselves as to what we're doing. Um, we have detox beds here, but people then, uh, where do they go, right? They come out of there. We don't have a sober shelter. We don't have sober social housing. So, people are back out on the street again. I think it's tragic. I think we need pre-treatment beds and post- treatment beds. These are all things that we could do and I think we should do and maybe as councelor Traso said, it's something to bring up at another committee. there hasn't been the um desire as far as I know if if any of my fellow colleagues would be interested in moving forward. Councelor Pribble and I tried to bring forward recovery beds as early as uh early 2023 and we were you know three times that was completely tossed aside. So I think we need to look at our whole community system response. I think we need to look at what our council has we're going to the province asking for treatment and we haven't made that commitment. we're not doing what we can do here. And I think it's a real missed opportunity. I think it's tragic that um that people don't have a path to recovery without gaps in it and that we aren't doing absolutely everything that we can to support people in their hour of need and then helping them through what is a long journey. And I think London could do far better. fairness. I'm going to say again, any of my colleagues interested in this, I would absolutely be willing to work on it and bring it forward. So far, I haven't seen that. I'm going to support the advocacy of the province, but I I'm not sure why they'd listen to us when we seemingly uh dis, you know, disapprove of all of their decisions and we want to do it the old way. Uh, thank you. I will go to Mayor Morgan. Yes, I think advocacy the province is important because uh they have listened to us. When we created two hubsp space systems, the province used that and there was consultations between the city and the ministry of health building the model for the heart hub that is now spread across the province. We are not out of alignment with the province's approach. We in fact have inspired to a certain degree the province's approach to the hubsbased model linked with supportive housing in the way that we showed when we created a youthbased hub and indigenous based hub. So I think the province does listen to us. The province has listened to us and they created a half a billion dollar system across the entire province which many are benefiting from. The province has been very responsive to municipalities and engaging with them on a number of pieces. And so I also, you know, at the start should have commended the province for their engagement and their response to what was a serious and clear request from municipalities to say we need a provincialwide strategy and we need you to look at the models that are working in our communities and we need you to replicate those and share those across the board. Now the minister of health is going to do an analysis of the heart hub system. We and again the the heart hub here will fully participate in that and then there'll be future adjustments to the system based on what's working. the heart hubs do have some unique pieces to them across the province so that they can test different things. Anyways, my point is I think the advocacy is well worth it. I think the province listens and they have listened in the past and we have been aligned with them on many issues. Thank you. I have councelor Ferrer next. Uh thank you through you. Um I just guys coming off of uh the mayor there, you know, advocacy the province is very important because first of all we don't even have the financial resources to really uh build this capacity. the financial tools that we have are not going to be capable of funding, sustaining, building, operating uh the need that we need here. And I'd also say that um you know this is something that's beyond the city. It's something that the entire region, the entire province, the entire country really needs to have integrated all as one kind of system of care and it it needs to be coordinated with itself as well. So the the adoxy to the province and even to other levels of government is very required here on that. I I would say you know a path to recovery with no gaps and and pre-treatment beds can be a mix. It's not either or harm reduction or either or treatment and recovery. Um like we need to understand that you know there are medical professionals in in the field who have lots of experience here and I do hear uh the discussion that you know there's a mix here. I'm not going to be one to say that I'm an expert on exactly what that looks like but there is a mix. It's not either or either or a full uh path to recovery with no gaps and pre-treatment beds would mean uh some of the things that councelor Frank and counselor Mallister is bringing forward to the table here. It could mean more than that. It should mean more than that, but there are many gaps and I will agree with that. There's gaps across the entire system. Um but we need to fill those gaps and we can't do that alone as a city. We need the province to to help us out. we need the province to to build that system. Um, so that would just be kind of my response there. It's not an either or thing. It it's probably both and more. Thank you. Looking for other speakers. Okay, I have councelor Stevenson. Let me just take a look at how much time you have. 58 seconds remaining. Thank you. I'd just like to move an amendment that it says expand local sober shelter and housing. I'd like to insert the word sober in there as we do not have uh an area for people to go to escape drugs or to be in a place of recovery. Thank you. Just a moment, counselor. Okay, councelor, you're asking to move an amendment, but this is your second time speaking, so you we move amendments on our first time speaking. Okay, I can bring it to council. Okay, thank you. Um, and if you if you have a chance to just work with the clerk just to find out in because I'm not ruling on whether or not it's in in order or not on the motion. So, just a conversation to have offline. Okay. Looking to other for speakers on this item. Okay. Seeing no other speakers, uh, we have the motion as amended and I will open the vote. closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay. Thank you, colleagues. We are now on to our next item 4.6. We have a delegation request with this item. What I'd like to do is I'd like to deal with the delegation first and then if that's okay, I'll have the counselor move his motion. Uh following the delegation, uh so looking for a mover and a seconder to hear the delegation. Uh on this item, I have councelor Cuddy. I have councelor Ferrer. Okay, we will open that vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries. 12 to zero. Okay. Thank you. And joining us from the gallery and thank you for your patience. We have Mr. Peter Bergmanus. Did I say that correctly? uh who's the co-chair of London Health Coalition. Uh Mr. Burg Berg Manus, you have five minutes and I will give you a warning at 30 seconds. You may go ahead. Thank you very much. Um wouldn't I looked silly up here if uh you had voted no. So, thank you for the time and the consideration. Uh I'm Peter Bberg Manis from uh the London Health Coalition. I've been the co-chair of that organization at the forefront of healthc care public advocacy for a quarter of a century. Uh we're one of the most formidable of uh of all the organizations that do this work. There's 400 member groups ac across the province comprising a national or provincial network of over 700 on 700,000 Ontarians. So, the health coalition is inclusive and politically nonpartisan, a big tent organization encompassing seniors groups, patient advocacy, unions, nurses, physicians, allied health care, nonprofit community agencies, ethnic and cultural support groups, student and poverty reduction, equality seeking Canadians. We're all galvanized by the single support of the universal public health care system. So, working collaboratively to protect and improve our public health care, we strive to honor and strengthen the principles of the Canada Health Act, universality, comprehensiveness, portability, accessibility, and public administration. Our shared commitment to the core values of equality, democracy, social inclusion, and social justice inform our activism, fueling our engagement in public policy and on matters related to our public health care system and healthy communities. Hence, the London Health Coalition's interest in Councelor Ferrer's modest and well-reasoned request for municipal action on the forprofit addiction treatment issue. The province is wellendowed with the power to enforce universal public health care and is legally obliged to do so. Councelor Ferrer has recognized the corrupting influence of profit in the delivery of addiction services and is righteous to pursue public options. Indeed, public solutions do exist and have existed. Not so long ago, as the mayor has referenced, the province funded London Psychiatric Hospital provided psychiatric care and was commonly used for individuals dealing with both severe mental health issues and substance addiction. The Oakc political decision to permanently shutter LPH and St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital cost the region up to 80% of its inpatient psychiatric and addictions bed capacity. The consequences of which the city is forced to live with to this day. The province has downloaded responsibility for our most vulnerable with scant regard for adequate community resources to care for them. Privileging for-profit health provision is a statement of values. A government willing to stash 4 billion tax dollars into privatelyun investment funds and haphazardly buy and sell multi-million dollar private jets while starving our public facilities and hospitals needs to be nudged to into reconsideration of its values and policy choices. The mayor believes, as I've heard here, that the province can change its mind. This is the moment for the city of London to step up for the public good. Join the London Health Coalition and endorsing councelor Ferrer's motion to do just that. Thank you for your time. Thank you, and thank you for your patience today uh while we dealt with other matters. I will go to councelor Ferrer to introduce his motion and I understand you have a seconder. Uh thank you chair. I uh I'll move this motion and I have a seconder in the mayor and mayor Morgan. Um so I can read it out um if you'd like. Just let me know. Thank you. Uh you may go ahead. The it was in our agenda so you could go ahead with your debate on this item. We Oh, sorry. You had a different from your It's pretty much the same. There's just one slight tweak right at the beginning. Um, but I can read it out cuz it's the then we'll have you reread it. Go ahead. So, it's um that the following actions be taken with respect to the communication from myself, councelor D. Ferrer regarding uh systemic concerns with for-profit addiction treatment in Ontario. A that the mayor and civic administration be requested to write a letter to the Ontario Ministry of Health, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario and the Ontario College of Pharmacists. And B, the mayor be requested to formally advocate to the province of Ontario, including through appropriate municipal and intergovernmental channels for the following. I that the province and relative uh relevant regulatory bodies undertake an immediate review of high volume for-profit addiction treatment and dispensing models operating in Ontario. I I that the province strengthen oversight, establish clear standards for integrated care, including afterare, clinical oversight, coordination with broader health and social supports, and access to medically supervised detox detoxification services, and reform current policy frameworks governing prescribing and dispensing practices. I I I that the province transition away from private for-profit drug dispensing models towards a publicly funded and publicly operated model fully integrated within the healthcare system with a focus on long-term recovery, stability, and patient outcomes and uh IV that as a part of this transition, these high volume for-profit drug dispensing models operating in London and across Ontario be phased out and replaced with a publicly funded fully integrated healthcare model that delivers comprehensive addiction treatment without gaps in care. Uh it being noted that SPC received a communication uh from the listed uh communications. Thank you. Uh so that is on the floor and I'll go to you as the first speaker. Thank you for that. Um well I just I'll start with um you know we we want all we all want the same thing. We all are looking and seeking the same thing. We want individuals who are struggling with substance use disorder or addiction uh to find a a better path to recovery, to find a better way of life, and to ultimately uh not um need or ultimately use in the future. And that's that's really the main thing that we're looking for. So, um it's just a matter of how we get there is really where the debate or the discussion goes. Some of those areas are out of our hands. Some of those areas should be firmly uh within the medical professional field. Um and some of the areas are within uh our scope. Right now as a municipality we can really talk about the downstream effects. We can talk about how it impacts the m municipality and we can talk about what our observations are. Um but a lot of this most of it is out of our hands and this is why there's this is an advocacy request to go to the province and the regulators to um just present what the reality is on the ground and request a better model. So uh I just wanted to say that because this should be a productive debate moving forward. Um from what I see you know and from what I understand council is aware uh this system is clearly not working you know like it's not working for um the residents who are around these for-profities it's not working for the patrons not for visitors around downtown when where we have some of thesearmacies or in village um not working for businesses and it's definitely not working for the people who are seeking you know a path away from substance use and from what I see we have these conflict icting interests. We have the business for-profit model which is clearly ramping up its high throughput volume of dispensing and it's also you know like any other business is looking and seeking customer retention. And then we have another interest where we want stabilization. We want people to move away from the use of of substances. And those two conflicting interests, those interests are conflicting from each other. And that right there at the heart of it is really where my issue lies. And I also see that we have a system that does not require that, you know, the continuity of care that I keep on talking about. It's that full pathway that we were just talking about with no gaps. And the regulatory framework seems to allow that. There are many gaps throughout the entire system and it's leading to a lot of issues and downstream effects and impacts. And I would say that this is clearly leading to diversion. Like if we were to expect someone who is suffering from addiction to take a prescription and follow the label on the bottle with no aftercare, with no wraparound supports, with nothing. I'm just, you know, from what we understand about addiction itself, I question how that system actually would believe that there would be a pathway for someone to recover for a pathway for someone to get away from substance use disorder. The current regulatory framework doesn't need that. It doesn't require that. And I don't see the issue or I do see the issue as it's the it's the framework itself that that is the problem. It's the framework itself that is allowing this. And I think just with the for-profit delivery system itself and with the framework and what the framework requires, those those are two areas that I'm asking for council to go to or to support this motion so the mayor and civic administration can go to the province and just point these facts out and to request to remove that and request to make something better. So I would ask for your support. I would ask for a productive debate and a debate that's looking forward. And I would just say to colleagues, remember, we all want the same thing. We we are all in line of what we want the end goal to be. It's a matter of how do we get to that end goal, and I think that discussion is is really where this is at. So, I would leave it there. Um hopefully I have some time if I need to come back later, but uh I'll leave my remarks there. Thank you. Thank you, councelor. You have 53 seconds remaining in case you need to come back. Looking for other speakers on this item. I'll go to Mayor Morgan. Yeah, I'll speak briefly to it. Um, so I first off I want to thank uh Councelor Ferrer as well as other um members of council who have uh who've identified uh the concerns they've seen um on uh on the streets of their wards or out there. And I think um I want to comment on councelor Fer's approach in the letter and I appreciate uh that he uh gave some consultation with me on it. You know, I think that this is an appropriate pathway forward to try to address an issue. Um I think it's thoughtful, respectful, and tries to tackle the issue head-on with the uh organizations who are capable of providing the proper level of oversight to uh to this industry. Um I would say I'm not a medical expert myself. I rely on advice of others. Um Dr. Summers has been uh great to provide advice to this council. Um and although uh some models will work for some individuals, I think councelor Farah is right in his comments to say the self-supervision model that uh is out there as part of the current system uh is some people are just not capable of managing uh outside of uh some medical supervision and that is creating some significant consequences and challenges uh in parts of our city. uh as well we've seen uh from the London Police Service and other police services, you know, significant diversion of medicine that should be in the hands of individuals who need it and are taking it and are using it to, you know, break addictions, deal with withdrawal and it's getting into the hands of those who do not use it need it or use it for those purposes and that is a significant concern uh not just in our community but in many communities and so you know I'm happy to support uh the request for advocate acy on this. Uh I will tell you this is advocacy that does require uh coordination between different bodies, agencies as well as um you know other municipalities and and and um and healthcare related institutions. But in every discussion I've had so far related to this, they all seem to be moving towards the same page to say this is not working and it needs to change. there are vulnerable individuals who need help in our community and they are not getting help uh through the current model and and so looking towards the way that we can get them help can minimize impacts on the wider community I think is an appropriate path forward um and I would endeavor on this um just to be transparent not just to advocate to the province and write the letter to the other ministries but I would this is this is a conversation that has been had by the Ontario big big city mayors and I would endeavor to engage with my colleagues there about actions they're taking and then look to align some of those actions across different municipalities as well because this is a this is an issue that is not just felt in London but but other communities. So um want to commend councelor Ferah for uh bringing it forward. Happy to second this uh and uh happy to support the discussions moving forward through all of the channels mentioned as well as the additional ones that I would endeavor to take this to. Other speakers on this item. Councelor McAllister, go ahead. Uh thank you and through the chair. Uh I just wanted to take this opportunity to to thank councelor Ferrer. Um it's one of those uh instances where you can see from the correspondence that was received. Um I've had communication seen from some of my residents. I think this is something that really has resonated with the community. Uh it was very well thought out. Um and clearly it's an issue as the mayor has already indicated that has come up. Um I will say just anecdotally I hear this as well. Um I don't have necessarily to the same degree um other parts uh of the city are experiencing this but um I do think this is an issue that we absolutely need to take up. Uh and to council fer's point in terms of that continuity of care that's very important. Um I know it was referenced earlier in terms of the facilities we used to have and a lot of facilities especially with dispensing drugs do have uh quite um robust uh access control in terms of narcotics and having to you know take them in the presence of a uh you know a medical professional. Like I think we've let a few things slip over the years in terms of what we used to have versus what we have right now. And this for-profit model, as is indicated with this, has some serious gaps that we really need to address. And I think that there's a lot of uh folks who are better equipped in terms of their advocacy directly to the province. Uh they've been identified in this letter and I think um you know, the mayor will do his best in terms of moving those forward as well. But this really is a gap and something we need to move on. Um we know the diversion of drugs is an issue. We've heard that LPS has been quite adamant about this as well. And if this is a a loophole that we can close, we absolutely should take every opportunity to do that. So again, really want to thank the counselor for bringing this forward. He put a lot of effort into that and I just didn't want that to go by uh because um he really did put a lot of effort into this. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item, Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Um, I find this just so interesting to listen to because Safer Supply started in London, Ontario by a doctor in Old East Village. It was it's been a disaster there since 2018. That doctor was part of and led our whole of community system response. This letter tries to address the issues being faced on Dendas Place without coming out against safer supply. And it's to a province that has said uh I compare it to giving people poker chips and dropping them off in front of whatever. Like it's to a premier who said I'm against safer supply and we're going to go with I don't even know what this motion says. like like I I want to address the issues, but we're I don't even know what it says. Like we had a medical clinic, London Intercom Community Health Center, prescribing safer supply and people would walk across the street to the pharmacy and get it up to, you know, 275 people a day. I I put the stats out 3 years ago. It was like a million dollars that pharmacy was potentially making. Um, so I I don't know what this is asking for. You know, it Why does it not say we're asking them to stop safer supply? You want safer supply, but you want I mean, was it a for-profit model before when Lenin Inter Community Health was doing it? It wasn't. But it was a disaster then. We had diversion. We had people all over the street. The the neighborhood told me from the time I got elected that it was the problem. It was the thing that they noticed. They said, "Go behind uh Chapman's. You'll see it every morning. The pills bottles being sold, the people coming by, the people like so if if this council wants to align with the province and say we don't want safer supply anymore, I'm all for it. If we want to have um no gaps in care, of course, I'm for that. But we don't even know what we're saying here. like unless you want to go back to the London community health model which was federally funded wraparound care which did not stop the devastation. So the only difference is yes, it's spreading out. Now we have five locations on Dundas Street. It's tragic, but all of a sudden going back to the model that the federal government did, it destroyed according to many of the people who live there that area. And so I don't know what it is you're asking for. when that doctor who started safer supply got 4 years of that wraparound and care like I said so they had visits and stuff like that there it still had the it looked exactly like Dundas place looks and it did for years and it has continued to look that way and the other thing that we we that is so sort of ironic and I'm going to talk about this more at council is this is this is the model of care that we're using with um Arcade that's again causing the disaster a high volume output of but in this case it's sandwiches and tents and that kind of thing without the structural care without the washrooms and the beds. Cronin Warner can do it 24/7 people have everything that they need but to just be doing the same you're you're criticizing something that we are doing as a city that the the devastation that is being witnessed has been criticized. I haven't been allowed to speak about it because it's stigmatizing. Like we are so twisting around ourselves here. We have we as a council have endorsed a model of harm reduction that says the criminalization of drugs is a harm. We are years behind where the province is, where they're going. We we we advocate against all the things that they want and yet we're going to go with this. I mean, I'm not going to vote against it. Well, actually, I am. Uh well, now it's all the wording has changed. I would say and I would ask the mayor to be clear on this. Is he supporting the the premier's stance against safer supply? Are we asking for safer supply program to be stopped or are we asking for the federal wraparound um supports that were there previously of which um when the 4-year funding ran out, there was huge screams. There were going to be bodies everywhere. People were going to die. Got one extra year of funding and when there was no more funding to be had, didn't hear a peep. did not hear a peep about the lives. Thank you, councelor. That's your time. Uh, councelor Ferrer, you asked to be back on the speakers list. I'm just checking to see if there's anybody else, but you can go ahead and, uh, just reminded you, hold on, of your time. You have 53 seconds. Go ahead. Thank you. Um, see I want to have a productive discussion and you know equating the distribution of foods and the distribution of pills are two very different things very different things we are talking about specifically the conflicting interests we are talking about an actual continuum of care it's not one or the other like we decided on the last one this is this is different because I am looking for the full scope and I'm asking for the medical professional community to lead that. I am asking for the mayor and civic administration to advocate to the province and point those factors out. We need to get less political here. We need to get more um I just more to working together on this. We need to pull the politics away because like I I've been saying this again and again, I feel the politics has got us into this mess and now the politics are going to make it hard for us to get out of this mess. We need to just get together shoulderto-shoulder, tell the province this is what's going on. Thank you. That's your time. I have councelor Traso next. So, um I'll I'll just through the chair I'll just continue along those lines by by saying that um the comments's been made that I don't know what this motion does. I I've read this motion. I've reread it. I'm looking at it again right now. It's very clear what it's doing. And this is actually stepping away from the kind of really polarizing divisive politics that's going to help us out of this problem that we're in. And I think that by recognizing not only lobbying to the Ministry of Health, but to also talk about the College of Physicians and the Ontario College of Pharmacists, it's brilliant. It it it puts our efforts in a new place. It puts our efforts where it can be the most productive. And it puts our efforts we're we're placing our faith in in the sciencebased logic of medical and pharmaceutical professionals. And I think it's really salutoy that we're we're doing that. I think that councelor Ferrer has done a remarkable job observing what's going on in his street. and he was he was on CBC this morning and he talked about just looking right across the street and and seeing it. Commentators say, "Yes, we we we see this all the time." He was being very specific about the kind of damage that he was talking about that's being caused on this particular street at this particular time by a very particular model which I think our delegation spoke to very very very eloquently. So, um, I mean, I want to go beyond just saying, "Please vote for this, but please understand this is the kind of progressive policy that is going to help bring us together towards trying to come up with a with a reasonable solution to this problem." And to just try to throw cold water on it by saying, "I don't know what this says." It just it's it's right there. So please folks, let's support this and let's be proud that the city of London is undertaking something like this. Looking for other speakers on this item. Councelor Prible. Thank you. I'll make a couple of comments. Uh and I uh I do think that uh these motions and for asking the mayor to lobby for us to talk about these issues. I think that is important. So I think that is positive. I have my issues are and again you know I see what it's saying on the other hand you know it's saying the stuff and are we on the same path as we are actually saying so we are going to the higher level of government we are asking them to do something and are we actually living by it as well point one point two there was a mentioning now I guess across the CBC you know locally people do not understand that this organization that opened up on Dandas place they at the city plaza. They knew, everyone knew at city plaza that was the main issue. They were very happy to get rid of them and we licensed them on Dundas place. So I don't know where it is in terms of the council staff but that we miss this and we allow them to go to a place like this. So again it's great that we are saying dear mayor please lobby on us but things that we can control we are not to a certain degree at all. uh we are we have for some businesses number of licenses that uh maximum number of licenses in the city and we know which one they are I don't have to repeat it but are we doing it with these private organizations so those are the things that it's great that we do ask these things but let's uh how is it you know like uh uh think globally act locally so I really think that us to act locally and to really make sure how do we do this this is not in our control. Yes, dear mayor, please work for us. Help help lobby them. Help bring us the money. Help bring us certain policies. I'm for it. But what are we doing locally and that's that's my bigger issue. There was a very big drop ball in terms of us letting them license and open up on Dundas place. Now we are struggling with it. Thanks to the OP, we had a help with the neighboring uh organization which again we know what happened few months ago or twice in the last year. So I do see some of the points that were said as I said I said it I'm going to repeat it again that I see where it's going but on the other hand are we living by it? If someone was to come from the provincial level and say Jerry are you living by it you want us to do it are you living by it? I won't be able to say 100% yes we are. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Okay, seeing no additional speakers, we will open the vote uh on this 4.6 and all the communication Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Okay, colleagues, it's 4:25. I'm in your hands if anyone would like to take a break. We have one more item remaining and that is from the deferred items list. It's item 2.1, the micro shelters. Um, if anyone would like us to go on to deferred matters. I'm looking for a mover in seconder for Okay, I have a mover in secondary. Councelor Frank. Councelor Cuddy looking for discussion on item 2.1. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Um I pulled it because I'm hoping that uh my colleagues will support an amendment asking or actually I will ask because there may not be a requirement for one. So on page four um we've been given the capital amount to date 3,177,579 and the operational monthly estimated amount at 288,000. But again these are property tax dollars that we have spent here and I feel like the public deserves more transparency on these costs. So what I would like is a breakdown of the capital costs and a breakdown of the operational monthly estimated costs. Is it possible to get that from administration before council? And if is is an amendment required to do that, Miss Ramloo, go ahead. Thank you. In speaking to the capital cost, we do not generally provide detailed breakdowns of um construction projects as a whole or on contracts. Um we could potentially provide and and we have in the past some of the larger contract values, but as I noted, um we don't generally have that that level of detail. Miss Remloo on the operating Mr. Green. Go ahead. Thank you. And through the chair. So the operating we could uh we could also provide a further breakdown before council. One aspect is uh as you're aware with the food services uh we've partnered with our uh we recently wrapped a program with them at the end of March. So we are currently uh renegotiating an ongoing contract with them. So once we have that finalized we can provide that as well. Councelor Stevenson. Okay. Thank you. Um, so on the capital, one of the bigger issues for me and what I hear from residents is, you know, we know that there's a part of it that could potentially be moved to another site at another time. There's parts of it that we've done to the site and and will be, you know, just um sunk cost kind of thing. And there might be other costs where we've actually upgraded some things that are going to benefit the city in the long run. It would be nice to be able to tell the public out of that 3 million. Um I just think there's detail there that would be helpful. Thank you, Mr. Ramla. Go ahead. Thank you. Through the chair. Yes. Um I believe we previously reported on the cost of the um sleep cabins and then ultimately the security trailer. So that is the piece from Fairway International. Um the total for that was about 1.3 million and those um assets could be moved to another site. The remaining uh capital costs were for site works um uh site servicing and so on the electrical servicing and so on. So those would be your your sunk costs in the site. Councelor Stevenson. Thank you. Were there uh some costs though that I I don't know if things were done to the road or lighting added or something that's actually a value ad to the city going forward or is it all just uh set up and that that it will be done when it's done? Thank you. Thank you through the chair. No, the improvements that were done for the site were very sight specific. So they would not be carry forward say for future development. Okay. Thanks. It sounds like that's sorry uh through the chair. Um, but the monthly uh estimated costs I think it's really important to know. Um, again, these are property tax dollars and we're looking at $4,800 a month per um per micro shelter. And and again, we've got so many people in our city who are struggling and struggling to survive on $1,500 a month. And it's really difficult for them to understand why it's $4,800 a month for something like this where we own the property, own the building. So, I'm assuming there's no rent or anything. This is just strictly uh operating costs. We've said it's not a hub. It's just a shelter. So, the details matter and these could potentially be ongoing costs as any other city. You know, there's four or five other cities that have done these. I'm not aware of any of them that see an end date to this. Some of them have uh renewed the contracts as long as to 2030 and beyond. So the details I think are really important here. Um if they're shared with council, is it possible to get a briefing note on the public agenda just to help us not distribute the information? Just a moment. Thank you. I will go to staff and ask whether or not you require direction for the briefing note, which would mean that it couldn't be on the agenda because we'd need to approve it at council before it could go forward. So, I would just look to staff if they would like direction on that matter. Uh, thank you. And through you, chair. Um like right now the like we have the breakdown of of the operational cost is about 75% of that operating cost is for the on-site operator, 15% for food services and 10% for the rentals and other incillary services. If we were to put together a break a briefing note for council, we would circulate it to council noting, you know, here's the dollar attached to that 75%, the dollar attached to the 15% of food, and the dollar amount attached to the 10% of rentals. So, anything beyond that, we would probably want council direction because it would take uh some staff time to start pulling contracts and things like that. Counselor, does that help? Yeah, thank you. I'm happy with the easier version on that. Sorry, just to clarify. So, just to council on the breakdown. Okay. Thank you. Um, the other question I had is there was mention I believe in here uh since fall of 2025, there's been a notable reduction in both the number of encampments and the individuals residing within them. and and it does make sense and that's great to hear, but I'm wondering again as council goes to make decisions, we're looking at we're doing $288,000 a month of property tax dollars next week at council we're going to be looking at giving more money um for encampment supports and I'm just wondering is there any way to I I would have thought in this notable reduction in the number of encampments that maybe we would have been able to reduce some of our encampment support given that we've got this 280 $8,000 a month going to these 60 people. So, um was there any looking at that in terms of uh um these numbers when you when you do this notable decrease, is there any guidance for council in terms of that that should then reduce some of the services that are required at the encampment sites? Mr. Dickens. Um thank you chair and through you. It's a very valid question and it's the one that the the team has been considering. Um it's why council has our uh procurement framework coming before them so that we can actually evaluate what the impact of the micro shelters have been and if it's sustained. So this is great. This is a first glimpse. We are fresh out of the gates. Things are trending in the right direction. We're seeing a noticeable decrease as people are decanted from parks. Um but there are are other spin-offs from that. The folks that remain in encampments are further dispersed uh take longer and more difficult to reach uh and for outreach services to traverse perhaps more difficult uh landscape. Uh but we also uh have just come through a very harsh winter and we've benefited from people staying in the site and we need to see what the spring brings and what the summer brings. So, we can make a knee-jerk decision right now and and reduce tons of outreach services. And we may have a reality where folks look to leave the micro shelter site, which we hope is not the case. And we would uh hedge an estimate that that won't be the case, but it's always possible. And uh and then we'll need to respond to that reality where we may see an uptick in encampments or we see a traditional uptick in encampments every spring uh anyway. And uh we would want to address those. So, um, those questions are not lost on this coordinated informed response team. Uh, they're not lost on the organizations that do some of that outreach. Uh, council knows the federal funding ended for those outreach services. So, if they're not, uh, replenished, then those services will be reduced anyway. Councelor Stevenson, you have about 45 seconds. Go ahead. Okay. Thanks. Uh, I have two other things. One is about future reporting because there's no indication of when the next report will come and the other is around the housing of uh possibilities for these people because I talk to people all the time who still have four to 5 years left on the wait list and I know we're not adding any more urgent. So I'm just wondering how these people can move into housing um if they have to go on the wait list. Um I'm assuming it's just highly supportive housing. 15 seconds. I'll go to Mr. Dickens through you, chair. I'll I'll start this response and leave it to others to weigh in if I missed anything. Uh, a number of these folks that have come out to this site were previously connected to housing support workers and so that work was ongoing. This it's not like they showed up at the micro modular site and then they suddenly became uh key priorities for housing placements. They've been connected to housing supports for quite a while, but we're really lacking the ability to stabilize and have some supports uh in place on a consistent basis to be able to uh to move through their housing journey. Uh also, the counselor's correct that uh some of these folks will move into highly supportive housing as the next step in their stabilization journey and their housing stability journey. that just making a leap to independent living uh in a high-rise building with very close neighbors would not be the best fit. So, uh anybody that is moving out or will potentially move out and we do have some that are optimistic for the beginning of May um they would be moving into uh housings that already have supports in place or supports would go with them uh beyond just traditional rankar to income. Councelor, you have about 15 seconds. Yeah. future reporting. On the question of future reporting, Mr. Dickens, do you have any comments on future report? Yeah, thank you, Chair. I'm trying to pull up the language from the uh the clerk's office that they shared with us earlier today uh where it stated that civic administr we had council resolution uh that civic administration report to council upon the opening of this site uh and then to report back after one year of operation. So now that council has uh a lot of the information and we have shifted from project design and project development uh and this is the report that demonstrates project uh start. We would look to follow the council resolution and report back at the one-year mark. Councelor Stevenson. Yeah, I guess just my only comment there is the funding ends shortly after that, but I guess that'll be a good time for the decision. Thanks. Thank you. Looking for other speakers on this item. Seeing none, we will open the vote on 2.1. Closing the vote. Motion carries 12 to zero. Thank you. That brings us to item seven, which is adjournment. And I see many hands ready to go up. But before we go there, it is uh she's hiding. It is Miss Sher's birthday today. Uh Miss Smith offered to lead us in happy birthday. major in F major I believe you said right okay we will just say thank you and happy birthday to you and with that we'll take a motion to adjourn councelor McAllister and councelor Van Mirburgen thank you and by hand everyone motion carries enjoy your birthday thanks everyone