[1:47] Good evening, chair members of council. Members in the gallery.

[1:53] Have an echo on my computer. Chair whenever you're ready.

[1:59] Thank you, clerk Power. We'd like to call the committee

[2:01] the whole to order, please.

[2:15] Perfect. Thank you. So. Thank you. Chair. Before we begin,

[2:23] are there any announcements? Announcements. Yes, Councilor Pascalino.

[2:33] Mike. Yes, absolutely. I will be having my award meeting.

[2:39] On June 26 at 07:00 p.m. At the kinsman center

[2:44] on james street. And I also will be discussing on

[2:49] topic. Will be the parquet decision this evening, whatever way

[2:53] that goes. And also the decision on some homelessness and

[2:57] whatever people bring up. So thank you very much. And

[3:00] hopefully we can all attend. Further. Now, further announcements. Councilor

[3:07] Chun. Thank you, chair. I wanted to recognize councilor, our

[3:11] counselor. Sorry, Elder John Ganiel, who did the opening ceremony.

[3:15] At the marina for Indigenous People's day, which it was

[3:20] attended very well, and there was a lot of activities

[3:22] during the day. He just did such a great job

[3:26] opening up and really made us feel welcome and included.

[3:30] And it was amazing. Second thing, I also want to

[3:33] say thank you to everyone who's organized a pride event.

[3:35] During the month. It was spectacular array of events from

[3:40] dance off, singings, marches. I held my own event. It

[3:45] was very well attended, and kudos to all of the

[3:48] organizers and people who attended. Thank you chair. Thank you.

[3:52] Mayor Boschkov. Indeed, I do have an announcement. And members

[4:00] of council, administration and public. After more than 40 years

[4:07] in the public service. Norm Gale is retiring tonight. Is

[4:12] his final meeting of council. He is now the longest

[4:17] serving city manager for the city of Thunder Bay, serving

[4:20] almost nine years. Prior to that posting, he held many

[4:25] positions with the superior North Ems. Including paramedic for twelve

[4:31] years. Manager of quality assurance and training for four years.

[4:37] And ending as the chief from 2007 until 2015. Norm

[4:44] was also a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for

[4:47] 23 years. During his tenure with the city, Norm held

[4:52] positions on the Thunder Bay Board of Health, the Ontario

[4:55] association of Paramedic Chiefs, the Emergency measures Steering Committee and

[5:02] the Thunder Bay United way. He was also a contract

[5:07] professor at Confederation College. In their paramedic program. As city

[5:13] manager, Norm has provided guidance and advice. To three main,

[5:19] please try again. That's a very interesting technical glitch.

[5:34] Did someone in telecommunications? No. Okay. Let's go back and

[5:42] just make sure that we understand the seriousness and appropriateness

[5:45] and dignity of this event. Norm has provided guidance and

[5:52] advice to three mayors and 25 counselors. He has led

[5:58] his administrative team through nine annual budgets, several emergency weather

[6:04] events and. The Covid-19 pandemic. He is looking to forward

[6:10] to his retirement very much looking forward to spending more

[6:14] time with his family. His wife Michelle, daughter Aaron and

[6:19] son Devon. In addition to staying actively engaged in the

[6:24] community and no doubt catching up on his reading. Thank

[6:28] you, Norm, for your service and commitment to our city

[6:32] over the past three terms of council. As well as

[6:36] our community as a whole. Congratulations and best wishes on

[6:42] your retirement.

[6:59] On behalf of city council, we would like to present

[7:02] you with this gift. A token of appreciation. For your

[7:07] years of service.

[7:38] Thank you, mayor, for those kind words and presentation on

[7:41] behalf of council. And thank you, Norm. Our city manager,

[7:46] Gail. Thank you. I'm quite happy with Norm. I've always

[7:52] preferred that. Mayor Boschkoff. Thank you for those words. They're

[7:57] meaningful, and I appreciate it. Almost nine years. And it

[8:05] ends tonight, and I am really happy. And. It's on

[8:12] the docket for you to approve a bylaw tonight that

[8:16] will appoint John Collin as the next city manager as

[8:19] of 801 tomorrow morning. And I really hope you do

[8:22] that. And I look forward to 801 once this meeting,

[8:31] eds, whatever it is, please leave me alone. And wait

[8:34] till eight. One. For whatever is going on. Chair. I

[8:40] would like to make very brief remarks. First. I want

[8:44] to acknowledge the people who work for the city of

[8:47] Thunder Bay, especially those people who work on the front

[8:50] line who deliver service and programs. That every single one

[8:54] of us rely on, and we can trust that they

[8:58] get the job done. There are accidents. There are omissions,

[9:02] of course, but we, our city workers, have set a

[9:05] very high standard of service. I know. And my son,

[9:09] when he was very young. Knew exactly when the garbage

[9:13] truck would come by the house every single week. 20

[9:16] years later, that garbage truck comes by my house at

[9:19] the same time, same day, every single week. I know.

[9:24] And I know you know that the impact of city

[9:27] workers on our quality of life and our public safety.

[9:31] And the quality of our community is very important, and

[9:33] I appreciate them. I also appreciate. Greatly. The people that

[9:39] I work directly with, the executive management team of the

[9:43] City of thunder bay. Leaders, all who are doing difficult

[9:50] but terrific work. They do it with energy, enthusiasm, and

[9:55] they do it well. Clerk Christopho power for her commitment

[9:59] to governance. And transparency. Solicitor Robinette for her passion for

[10:07] the files that she deals with and her logic. HR

[10:12] director Carrie Arkies for her ethical compass and her ethnicity.

[10:18] Treasurer Carey Grieves for his responsibility and his precision and

[10:23] attention to detail. Director Cynthia Olsen for her empathy and

[10:28] her compassion. General manager, Kelly Robertson, fitness and energy and

[10:35] looking out for the needs of youth in our community.

[10:41] General manager Kerry Marshall. Logic and strength. And general manager

[10:47] Lewis. Strategy. And action and getting things done. It has

[10:54] been my great privilege to work with these leaders. And

[10:59] I have learned from every one of them. And I

[11:02] have personally benefited from being in their company, and I

[11:06] thank them. Mayor mentioned. I've served a city manager under

[11:11] three successive councils and three mayors. And it has always

[11:16] been, despite bumps. My pleasure to work with three mayors

[11:22] and three successive councils. These chambers are hollowed. Hollowed? Those

[11:28] words have meaning. Your work is very important to the

[11:34] people that live here and visit here, and when you

[11:36] do that with dignity, kindness, respect and compassion. You're doing

[11:42] good. You're doing right by the people who live and

[11:46] work here, regardless of whether they agree. With your decisions.

[11:51] Finally. Chair. The mayor also mentioned my 40 years of

[11:56] public service in different capacities. I consider that an honor

[12:01] and a privilege. And it has been my honor to

[12:04] do different types. Of service, and I have benefited personally

[12:08] from that, and I have learned every step of the

[12:10] way. It has been a career. One like no other.

[12:18] And I am grateful to the elected officials and the

[12:21] people I work with. For helping me along the way.

[12:26] I'm leaving. I will not be a burr in your

[12:31] saddle. You will not read a letter to the editor

[12:34] from me. But I'll be watching. This is my hometown.

[12:42] I'm staying here. My kids are returning here. We love

[12:48] Thunder Bay. And that's why I'll be watching. Thank you,

[12:52] council, for your service and thank you for everything. Thank

[12:57] you, chair. Thank you for those parting words. City manager

[13:07] Gail much appreciated your service. Very well. Done. We'll miss

[13:13] you. Next item, please. Thank you, chair. Are there any

[13:18] disclosures of interest? Seeing none will go to the next

[13:21] item. Next is the confirmation of the agenda mover in

[13:23] a second or, please. Move by Councilor Chung, second by

[13:30] Councilor Pascalino. On that item, Councilor Agawal. I was hoping

[13:36] that we could amend the agenda. I know everything on

[13:39] the agenda is very important. And not one thing should

[13:44] overrule another. However, item number 9.7. Is quite important. It's

[13:53] a report that came to us quite late. In the

[13:57] week. So the community, in order to have a higher

[14:00] rate, Of participation and viewing on the community's behalf. I

[14:05] would like to. Move. That. Behind. The deputations that we

[14:12] have on the surplus properties. And the reason for this

[14:17] is we all know that today is a very big

[14:20] hockey game. For our nation. Right. And we want to

[14:26] make sure. That before 08:00 we try to get. This

[14:31] point brought to the table if it wasn't for that

[14:34] engagement that we're going to lose. To our competing interest.

[14:39] I wouldn't have asked for that today. Had we got

[14:42] the report sooner that the public could have engaged, then

[14:46] I would have not. Again, it would not have brought

[14:49] that forward, but we received the report late in the

[14:52] week and there are a lot of people. We'll look

[14:56] for a seconder for that. Councilor Ella will second. Any

[15:01] speakers to the agenda change. Yeah, we're changing the agenda.

[15:06] We're moving it after the deputations. Clerk power. I know

[15:13] you wanted to speak to this, so I'm going to

[15:15] ask you to certainly. So the chair and I had

[15:18] discussed this when the request came forward. So just as

[15:20] a general reminder to members of council, and the chair

[15:23] certainly stated it. So did the member. All of your

[15:25] items are important. You have consultants attending this evening? On

[15:30] your investments. You have the multi year accessibility plan. Significant

[15:35] items that are coming forward as well. Certainly we do

[15:38] acknowledge the lateness of the time frame of which the

[15:41] report was released on Friday. That was also related to

[15:44] the time in which it was assigned. So appreciating. All

[15:48] of the things are in play as well as a

[15:51] sporting event. That's happening this evening that many of you,

[15:53] I'm sure, will wish to see. It would not be

[15:57] my advice as your clerk to change the order of

[15:59] the agenda that gives the public the idea that potentially

[16:02] some items are more important than others, and therefore you

[16:05] can flex and pivot your agendas as you see fit.

[16:09] So certainly up to council and the wish of council

[16:12] is how this will proceed. By providing that for your

[16:15] advice. Councilor Gretuga. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, we've done

[16:19] this many times. To me, this is such a significant

[16:25] issue in our community that people want to see, and

[16:29] I think it should be moved up. It is very

[16:32] important. It is affecting so many people. So I have

[16:36] no problem with being moved up, and we've done this

[16:38] so many times. And it doesn't mean when issues more

[16:40] important than others, it's just a matter. Of people being

[16:44] here for deputations or whatnot. Thank you, Councilor Hamilton. Yeah,

[16:50] chair. I often look at the city website, I look

[16:55] at the agenda. I kind of position for council. Watchers,

[16:58] they may be looking at where things rank in the

[17:00] agenda and when they're going to turn on the tv

[17:02] or when they're going to tune in, I think for

[17:05] transparency's sake. I think shuffling things around so that people

[17:09] that are planning on tuning in an hour into the

[17:11] agenda. Now that that item is going to be gone

[17:14] or 2 hours in, I think, for transparency's. Sake. We

[17:17] have to have a consistent layout with the agenda. And

[17:20] even though I've supported actually shuffling things around. In the

[17:24] case of, I think we had, like, a whole gallery

[17:26] full. Of children here recently, and we did some shuffling

[17:28] for that. But in this case, I think people are

[17:31] looking at the agenda. And for transparency's sake, I think

[17:34] it's very important to keep it in the order so

[17:37] that people could plan their nights accordingly. And they could

[17:41] actually attend the meeting as presented. Thank you. Okay. Seeing

[17:46] no further, I'm told that this will ratify in the

[17:48] 15 July as well, just for public information. Seeing. No

[17:52] questions. We'll call the questions. All in favor of moving

[17:55] that item up in. The agenda. 123-4567 any opposed?

[18:05] One, two, three. So that would be carried. The agenda.

[18:11] Has been modified slightly. Next item, please. So, chair, we

[18:15] do need to call for a vote on. The confirmation

[18:16] of the agenda. I will also note there are two

[18:19] items that have been withdrawn from the agenda. The first

[18:22] is the council composition review update. There is also a

[18:25] report that has been withdrawn as well. And that relates

[18:29] to. Sorry, chair that relates to energy conservation and in

[18:34] demand management that has also been withdrawn from the agenda.

[18:37] So noting that in the confirmation and amending of your

[18:40] agenda. Okay. So we will vote. On the amended agenda.

[18:48] All in favor? Any opposed? Carried. Next item. So thank

[18:54] you, chair. Under deputations, we have surplus properties. Holly Crescent,

[18:58] thistle, Crescent, Crescent and. Thorn low drive. There are five

[19:00] deputation requests received on this matter. This relates to an

[19:04] item that is being confirmed this evening at city council.

[19:08] The first deputation request was received. From Nathan Hewitton and

[19:11] dated June 13, requesting to provide. An opportunity to appear

[19:15] before committee. So chair Nathan Hewitton and Kevin Ramsay are

[19:19] the first two deputies. Yes. If you could come up

[19:23] to the seating there and you could address us, I

[19:25] believe. Prior to our deputations, city manager Gail, you wish

[19:29] to speak? Yes, thank you. Chair and thank you for

[19:32] the opportunity to provide some context. For both you. The

[19:36] concerned persons that are here, the deputies and for the

[19:39] public that may be watching at home. Tonight you are

[19:43] considering another important report in the city's response to encampments

[19:48] and. Unsheltered homelessness. Since the pandemic. There has been a

[19:53] growth in encampments, in temporary shelters, not only in Thunder

[19:57] Bay, but across Canada. There is also growing recognition. Mr.

[20:03] Chair, are we speaking to the right item here? I'm

[20:07] confused. Surplus. Surplus property here. Yeah. I thought I missed

[20:13] it. Chair. I thought you were tying it into the

[20:16] park cats personally, but. I wasn't sure, okay? 801 can't

[20:22] come soon enough. I know. All right. So the deputies

[20:26] are with us. Kind of relevant it was. You were

[20:32] throwing me off there. Welcome. You will have ten minutes

[20:36] to speak with council, and then. We'll follow up with

[20:38] questions, if there are any, and if you could introduce

[20:42] yourselves, please. Thank you, members of council, for having us

[20:45] this evening. In 2022, there was a broad rezoning of

[20:52] lands that occurred in the city of Thunder Bay. A

[20:59] lot of it involved parks, green spaces, open spaces, as

[21:03] they were technically designated. And they've been rezoned. To what

[21:09] would be called ul urban low rise suited for residential

[21:13] construction. I understand that the city's plan, this was in

[21:19] the news. From speaking to people directly affected. There seemed

[21:25] to be no direct consultation regarding this rezoning. Fast forward

[21:31] to about a month ago, and we learned that the

[21:35] city is proposing to declare eight pieces of property, green

[21:39] spaces and neighborhoods surplus. And with the intention of placing

[21:45] them for sale to develop housing on. Last week. The

[21:51] deadline drew close for people to apply for deputations. Or

[21:57] really express any resistance to this plan. To council. But

[22:02] we learned that councilor Hamilton wants to disregard the voices

[22:06] of 100% from people. I've spoken to anyway. Of directly

[22:13] impacted stakeholders and sell these spaces out from under us.

[22:18] Some of the people here tonight have been dealing with

[22:20] this repeated meddling. In policy regarding green spaces, keeping them

[22:27] versus selling them for several years. From my understanding. We've

[22:32] been told. In my discussions with public servants about this

[22:39] on Thornlow Drive. That the lot? That is, Councilor Hamilton

[22:45] proposes to have added to the surplus list. Is the

[22:50] only one the city is interested in our neighborhood. With

[22:53] that said, the park on the other side of the

[22:56] neighborhood with playground equipment was rezoned for residential construction. The

[23:00] park behind St. Francis school was rezoned for residential construction.

[23:04] I doubt most people in Parkdale, on Balsom street near

[23:08] Dees park, are aware that those parks were all rezoned,

[23:11] designated ul, suitable for resident. Residential. Construction. So we noticed

[23:19] that. Certain untouchable area. Hillcrest Park, Vickers park. None of

[23:24] these were rezoned. So I hope council will understand if

[23:29] people outside of these four walls are fairly skeptical about

[23:32] intentions. It seems like selling park space. Is kind of

[23:40] the low hanging fruit, the quick way to hit a

[23:42] quota. It's the easy thing to do, but that's not

[23:45] always the right thing to do. As I'd mentioned earlier,

[23:49] on Thornlow Drive, I went door to door. I canvassed

[23:53] neighbors. This had 100% opposition from those directly affected by

[24:00] this proposal. As in many cities. We

[24:09] have no shortage. Of less visually appealing areas, buildings, properties

[24:16] around town. It would seem. To me. That selling parks

[24:23] should probably be a last resort. Where abandoning some areas

[24:29] of the city to try and stuff other ones, and

[24:32] it doesn't. Make sense. In a community of this size.

[24:37] There's a lot of good reasons to keep that green

[24:39] space. I'm sure many people will touch on them this

[24:42] evening. One interesting one is health. As we just put

[24:52] the pandemic in the rear view mirror, we've been told

[24:54] for a few years to follow the science. Well, the

[24:58] science study involving almost 300 million people done out of

[25:01] the United Kingdom found that people who live around green

[25:05] spaces have reduced risk of type two diabetes, heart disease,

[25:09] premature death, stress, and hypertension, amongst others. Interesting to note

[25:14] that Thunder Bay has all of these happening at higher.

[25:20] Occurrence rate than the province or the country as a

[25:23] whole. On the other side of Thorn low Drive, there's

[25:27] another small park. People have put it to me that

[25:35] there's two parks in the neighborhood. What's losing one. They

[25:39] kind of serve very different purposes. There's a park on

[25:42] Thornlow Drive that has some playground equipment, and it's on

[25:45] a big slope. It's not terribly suitable for children running

[25:49] or engaging in any type of sports. Catching a ball,

[25:52] you can easily end up tumbling down a hill. There's

[25:55] also the good risk of hitting toddlers on playground equipment

[25:58] and swing sets. So what we typically see in the

[26:01] neighborhood is parents with younger children go to one area

[26:04] and older children that are just old enough to be

[26:06] unsupervised in the immediate vicinity. Of their home. Go to

[26:09] the other area and there's room there they'll play. Baseball,

[26:13] football practice, golfing. I've seen people doing yoga. Any number

[26:18] of activities taking place there. There's also a small park

[26:21] behind. St. Francis school. As I've been reminded, however, for

[26:26] a lot of the children on Thornlow Drive. 1.2 km

[26:30] is a bit of a hike to send them unsupervised.

[26:33] When you can send them to a field and look

[26:37] out to your living room window. And watch them. I

[26:40] can only speak. With direct experience about the property on

[26:45] Thornlow Drive. It's where Ken and I live. The site

[26:51] does not go to waste. Thornlow Drive is a particularly

[26:54] active neighborhood. I've been woken up at five in the

[26:58] morning, gone to the window and seen somebody. Walking a

[27:00] dog down the street. Their people are running. They're playing.

[27:05] They're taking their pets out. There's green space does certainly

[27:09] get used. Thornlow is also becoming a rapidly younger street.

[27:16] Which demands an increase in play space. What was once

[27:19] an established neighborhood for established families to buy homes. In

[27:23] the 1970s, due. To the age of the neighborhood, the

[27:27] green space and the amenities. Is now affordable housing for

[27:31] young working families. There's another issue. That Ken will likely

[27:38] elaborate on more, and that is that much of Thornlow

[27:42] is curved there's. A lot of folks that park on

[27:45] both sides of the road at the same time. There

[27:49] are safety issues with increasing the traffic load on this

[27:52] street. We already see close calls with collisions involving other

[27:55] vehicles with pedestrians, with kids on bikes. As I said.

[28:01] It's a curved street with a lot of people parking

[28:03] on both sides of it. There's. No sidewalks and where

[28:06] you're proposing to add development to the neighborhood. Is already

[28:10] the worst spot on that street. I've had several close

[28:15] calls with collisions driving through that part. There's also the

[28:20] suitability of building there. The city proposes to sell a

[28:23] lot that's approximately 100ft deep. Councilor Hamilton's memorandum says that

[28:28] whatever is built there will conform to the built form

[28:31] of that neighborhood. The built form of that neighborhood has

[28:33] a setback of 40ft from the. Curb for the front

[28:40] of houses, and the average depth of a house on

[28:42] that street is 35. To 40ft. So whatever you build

[28:46] on this lot is left with a 20 foot backyard

[28:49] that slopes into a ravine at the back. Doesn't sound

[28:52] like ideal. Development potential. With those points in mind. I'd

[29:01] like to. You have two minutes left, and I'd like

[29:03] to turn over. To Ken Ramsey. Thank you. Thank you.

[29:08] Nathan, can you hear me? No. Okay, so I have

[29:11] a great deal of. Concern about the safety as an

[29:14] owner and as a leader. In the private business. I

[29:20] believe council has an opportunity and an obligation to ensure

[29:23] the safety of the residents and the citizens of the

[29:26] communities. And I believe what Nathan has said is to

[29:30] be very true. That creep cutting a multi residential complex

[29:35] on that corner. Is sure to create serious safety issues,

[29:41] and I believe that the people here that don't. Realize

[29:44] that. Need to take a drive down that street. When

[29:50] it's active, not 10:00 in the morning or 02:00 in

[29:52] the afternoon when their kids are in school, but when

[29:55] the playground is actually being used, they around supper. Timer

[29:58] in the evening, and you'll find that. You used to

[30:02] be able to walk on that street with the dog

[30:05] or your family, and there was no problem. You didn't

[30:07] have to worry about the sidewalk. You just walked in

[30:09] the street. Now you're taking your life in your hands,

[30:12] especially at that end, because there is a boat. And

[30:15] if you realize. It's a more affluent neighborhood than most.

[30:18] Some neighborhoods in the city, most people would agree to

[30:21] that. And I don't care how you build, whatever you

[30:24] build, it will not be to the same level. Or

[30:28] appearance as what is presently there. And my logic is

[30:32] that you will therefore reduce the value of the properties

[30:36] there. That will reduce. The assessments for tax purposes, and

[30:41] the city will actually end up with a less income

[30:43] from property. Tax revenue than they presently have now. You

[30:47] have 15 seconds to wrap up, okay? So I think

[30:51] that, first off, you got to look at the safety,

[30:52] and secondly, you got to look at the revenues. There's

[30:55] a fallacy that you're going to improve the neighborhood. By

[30:57] putting these units in, you are not going to improve.

[30:59] Farnells drives neighborhood by putting multiplex units in there. I

[31:06] have to say, we appreciate you coming out this evening.

[31:09] We'll see if there's. Questions from counselors councilor Pascalino. Thank

[31:14] you very much. And through the chair, can you describe

[31:17] the changing demographics that's on Thornlow drive and how the

[31:21] sale of this field will impact these residences. What we're

[31:27] seeing again, I'd mentioned due to the age of the

[31:30] neighborhood and the affordability of the homes. Is. A rapid

[31:37] transformation to younger families with children and a greater demand

[31:40] for play space on the street. I personally only resided

[31:44] on Thornlow Drive. For seven years. The amount of change

[31:49] in home ownership that I've seen on the street. Seems

[31:52] considerable for that period of time. When we moved in.

[31:58] It was a quiet. Neighborhood with, shall we say, typically

[32:03] more mature demographic. Every day I drive home from work

[32:08] with my windows open and I hear children screaming, laughing,

[32:11] playing. I see them on a field, I see them

[32:13] in a park. My generation, I guess. Parents with young

[32:23] families. We got to see a generation raised on cell

[32:29] phones and Facebook. And we don't care for what we've

[32:33] seen. So you're starting to go back to the days

[32:37] of driving down the road and. Hearing kids yelling car

[32:41] and moving the hockey nets. Basketball nets are full time,

[32:44] set up on the side of thorn low drive. We're

[32:48] kind of back to get the kids outside. Get them

[32:52] running, get them playing baseball, playing hockey, being active in

[32:55] the outdoors. And we see more young people moving onto

[33:01] the street, more young people having families, more young people.

[33:03] That intend to have families or grow their families. So

[33:06] the demand for play space in this neighborhood. Is absolutely

[33:10] not shrinking. It's only increasing. So that piece of property

[33:16] is very valued and. Well appreciated, Councilor Pascalino. Further. Yeah,

[33:24] I was just wondering. What? Your major. Safety concern is

[33:30] for the increased traffic on Thornlow Drive. Again. That part

[33:38] of the street. Is quite a curve. Visibility is obstructed

[33:44] by some forested area. Part of which. Is protected. When

[33:51] you're coming around that bend, there's often vehicles parked on

[33:54] both sides. Children are active on bicycles. As I said,

[33:59] it's a very active street with people out walking, running.

[34:05] With their dogs. They've got kids. You see close calls

[34:09] in this. It's kind of a choke point. And you

[34:12] frequently see close calls with vehicular collisions. This area is

[34:18] right where this lot is proposed to be sold, so

[34:22] there's a natural concern for people on the street. That

[34:27] I don't know exactly what it's going to look like,

[34:29] but if you parcel that into two lots and build

[34:31] two fourplexes. You've got eight houses with two vehicles per

[34:34] house. So you've added 16 cars to a congested stretch

[34:38] of a little street. And then when they entertain, you've

[34:42] got more people parked along the road. So the safety

[34:48] perspective is largely focused just around the traffic density on

[34:51] that area of the street. With poor visibility. For my

[34:55] last question. I was just wondering. About snow plowing and.

[35:05] They're rarely, I think, in that area there's any cars

[35:07] parked on the street. For when the plow comes by,

[35:10] I guess. That on street parking versus off street parking.

[35:15] It's mostly in that area. It's all off street parking,

[35:19] I would imagine, anyway. Or unless somebody comes over, right?

[35:24] Yeah. Do you have anything to add in that? Respect,

[35:26] in the wintertime, most of the residents want to get

[35:29] their cars off so they can get the street plowed.

[35:31] There are no sidewalks. So they've got these big banks

[35:35] along each side of the road that are six, 8ft.

[35:37] High. And you can't even see your car sometimes that's

[35:42] parked in front because. Of the banks. That means that

[35:46] the road is even narrower. In that case. Thank you.

[35:52] And appreciate the answers. Councilor Aguilar. Thank you very much.

[35:57] And through the chair. Mr. Ramsay, you've lived in the

[36:01] area for. A little bit more than seven years. Can

[36:05] you tell me, in your words how the demographic, why

[36:07] you moved to that area and how. The demographics are

[36:10] changing from when. You probably built. I bought the property

[36:17] in 1979. We built in 79 and moved to 1980.

[36:21] We had a fair to young family. As I mentioned

[36:24] earlier and my other correspondence, there was two lots that

[36:28] were vacant that are now being desired to be built

[36:31] on. I tried to buy those lots because I want

[36:34] to have a nice house and a nice view. And

[36:39] the field would still be there if I was on

[36:41] one of them. What happened was I was told that

[36:43] the green space was compulsory the way it was set

[36:46] up with a developer ltl there had to be so

[36:49] much green space for so many houses, and so that

[36:52] was a plus for me, we're going to have green

[36:54] space. I managed to buy a lot privately. And built

[36:56] where I built, which is right next to where you're

[36:59] going. To put a sixplex or an eightplex or a

[37:01] ten plex or whatever the city wants to do, which

[37:03] will have a devastating effect on the value of my

[37:06] land. I've read or heard that some of the counselors

[37:10] believe that by building. I believe the question was demographics.

[37:15] Okay, so how have you seen the demographics change over

[37:18] time? Well, the demographics have gone from me being one

[37:21] of the youngest people on there with young kids to

[37:24] one of the oldest people on there with grandchildren using

[37:27] the area, and there are many people as a matter

[37:29] of fact, the house at the end of the street

[37:30] was just sold to the grandson. Of the past owner

[37:34] who passed away. I know that there are a number

[37:36] of new people on the street that did not live

[37:40] there. Before. And. They are a lot younger than the

[37:44] people that used to be there. We've lost a lot

[37:46] of old timers, but we've got a lot of young

[37:49] people living on the street. Now, right across from you,

[37:52] there's a families come in with two kids. They've got

[37:55] the basketball net out in front, and it's great to

[37:58] see that again. We haven't had that for a few

[38:00] years. Thank you. So would you then concur that the

[38:05] area is in an area of transition from the people

[38:09] who didn't want to move from there, and they're now

[38:11] aging out because the house is too big or two

[38:13] stories. They don't want stairs and they want to. Go

[38:16] to more of a one level living. And now two

[38:18] young families once again, that went there. For the same

[38:21] reason that you initially went. In 1979. Keep in mind

[38:25] that a lot of the reason that the people, the

[38:27] young people are coming to this area is because of

[38:29] the green space, because they have an area that kids

[38:31] can play and because it's quiet. To me, it's a

[38:35] very desirable area. Under me. There are a few very

[38:40] desirable areas in thunder b, and this is one of

[38:42] them. And. I think that it attracts young people with

[38:47] rejuvenates the community. And it improves. The atmosphere, if you

[38:54] like, because you got kids running around and you've got

[38:56] people that are out and about, especially walking dogs, walking

[38:59] kids, walking families. It's good to see that. And thank

[39:03] you. My last question. I'll address it to Mr. Hewitton.

[39:08] When you chose to move there seven years ago, Did

[39:11] the idea of a crescent be more appealing rather than

[39:14] a straight thoroughfare due to the traffic calming. Certainly, yes.

[39:22] We found the shape and layout of the street in

[39:26] the neighborhood to be very welcoming, quiet. And the green

[39:32] space certainly was attractive. In fact, in our particular case,

[39:36] I had property on the north end of the city

[39:38] and was about to construct a new house. We heard

[39:41] about this property on thorn low drive. After saying, where

[39:43] the heck is thorn low drive? And looking it up

[39:45] on Google maps. We went to have a look. And.

[39:50] We quickly abandoned our plans to build a house where

[39:53] we were going to and purchased. An as is house

[39:58] for a bit of a project on Thornlow Drive just

[40:01] to get into. An area like that with green space

[40:03] to start a family. And yes. The low traffic flow

[40:10] was certainly appealing. Thank you very much. Councilor Trini. Then

[40:16] councilor guru. Oh, I thought you chimed in first. Councilor

[40:20] Gartuga. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Councilor trini. Are

[40:26] you aware that previously. When developer. Would. Do a development.

[40:35] They had to give 5%. Of the property to greenspace.

[40:42] Okay. So that probably was the case here. I don't

[40:47] see that we've changed our policies to this point. I

[40:51] think that. We still. Require the developers to give 5%

[40:57] green space. I just want to know if you knew

[41:01] that. So that's why you have that park. And the

[41:03] idea behind that was so that the parks were associated

[41:07] with the development and so that you didn't have to

[41:09] go too far. So that's why that park gets there.

[41:12] And other little parkets are all around the city, so

[41:15] thank you. Councilor Trini. Thank you. Through the chair. I'm

[41:22] finding it interesting as people send us emails about the

[41:25] development and the parquet pieces. How we've gone from a

[41:28] duplex to a six. Plex to a twelve plex. These

[41:32] pieces I don't believe would be supporting that. And there

[41:36] are guidelines within the city. Building that require parking spaces

[41:39] for each unit, and I'm not sure if you're. Aware

[41:42] of that, councilor Trini. My question is about parking. You're

[41:46] talking about parking and people being on the street and.

[41:48] You're concerned about plowing and more people on the street

[41:51] and the dangers of that. But there's a requirement for

[41:54] parking spaces, and I wasn't sure if you're. Aware per

[41:57] unit. And so that would alleviate that because people wouldn't

[42:01] be on the street. The other question that I had

[42:04] kind of for you. You're nodding your head yes. Actually,

[42:08] I got a lot for admin on this topic, but

[42:12] I'm also getting emails. From people talking about nimbyism, not

[42:16] in my backyard pieces. And while I appreciate that, I

[42:20] don't think that's what's happening when we're having all these

[42:22] people here to talk about parquettes. I think there's a

[42:25] different piece here. In the. Documentation that we were sent.

[42:29] Because you've talked about Thorn Low, the number of people

[42:32] who've actually responded to quite a process. In getting consultation.

[42:40] Their main concern. The majority were concerned with the type

[42:41] of housing being permitted in an area consistently mainly of

[42:46] single family homes. So I think we need to get

[42:48] to the heart of the issue. And these other pieces?

[42:51] Well, yes, they are a piece, councilor Trinity. We're supposed

[42:56] to be asking questions. I am. Yeah, but I'm not

[42:59] here. It is about the multifamily home. Let's just ask.

[43:03] Is that the real? Well, I want the public to

[43:05] know that I've read the information. I've heard you. I've

[43:08] heard other people who've emailed me. I appreciate those pieces,

[43:11] but the multifamily home seems to really be the key

[43:14] piece here. And we're getting mixed up with parking, which

[43:17] shouldn't hopefully be an issue, so. I'd like you to

[43:20] expand a little bit more on the multifamily home. Concerns,

[43:22] please. To be perfectly honest, that's something I've heard fairly

[43:27] little of going door to. Door. Speaking directly with residents

[43:30] on Thorn low drive. I can't speak for everybody on

[43:34] the street how they feel about multifamily. Single family. I

[43:37] personally, whatever. You build a 711 on it, it's a

[43:41] green space that's gone whether it's a house, whether it's

[43:44] a castle, whether it's an apartment building. It's lost green

[43:48] space that can never be recovered. Fair. Thank you. So

[43:52] my next question about the green space piece, then we

[43:55] were also instructed about. Green space piece and I have

[43:58] driven the area. I did some, quite a bit of

[44:00] research. The green space. The Neibing river buffer is a

[44:05] substantial amount of space around the river. Including bike paths

[44:09] and pieces like that. The thornlow buffer also has. A

[44:14] retained city lands. Of. The. Ravine piece, which is substantial

[44:22] city lands to still continue. With forestry and surrounded by

[44:28] trees and those pieces. So you really feel that this

[44:32] piece of thornlow would completely change the neighborhood in regards

[44:36] to those pieces. Yeah. Through the chair.

[44:48] That retained land isn't really ideal for any practical usage.

[44:54] I mean, if I see kids playing soccer on that

[44:57] field, they're not going to do it on a forested

[45:01] ravine edge. So I don't see a lot of use

[45:05] coming. From that space as an alternative. In fact, one

[45:09] thing that concerns me is with the back of the

[45:13] land you propose to sell? Kind of sloping off into

[45:16] this ravine. Any work that somebody would undertake to shore

[45:21] up or stabilize the back of that property would require

[45:24] destruction of that forested area. In order to. Perform the

[45:27] work. You just can't run excavators in dense Bush. Okay,

[45:31] thank you for that. And my third question. The money.

[45:34] That would be. I think you've asked three. Really? Okay.

[45:38] I'll go in the second round, then. So there's only

[45:40] one round. I think I asked. Parking and multi use.

[45:45] I'm sorry. I counted three. I could stand corrected, but

[45:49] I think I'm seeing nodding. Yeah. I would ask all

[45:54] members to not preface questions when it comes to deputations.

[45:57] We're just to ask questions, not to inundate them with

[46:00] opinion and other things. Just questions, please, Councilor Johnson. Thank

[46:07] you. Chair through you gentlemen. Thanks for coming tonight. I.

[46:15] Voted for selling the surplus lands. I don't mind putting

[46:17] my cards on the table, so. It's not just on

[46:19] Councilor Hamilton. Mainly because of. Well, one reason is I

[46:25] get asked a lot. From people that resided the needing

[46:29] ward and asked this question of all other neighborhoods around.

[46:33] Other parks aren't looking so good. Holes and slides. No

[46:40] places to play. So, as I understand it from administration

[46:43] thus far, some of the monies here can go to

[46:46] other parks nearby, and I'm hopeful that they'll go even.

[46:50] Further to maybe. Councilor, we need to get to questions

[46:53] quick. We have five deputies. Don't talk over me. Please,

[46:58] just. We need to get to questions, and we have

[47:00] five. Deputations. We have a lot on the agenda tonight,

[47:03] so I don't want to spend hours and hours on

[47:05] these deputations. And get to the meteor items, if you

[47:10] will. Not that this isn't meaty, but. We have a

[47:13] lot of things, including homeless. So I've asked many times.

[47:16] So I'm going to keep cutting in when we don't

[47:18] get to questions. I was 3 seconds. Away from. I

[47:21] know, but we were 15 seconds in. That regard other

[47:26] areas, other parks throughout the city can benefit from the

[47:29] sale of this land. I'd like to know. Your thoughts

[47:33] on that with respect. Again, it's something that others are

[47:37] chiming in about. And trying to attain. Through the sale

[47:41] of this particular land and others. Well, while I agree

[47:45] that. Probably a lot of cases. Consolidation. Of resources or

[47:53] amenities can often make sense or be efficient. These are

[47:58] places where young children go, so I can't tell my

[48:01] six year old go. 1.2 couple of blocks over and

[48:05] go play in the field there instead. They added. A

[48:10] new picnic table or something? It's one of those things

[48:13] that there's a reason you have to put 5% green

[48:16] space in the subdivisions. It's because you have space for

[48:19] children to play or the community to use as they

[48:22] see fit immediately nearby. So, I mean, I'm aware that

[48:27] there's an intent to use revenue generated by. The sale

[48:30] of these lands to improve other play facilities. But nobody's

[48:38] asking for improved playground equipment or additional money to be

[48:41] spent anywhere. They just want a field to play on.

[48:45] Okay. I appreciate your response, and good luck. Good luck.

[48:49] Thank you. Thank you. Chair. Thank you. Further questions to

[48:53] this deputation? Seeing none, I was hoping we could save

[48:57] all questions to admit after the five deputies, since they're

[49:00] all related. Would that be okay with council? Okay, so

[49:06] I'll put you down, Councilor Gurtuga. It's unlimited. There's no

[49:14] emotion. But again, they get five rounds. I guess you'll

[49:17] get five. Rounds if you want it. So some of

[49:21] your questions could be answered in these deputations. So thank

[49:24] you very much. For coming forward this evening. You can

[49:26] retire back to the gallery and we'll invite our next

[49:30] people up. Chair, our next speaker. We receive correspondence from

[49:39] Ronald Portland dated June 20, again requesting an opportunity to

[49:43] speak before council. We do have three speakers with that

[49:47] group. Ronald, irene and tracy. We'd welcome you to come

[49:54] forward. And if it's only one of you, that's fine

[49:56] too. Okay, that's fine too. So welcome. And if you

[50:04] could just ensure when you're speaking that you press the

[50:06] on. Button on your microphone and you'll have ten minutes

[50:09] and we'll go to questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And

[50:13] thank you, members of council, for hearing us tonight. My

[50:21] name is Ron Portalance, as the deputy says. I'll be

[50:27] presenting our deputation tonight together with my co presenter, Irene

[50:30] Miln. Here at my side. We are both long terms,

[50:34] and I stress long. Term residents of Thistle Crescent and

[50:39] represent the Thistle Crescents neighborhood group. All right. We are

[50:44] here tonight to ask you for. A simple. Simple action.

[50:49] We're asking you not to approve Mr. Hamilton's motion to

[50:54] put the parquet back into the system. You've already made

[50:58] a report to take r three out, and we would

[51:01] like you to. Continue with that and pass that to

[51:04] council. So that's our ask tonight. But to give you

[51:07] a little history because it's been seven years since we

[51:10] were here before we're. Going to give you just a

[51:12] little history of thistle crescent to tell you what's all

[51:14] about. The lot 2628 is the law in question. Tiffan

[51:20] Crescent was entrusted in stewardship. By the gateway corporation to

[51:24] the city of Fort William on December the 23rd, 1955.

[51:32] For the humble sum of $1. For public purposes. Our

[51:39] parquet, or green space, was mandated by the construction codes

[51:43] of the day, and I'm not sure if it's 5%,

[51:46] but we've been tossing that figure around. Tonight. And it

[51:48] could possibly be, I don't know. The codes then is

[51:52] now dictate that a percentage of the subdivision land is

[51:55] to be set aside as green space as the city

[51:57] does today. Our parquet has been part of that green

[52:00] space and an important part of our neighborhood for the

[52:03] past 69 years. It has served our neighborhood in many

[52:08] ways over the years, changing and evolving with the needs

[52:12] of the residents. It has never been just a vacant

[52:15] lot. Seven years ago. The city questioned our parquet's value

[52:21] to our neighbors and to the city. The thinking of

[52:24] the day was to surplus the taut lot as we

[52:26] knew it. And sell it off to acquire revenue for

[52:30] the city of Thunder Bay. On October 30, 2017, the

[52:36] residents of the Thistle Crescent made a deputation to council

[52:39] of the whole to advocate for our parquet. We presented

[52:43] our reasons for keeping the parquet much as Thornlewell has.

[52:46] Done tonight as green space and. After hearing our presentation,

[52:50] the council voted eleven to one in our favor to

[52:54] retain the park at his green space. About one year

[52:59] after that, and I can't be exact. And about that.

[53:03] The city planted. 20 new trees in that parquet of

[53:08] various kinds. This action was the first substantial upgrade to

[53:13] that park camp in 69 years. In addition to that,

[53:18] last week, two beautiful benches have been delivered to that

[53:21] parquet. First time. We've ever had any. And guess what?

[53:24] I sat down there and enjoyed it. When the young

[53:29] trees mature. Our park had will evolve into a wonderful

[53:33] place to walk, spend quality time with our family, and

[53:36] pets. Thistle crest and residents are aware that the federal

[53:40] government, through the provincial government and the municipalities, have created

[53:43] a program to build more housing to ease the housing

[53:47] shortage in Canada. The city's goal of 2200 new homes

[53:51] by 2031 is ambitious and it will be hard to

[53:55] achieve. The practice of infill housing on unused tracks of

[54:00] land in the city to help reach this goal is

[54:02] innovative and good planning. On the other hand. Cannibalizing the

[54:08] parquet in the city to achieve this goal is short

[54:10] sighted and will ultimately degrade our city and lower the

[54:14] quality of life of the residents. The fact that these

[54:18] park lands are easy pickings does not mean. The ideal

[54:22] solution to fulfill. Housing quota. In our opinion, this nearsighted

[54:30] policy will adversely change the nature of our neighborhood and

[54:34] our city forever. Finally. We want to leave the council

[54:39] of the question to ponder. If the city of Thunder

[54:44] Bay today demands a percentage of green space carboats in

[54:49] new planned subdivision as a condition of construction. Why is

[54:55] it acceptable in 2024 to destroy the previous green space

[55:01] car votes which were condition of construction in legacy subdivisions.

[55:08] Thank you for hearing our presentation. Thank you for that.

[55:18] We try to refrain from applause and booing in all

[55:21] sorts of mode of outbursts in the crowd, so I

[55:24] hope. You can abide by that. City manager. Gail. You

[55:29] were motioning to me chair. We'd like to offer a

[55:32] point. Of clarity. That will help you moving forward. We

[55:37] need to clear we need to clear something up, and

[55:39] I. Would like to go to director to pewter for

[55:41] that chair, Mr. Chair. And that's why I wanted questions

[55:43] for administration. I guarantee is going to be. In relation

[55:46] to the Greek. Okay, well, they're stepping in. So accounts

[55:50] are gratu, if you feel that your question needed to

[55:53] be asked up front. You can certainly let me know

[55:58] that I have no problems with that. Just want to

[56:01] speak briefly to some of these points and questions that

[56:03] are being raised about the 5% parkland dedication subject. So

[56:13] it's a case currently. That. In Parkland, or 5% of

[56:19] the cash equivalent for Parker land, where it's let's say,

[56:23] for smaller subdivisions where it wouldn't be practical. To. Take

[56:29] the land itself. Some of these subdivisions. These neighborhoods are

[56:34] rather old and I can't really speak to exactly. What

[56:37] the policy framework was at the time. We've noticed just.

[56:44] Within the files that at times lands were dedicated. For

[56:48] park purposes. With the intent that they be sold and.

[56:53] That generated funds for the purpose of Parkland. So this

[56:59] is embedded within. The Parkland Reserve Fund policy. That indicates

[57:06] that when Parkland is sold, the proceeds would be used

[57:08] for the purpose of Parkland. So I just want to

[57:11] clarify that particularly. I can primarily want to clarify what

[57:15] the case is today. Right. So today, if a smaller

[57:18] subdivision is applied for, it's very unlikely that 5% of

[57:23] the land would be used for parkland. Rather, there would

[57:26] be a cash in lieu of parkland dedication, and that

[57:29] would be used for neighborhood parks or similar. Okay. Councilor

[57:34] Gatuya on this item. Yes, go ahead. So if there

[57:38] was a new. Smaller subdivision, Mr. Pewter, through you from

[57:41] the chair. Can you repeat the question? Sorry. Yes, sorry.

[57:48] So if there was newer, smaller subdivision today. That was

[57:55] come forward and there was no parks. Within a kilometer

[57:58] or two. Would that go into the green space? Reserve

[58:03] fund. Or would it perhaps there be a park there,

[58:06] a green space there? I'll refer that question to supervisor

[58:11] shore that's on the line. It's through the chair. It

[58:16] depends a bit on the context and the exact size.

[58:25] Of that newer subdivision. If it's really small. And I

[58:30] don't know what number that might be. Under ten, under

[58:32] twelve, lots, something like. That. Then the residual 5% is

[58:38] not small enough to do. Anything useful. In terms of

[58:43] play equipment or active recreation, so we would take the

[58:47] cash in lieu. In the case of a smaller subdivision

[58:52] that was part of a larger plan of subdivision, but

[58:56] being done in stages. We may take a small lot

[59:01] in land. In the short term, and then. When. The

[59:07] larger development is done. Take the 5%, land in a

[59:12] more central location because that will be a benefit to.

[59:16] The larger development and give back the single lot again.

[59:19] We have done that in a place like maple view.

[59:22] Subdivision, so. There isn't, I think one answer to that

[59:26] question, it really depends on the exact size. And. The

[59:31] future plans for that area as well. And does not

[59:35] distance. Factor into that just to other parks in the

[59:39] area, would that not factor in as well? Yes, through

[59:42] the chair. It would. We strive to have a park

[59:46] land within. Roughly 400 meters of a person. However, if

[59:52] that land is so small, The 5% is so small

[59:57] or of a size or shape that really can't be

[1:00:00] utilized for active recreation. It is often better to. Take.

[1:00:06] The cash in lieu and use that to develop a

[1:00:09] park that may not be exactly close by. But the

[1:00:12] nearest one to improve that. Thank you. I just wanted

[1:00:16] to not wanted that clarified because I spoke to Mr.

[1:00:19] Deputor. There, director. Deputy part of me. For the deputation.

[1:00:23] Yeah. So we'll go back to the deputy. Sorry about

[1:00:26] that. Administration want to hop in with a clarification. Hopefully

[1:00:29] that now we can ride through all the deputations before

[1:00:33] we go back to admit. But thank you for your

[1:00:36] deputation very much. We'll see if there's questions, Councilor Pascalino.

[1:00:42] Actually, I had Councilor Gertuka. Was this on what we

[1:00:45] just did or on the deputy? Councilor Victor Tucas first.

[1:00:49] Thank you. Good. I just missed that. Could you clarify?

[1:00:53] The property was donated, you said? The property was turned

[1:00:58] over from Gateway. Corporation that built the green Acres area

[1:01:03] to the city of Fort William. As maybe a 5%

[1:01:07] carve out. I don't really know what the percentage was.

[1:01:08] But it was definitely a green space car. Vote for

[1:01:11] that subdivision and was turned over for one. Dollars, which

[1:01:14] is what they had to do to turn property over.

[1:01:16] Even today, you have to spend one dollars. And yes,

[1:01:19] it was turned over 1955. Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:01:24] Last week, we made a decision to keep these three

[1:01:26] parquets in, and we knew all about the housing accelerator

[1:01:30] fund. We knew everything. Can you tell me, in your

[1:01:33] opinion, has anything changed? Since last week? No. And the

[1:01:36] reason we're here tonight, of course, is because of alderman.

[1:01:39] Hamilton's motion to actually overturn that decision. So on the

[1:01:43] fourth, we were notified that you had pulled our parkets

[1:01:47] out, and we were. Quite happy with that decision. But

[1:01:49] then we found out about Alderman Hamilton's motion tonight. To

[1:01:55] actually amend that decision, if you want to call it

[1:01:57] that. So we had to come here. Tonight at least

[1:01:59] to speak to you anyway and tell you that we

[1:02:02] would like you to go. Back to your original motion,

[1:02:04] which was to take the three park s out of

[1:02:06] the sale. That's why we're here tonight. Okay. I see

[1:02:09] no reason to change my vote, so. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:02:13] Just so we all understand how the procedures work here.

[1:02:17] When we made that initial decision that was at a

[1:02:19] committee meeting and all committee meeting decisions, even though we're

[1:02:24] all around the table. Have to come to a city

[1:02:26] council meeting where we're all around the table again. So

[1:02:29] when they come to city council, any member of council

[1:02:32] can look to revoked or re debate. The item, and

[1:02:37] that's what's occurring here tonight. Later on. So just you're

[1:02:40] aware this will occur at city council much later tonight?

[1:02:44] No. We're aware of that. We're just. Because of the

[1:02:47] motion. We were notified because. Of Alderman Hamilton's. Okay, just

[1:02:51] so everyone's aware of the timing, councilor training. Thank you

[1:02:55] through the chair and thank you for your presentation. Were

[1:02:59] you aware that Green Acres park fits within that 400

[1:03:02] meters radius from this park? No. Okay. Thank you. Councilor

[1:03:08] Pascalino. Thank you. Through the chair. I actually grew up

[1:03:14] in the area. I lived on Wall street, across from

[1:03:17] Linwood Crescent long long time ago, and I was just

[1:03:21] wondering if you can. I don't know how long. You've

[1:03:24] been there. But when I was there. My parents bought

[1:03:28] the house 1968. And I moved out in 1980 when

[1:03:33] I bought my own place. So I was wondering how

[1:03:37] well are they been used since 1980? For when? I

[1:03:41] remember them. I remember you brought up the term. I

[1:03:44] think tautlot. That's what they used to. And I would

[1:03:47] play at that one. And also on thistle crescent, quite.

[1:03:51] Often, so I was just wondering how well they're used.

[1:03:55] And. How are the families doing them and how are

[1:03:59] they using them? Well, let me answer your question a

[1:04:04] little differently, but I'll get to your point in a

[1:04:05] minute. First of all, Parkland doesn't have to have a

[1:04:08] purpose. It's already purposed as Tark Land. That's its purpose.

[1:04:15] But to answer your question, I've been living on thistle

[1:04:17] for 67 years. I've been there rather a long time.

[1:04:22] And the street started off as wall to wall kids

[1:04:26] because it was a brand new subdivision. Well, that has

[1:04:28] changed over the years. The people that now live on

[1:04:32] Thistle, for the most part, are seniors without children. But

[1:04:36] we are getting more families in as the older people

[1:04:39] move out with kids. And that park, for the longest

[1:04:42] time was not heavily used because the kids were gone.

[1:04:47] There was no benches, no trees. It was a flat

[1:04:50] piece of land, but now. With the 20 trees and

[1:04:55] the two benches. The kids that were before not able

[1:05:00] to use the park could now come and use it

[1:05:02] and we were getting more families. As you would suspect,

[1:05:05] the neighborhood is turning over. It's taken. A long time

[1:05:08] because, frankly, people that live on thistle crescent don't want

[1:05:11] to leave that's the truth. So that's your answer? It's

[1:05:16] being used more. In fact, tonight I saw two. People

[1:05:20] walking their dog in there and they were eyeing the

[1:05:22] benches and they were saying, I think we should try

[1:05:25] one. So I'm happy about that. Thank you for that

[1:05:29] answer. Okay, any further questions? Seeing none. Thank you for

[1:05:35] coming forward this evening. Thank you. Next deputation, please? Chair.

[1:05:40] We received correspondence from David Barrow again requesting an opportunity

[1:05:44] to come. Forward. We welcome David to come forward. Welcome,

[1:05:49] sir. Thank you. You'll have ten minutes and we'll go

[1:05:52] to questions if you're talking on the same topic and

[1:05:56] you want to just kind of briefly agree with what

[1:05:59] they've said. That's an option as well, but I'll leave

[1:06:02] that. Up to you. So your microphone is on, and

[1:06:11] the floor is yours. Thank you. My name is Dave

[1:06:14] Barrow. I'm here to represent the people in Grandview on

[1:06:19] the Woodside park yet. I didn't see it on the

[1:06:22] agenda listed as that, but I assume that we're here

[1:06:25] to speak about. I attended a quickly arranged neighborhood gathering

[1:06:29] at the parquet. Of approximately 50 residents. I agreed, along

[1:06:37] with Kevin Green, who is here tonight to speak on

[1:06:40] their behalf to stop the sale of the park. This

[1:06:42] meeting was attended by a 50 50 mix of long

[1:06:45] term residents living near the parquet for over 25 years.

[1:06:50] And new family residents. My wife and I, with our

[1:06:53] two young children, first moved into grandio back in the

[1:06:56] mid 80s, it was our second home as we climbed

[1:06:59] the real estate ladder. And shortly after, we had a

[1:07:03] third child. And we remained in that home for over

[1:07:06] eight years. We enjoyed the area with the school options,

[1:07:09] the amenities to Grandview Mall and the wonderful mix of

[1:07:12] neighbors. At this time, the residential mix was about 25%

[1:07:19] new families, the balance being original owners from the 60s.

[1:07:24] While living in ground view. Like many home new home

[1:07:27] buyers, we did substantial renovations and additions. My wife and

[1:07:31] I enjoy renovating and building, and eventually moved on to

[1:07:34] build two more homes in Parkdale and. The second redevelopment

[1:07:39] of a property in Oliver Road. Our family was grown,

[1:07:43] we decided to retire and dollar size we first choice

[1:07:47] after living in various parts of the city was to

[1:07:50] move back to Grandview. In September of 2022, we purchased

[1:07:54] our current home on 158 Hogarth. As we got reacquainted

[1:07:58] with the neighborhood. I noticed the woodside par. Park yet.

[1:08:02] I saw a lumpy grass lot that was underutilized. To

[1:08:07] build a developer and me thought, I wonder if I

[1:08:09] could buy this lot. I could build a retirement home

[1:08:13] for my wife and I. A few days later. We

[1:08:18] received a letter from the neighborhood indicating an invitation to

[1:08:23] meet at the park. So I went to attend for

[1:08:28] curiosity, to see what was the conversation going on. At

[1:08:34] the meeting, I heard numerous ideas. Of things to do

[1:08:41] at the park. There was about a 50 50 mix.

[1:08:46] Of original residents and new families. The original demographics. Of

[1:08:53] the older couples there talked about raising their families. And

[1:08:58] enjoying the park. And it had amenities on it over

[1:09:01] the years. The amenities? Slowly disappeared as they became unmaintained

[1:09:07] and were abandoned basically by the city and were removed.

[1:09:12] One of the parks down the street from us on

[1:09:15] Hookarth was redeveloped into a small, younger person park. The

[1:09:20] other one, Woodside, was left basically abandoned. Demographics in the

[1:09:25] Grandview area changing if I count ten homes around my

[1:09:29] home. Approximately 50% are original residents in their. The other

[1:09:38] 50% are new families with young children or early teens.

[1:09:43] If you apply the demographics to the entire subdivision, it

[1:09:46] would be conservative to suggest 40% of the homes in

[1:09:49] the area. Will change hands in the next five to

[1:09:51] ten years. This will bring hundreds of new families and

[1:09:55] millions of dollars in renovating, spending. Grandview area is not

[1:09:59] a sleepy retirement subdivision. Woodside Firecat is not underutilized it

[1:10:05] is underdeveloped. Grandview is a lively, growing neighborhood with new

[1:10:09] families and with many more to come. The city has

[1:10:12] done well in developing and promoting high rise rental development

[1:10:16] throughout the city. In my work as a financial advisor.

[1:10:20] Many seniors I worked with spoke of being stuck in

[1:10:23] their family homes as there was nowhere suitable and affordable

[1:10:27] for them to move. As the city continues to encourage

[1:10:30] development, high rise multiples. This will free up hundreds of

[1:10:34] homes. In the Grandview area and greatly help the current

[1:10:37] housing challenges. If the Grandview subdivision was being built today,

[1:10:42] it would have a city and province mandate to provide

[1:10:44] park land within it is a large subdivision. It is

[1:10:47] not a small one, so. It would have the 5%

[1:10:50] land. Dedicated to parkland. To remove parkland from Grand View

[1:10:55] subdivision is wrong. It does not make any sense. I

[1:10:59] was uninformed when I first looked at that lot and

[1:11:03] had dreams of perhaps buying it and building on it

[1:11:05] now that I saw. The history design with the land.

[1:11:12] And the need in the area and the changing demographics.

[1:11:15] I've changed my thoughts. I want to rescind my letter

[1:11:18] of support that I sent in, and I think. It's.

[1:11:22] Short cited to. Sell public land or parkland. Woodside Parquet

[1:11:29] needs to remain and be redeveloped. Our ask today is

[1:11:35] that council delayed the decision on the future of the

[1:11:37] park at for six. Months. This will allow the resident's

[1:11:41] time to meet, assess the needs of the neighborhood, and

[1:11:44] format a plan for a presentation back to city council.

[1:11:48] We believe that with minimum capital and maintenance, cost. The

[1:11:52] parquet would be well served and unmasked to the Grand

[1:11:55] View area. To summarize we request a motion that council

[1:11:58] delay the proposed sale that was site part set for.

[1:12:01] Six months. Thank you. Thank you very much for your

[1:12:05] deputation. Go to questions, Councilor Zizino. Thank you, chair. What's

[1:12:13] your vision for the parquet? Well, we have the one

[1:12:17] park that in the area. Is really a very juvenile

[1:12:20] park. It's designed for probably children up to eight, six.

[1:12:25] So what we see in the neighborhood are lots of

[1:12:28] basketball hoops being pushed out to the street and kids

[1:12:32] playing on the street. Young teens, early teens. So. I

[1:12:37] would think one of the avenues that we would explore

[1:12:40] would be to turn that parquet into a young teen

[1:12:42] parquet, basically, where they would have a space to gather.

[1:12:46] A small basketball court or half court type of thing.

[1:12:51] A small structure to sit under and get out of

[1:12:52] the sun or the rain. And just to congregate, basically.

[1:12:55] So, nothing extravagant? Nothing of $100,000 playground or something? It

[1:13:01] basically just needs to remain a park and a place

[1:13:03] for teens to gather. I think would be one of

[1:13:05] the avenues that we would explore. Okay. Thank you. One

[1:13:09] other question. What are your thoughts on a community garden?

[1:13:15] Certainly. I listen to the details, my concern would be

[1:13:21] the maintenance of it. And the long term appearance of

[1:13:26] the garden. What I've seen around the city, some have.

[1:13:29] Done very well at keeping their volunteer base and maintaining

[1:13:32] them. Others, not so much. So that would be. My

[1:13:35] question is, who's going to maintain it? And what assurances

[1:13:38] are going to be there for so, like, a mixed

[1:13:40] use, perhaps. It doesn't mean that that couldn't be incorporated

[1:13:45] into a teen park or something. Like this. Okay, well,

[1:13:48] thank you very much. Councilor. Thank you. Through the chair.

[1:13:54] According to the information we have, and I kind of

[1:13:56] know the area, a bit. Within a 400 meters radius.

[1:13:59] We have Junott park, which is a very big park.

[1:14:02] Grab you park Holgarth parquet and hinton Parquet. Do you

[1:14:08] see an excess of parquets and parks in this area?

[1:14:12] That's one of the pieces that we look at is

[1:14:14] the number. Again, I think if you go back to

[1:14:17] the 5% of the size of the subdivision, we are

[1:14:20] underserved. By parks, basically. The Hinton parquet has again, nothing

[1:14:26] really on it. It has an old rusting structure. On

[1:14:28] it. The Hinton. The Hogarth parquet is the juvenile park,

[1:14:35] so fits for a very small group of people very

[1:14:38] actively used lots of families down there with young children,

[1:14:41] but is not conducive to young teens and whatnot. The

[1:14:45] Junot barquette is quite a distance. Away and there's conversations

[1:14:50] and. Concerns of safety there. There have been incidents there,

[1:14:54] and people are reluctant to let their children go. Off

[1:14:57] by themselves to that park. Okay. Thank you for that.

[1:15:02] The information that we have on this parquet as well

[1:15:05] is concerns about multi residential housing. Would you like to

[1:15:08] comment to that? I think that's one of the things

[1:15:11] that. What I'm here tonight is no one has much

[1:15:15] information on what is being proposed, so. Then you get

[1:15:18] all this hypothetical talks and all that. In my letter

[1:15:21] that I had supported the sale of the park. It

[1:15:24] was specific that it would be a single family home.

[1:15:27] But now I think it's much more valuable as a

[1:15:31] park, at least to become a city that we are

[1:15:34] giving up on Parkland is a bad direction. I watched

[1:15:38] an article last night on tv about great parks and

[1:15:41] city and the redevelopments of urban spaces and whatnot. So

[1:15:44] I find it totally out of whack that we're considering

[1:15:47] selling Parkland. Thank you. Thank you for that. Seeing no

[1:15:51] further questions. Thank you for coming forward this evening. Thank

[1:15:54] you. Appreciate it. Next deputation. Please. Thank you. Chair. The

[1:15:59] next reputation. We received correspondence from Kevin Green. This was

[1:16:03] dated June 20, requesting to appear before committee.

[1:16:13] Welcome. Well, we asked that your microphone beyond if you're

[1:16:16] speaking. And maybe turn it off if you're not speaking

[1:16:20] and you'll have ten minutes. And we'll go to questions.

[1:16:24] Thank you. I want to thank everybody. For taking the

[1:16:28] time and all the support we have. In the gallery

[1:16:31] today. So I won't take up too much of your

[1:16:34] time, because. We're dave barrow. And our group have come

[1:16:42] together. And are asking. For a six month delay in

[1:16:48] the decision about Woodside park for the same reason. So

[1:16:53] we can have a chance to come together as a

[1:16:55] neighborhood to look at it. We had said the surplus

[1:17:01] land in Thunder Bay is a treasured resource, and it's

[1:17:03] of a vital importance to our community. And the mental

[1:17:08] and physical well being of our children. We strongly urge

[1:17:12] City of Thunder Bay Council to defer the vote on

[1:17:15] selling off this precious surplus land. The opportunity to use

[1:17:20] this land for public amenities should not be lost. We

[1:17:24] call upon our municipal leaders to proprietary long term benefits.

[1:17:29] For our children over short term fiscal gains. Let's please

[1:17:34] take a moment to reassess the potential benefits and implications

[1:17:37] and involve our neighborhood more broadly in a decision making

[1:17:41] process. I. Have about approximately 150 names on a petition

[1:17:47] here. That support. This delay in a decision. We know

[1:17:56] that there's close by parks. But. There's so many benefits

[1:18:02] to leaving it even as a green space for the

[1:18:05] amount of families that have moved into our neighborhood. Similar

[1:18:10] to. What our first gentleman spoke today. And with Ron

[1:18:15] Fort Lance and Dave Barrow, same thing. Our neighborhood has

[1:18:20] gone through. My wife and I have been there for

[1:18:24] 24 years now. We moved back from the states. On

[1:18:29] a work assignment, and I came back, and we really

[1:18:32] wanted to live in Grandview because. Of its reputation of

[1:18:36] being a great neighborhood and a great place to raise

[1:18:39] kids. And we've done that successfully, but now. Their kids.

[1:18:45] Want somewhere to play? They're coming back to the community

[1:18:50] and a lot around us. Pat Slavensky, my neighbor. We

[1:18:57] bracket the lot on each side, so we're always watching

[1:19:00] what happens in the park. And that's the big thing.

[1:19:04] Is. The eyes on the park. That the adults around

[1:19:11] the park can give is tremendous. So we used to

[1:19:17] have a rocket ship there that was taken away some

[1:19:20] years ago, but. It was in a state of disrepair.

[1:19:25] And I've rescued more than one kid out of the

[1:19:28] ball of the rocket ship. And because I'm looking, doing

[1:19:32] dishes out my window. Of course, there's many things. I

[1:19:42] can quote. I've got. Four citations that I've learned about

[1:19:48] today. But. What was said by the first three deputies

[1:19:55] here. Is very similar to what. We want. The reason

[1:20:03] we want the delay is that we came together as

[1:20:06] a community. One of the first times that we've all

[1:20:10] been together and we realized how many actual kids there

[1:20:13] are in this neighborhood. Now, we had thought that there

[1:20:16] was a lot of retirees. But there's more kids than

[1:20:20] there is retirees now, so it's fantastic. And. Kenzie Belial,

[1:20:30] who's in the gallery here today, he had recommended. To

[1:20:34] have a community garden. In this lot and. It's a

[1:20:42] great idea. It's something that we need to investigate as

[1:20:46] a community. As a neighborhood. That's what we want, and

[1:20:49] that's what we're requesting. From council. That concludes your deputation.

[1:20:55] Yes. Okay. Thank you. Please. My name is Pat Zelensky.

[1:21:03] I was born in the neighborhood. I grew up there

[1:21:05] as a kid. We use the tot lot every day

[1:21:08] because it was the meeting place after supper. Or in

[1:21:11] the morning. And we played baseball there, soccer there, hockey

[1:21:15] and winter on the little rink. They poured that all

[1:21:18] kind of went away when they took down the. Rocket

[1:21:21] ship with the promise of new equipment. That was over

[1:21:25] 20 years ago. And it never materialized. Then they came

[1:21:28] up with the parquet name and. Hurley landscaped a little

[1:21:33] bowl to put a rink in, but it sloped to

[1:21:35] one side most of the water drained out. It would

[1:21:37] take all winter to fill it up. To have an

[1:21:39] actual rink. There was no benches or anything very poorly

[1:21:43] set up for kids to actually go skating. There, so

[1:21:46] it was very underutilized as a ring. But we need

[1:21:51] time to figure out and maybe lobby to get a

[1:21:54] basketball court. Not only would the teenagers be able to

[1:21:57] use it? Us older people who would be able to

[1:22:00] go and shoot some hoops and get some exercise. It

[1:22:03] would be good for a lot of classes. But the

[1:22:07] sale of this 5%, and it's r 5% for our

[1:22:11] neighborhood that. Was set aside when gateway built our development.

[1:22:15] I believe in 65, 64, they set aside 5%. So

[1:22:20] now you have to make a decision on getting rid

[1:22:22] of the 5%. Now, wait a minute. That was mandated

[1:22:26] back then, it's still mandated today. How can you justify

[1:22:30] selling it? When you require the developers to set aside

[1:22:35] 5% today. Where's my 5% for my neighborhood? Right now?

[1:22:40] You say it's the park? Down the street. Well, no,

[1:22:42] that's their 5%. So I find a hard time. You

[1:22:47] have to make a decision either way. But how you

[1:22:49] would decide to get rid of my 5%. When you

[1:22:53] demand the developers today to set aside 5%, so can

[1:22:57] they ignore your rule? I think you guys should be

[1:23:01] following your rules before you make a decision. That's all

[1:23:04] I got to say. Thank you. Thank you very much

[1:23:07] for coming forward. We'll see if there's questions from council

[1:23:10] or, I believe councilor Aguilar. Has one. Thank you very

[1:23:15] much. And through the chair. Mr. Green, you made a

[1:23:18] comment? That this was one of the first times in

[1:23:22] a while that you've got that whole community together. And

[1:23:26] you got to see how many kids and how many

[1:23:27] adults. Did you find? If we go back to 2019,

[1:23:34] that you saw more people? There's a big gap in

[1:23:37] between here with Covid-19. Do you find that you've got

[1:23:42] that opportunity now everyone's kind of going, wait. What did

[1:23:45] we have before and what do we have? What can

[1:23:47] we bring back? Yes. Thanks for the question. The park

[1:23:57] has always been used on a steady basis by a

[1:24:02] lot of people, a lot of kids, a lot of

[1:24:04] adults. They'll take their dogs there just to let the

[1:24:07] dog run. Around. On a long leash, mind you.

[1:24:18] The park is not really for one thing. It's for

[1:24:20] multitude of things. But when this happened, We had a

[1:24:27] flyer go around. We had people. Putting pieces of paper.

[1:24:32] In our mailboxes. We'd like to get together as a

[1:24:34] meeting, and we all got together as a neighborhood, which

[1:24:38] was fantastic because. We never did that before. So I

[1:24:43] have to thank this process for getting me to learn

[1:24:47] about my neighbors a little bit. More than I had.

[1:24:50] So. I don't see much difference as it is today.

[1:24:54] As in 2019, per your question. But. It's a constant

[1:25:01] thing. On a Tuesday, it's empty. But the next Tuesday,

[1:25:04] there could be five people in the park. Ten people

[1:25:07] I don't know. I hope that answers your question. Sort

[1:25:12] of, but not fully through the chair. What I was

[1:25:15] asking is. When we have developments, we look at neighborhoods

[1:25:19] and community building. This opportunity created, was it an opportunity

[1:25:24] to create community building, as you mentioned? Your community got

[1:25:29] together. Right to work together. We lost a lot of

[1:25:34] that due to Covid. Do you find it was very

[1:25:41] beneficial to your community? Very much so. Because what we

[1:25:48] see. In the last five years. Maybe three to five

[1:25:52] years. That a lot of families with young children. Three

[1:25:57] or younger have moved into this neighborhood. And because they

[1:26:03] run their family lives and everything else, we don't get

[1:26:05] to see them. Very much. But we got to see

[1:26:09] them in the last two weeks. And they came out

[1:26:13] and. We were all happy to see them. But we

[1:26:18] see that now because. Of this process. But. In 2019.

[1:26:26] It was a little different because there wasn't as many

[1:26:29] young families as there is today. Thank you very much.

[1:26:34] Thank you. Councilor Hamilton. Yeah. Thank you, chair. Well, thanks

[1:26:39] for being here. For sure. It's like takes a bit

[1:26:43] out of your schedule to come and talk to council,

[1:26:45] and I appreciate all the deputations. There's no question about

[1:26:50] the value of the park. But the reason why we're

[1:26:52] here tonight is because of housing, really, ultimately, and housing

[1:26:56] goals. And I'm just wondering if you can just elaborate

[1:26:58] on your experience with the housing crisis and maybe some

[1:27:01] of your struggles in attaining housing. Housing for yourself and

[1:27:06] your family right now. Well. My wife and I moved

[1:27:14] from Ohio back to Thunder Bay. In 2020. Sorry. 2000.

[1:27:22] When we did that. It was sort of difficult to

[1:27:28] find a home. But we really wanted Grandview because of

[1:27:33] its reputation. Today it's a bit different. The housing prices

[1:27:41] have skyrocketed. To buy a used home and to retrofit

[1:27:45] that home. Is even at times more expensive, depending on

[1:27:49] what you need to do. So I'm not sure I'm

[1:27:53] really answering your question. But. The mere fact that. Every

[1:28:00] dollar that we make is stretch so far. Then. Everyone

[1:28:05] at the park for the last two meetings that we've

[1:28:08] had. They all understand why. The city wants to do

[1:28:11] this, and as I do. We understand that we need

[1:28:16] housing. We need more roofs over people's heads. That's the

[1:28:23] reason we're asking for six months. So we can do

[1:28:28] a little bit more homework and some of your homework

[1:28:31] to go and look. At other places. Where these places.

[1:28:37] Could exist for these homes. Okay, I appreciate that answer.

[1:28:42] And through you, chair. I hate to be at peeping

[1:28:44] Tom, but. I'm looking actually on Google Earth and. There

[1:28:48] is a lot of green space aside from. Just in

[1:28:51] people's yards, naturally, and I'm just wondering. What transpires, and

[1:28:56] I honestly, I feel, like, pretty bad. But there's gardens

[1:28:58] there's. Play sets. There's all kinds of amenities in people's

[1:29:01] own yards. So I guess there's no question it's just

[1:29:07] like. There's no question. Can we get to one? There

[1:29:13] does seems to be an abundance of amenities in people's

[1:29:15] personal yards currently. I think as a community, we pride

[1:29:20] ourselves on green space. And people not. Putting giant garages

[1:29:26] in their back of their yard. That there's green space

[1:29:29] for kids to play and come and go. I don't

[1:29:33] know. How many seating that I did in my backyard

[1:29:39] because my kids were always running over by grass. Which

[1:29:42] is fine. But the fact is that my home, I

[1:29:47] don't have a sump pump. And what does that mean?

[1:29:52] What does. So what it means is that the green

[1:29:55] space around homes. As well as that taut lot. Next

[1:30:01] to 166 wood site. It absorbs a lot of water.

[1:30:07] It's green. The grass grows, the dandelions go. And convert

[1:30:12] our nice lawns into a lot of weeds, which is

[1:30:15] fine. But I don't own sump pump, and I've never

[1:30:20] had a flood in. My home. And a lot of

[1:30:23] people can't say that because. In your densification of homes

[1:30:28] and roofs. Over. A space. The green space has to

[1:30:35] absorb. That water. And in our neighborhood it does. And

[1:30:41] I don't own a sump, so I'm. Pretty proud of

[1:30:43] that. Thank you. Further questions of the deputy? Seeing none.

[1:30:50] Thank you both for coming forward tonight. Thank you. And

[1:30:55] we'll go to our next deputation. Thank you. Chair. Our

[1:30:58] next deputy. We received correspondence from KeviN ManN requesting to

[1:31:02] peer this evening. So if deputy man is here,

[1:31:13] It was. Oh, I'm sorry. It's a written deputation. My

[1:31:16] apologies. So. Your counsel has received the written deputation. So

[1:31:22] there is no one here this evening to present. Okay.

[1:31:27] That concludes our deputations. Chair. So we would now, due

[1:31:30] to the change of the order, and the agenda, we

[1:31:32] would be moving to item 8.7. We? Questions of administration.

[1:31:37] Prior councilor Gurtuga, you were first on the list. Thank

[1:31:42] you. Through you, Mr. Chair. How many? Vacant lots. Do

[1:31:46] we have buildable lots in the city? Through subdivision? And.

[1:31:51] Lots. We do not have a figure of the specific

[1:31:55] number of vacant lots that are. In the city. There's

[1:32:05] the housing study that was recently presented to council suggest

[1:32:09] that. There is a good amount of supply. For intensification

[1:32:16] over time. We do not have figure for how many

[1:32:18] vacant properties there are. Right now. Okay. Properties or how

[1:32:24] many new houses would the sale of these three parks

[1:32:28] generate? Through the chair. It does depend somewhat on how

[1:32:37] the proposals that we receive in for specific lots but

[1:32:40] for the eight presented, the total was estimated at about

[1:32:43] 45 units. And eyeballing the three brought forward. I would

[1:32:47] say between. 15 and 20, depending on. Okay, so that's

[1:32:55] multi, that's more, that's not single detached. That's fourplex is

[1:32:59] six plexus, perhaps eight plexus. Going on these units? On

[1:33:04] these lots not necessarily conducive to. The current. Atmosphere or

[1:33:11] the current. Look there of that street. Last question. I

[1:33:18] counted on Thornbow. 84 houses and Stratton. Which is in

[1:33:23] between. Thorn low in the middle is over 30, so

[1:33:26] that's. 114 houses, and we heard that. The next green

[1:33:34] space is 1.2 km as a crow flies. So just

[1:33:39] looking. I have it pulled up here as well. It

[1:33:42] looks like this thornlow, at least, is servicing probably 500

[1:33:47] households. Is that correct? I guess that's not fair because

[1:33:52] you don't have a map in front of you. But

[1:33:53] anyways, I've counted over 84 outdoor and 30 on trashet,

[1:33:58] and we heard from. Manager. Sure as manager shore. I

[1:34:06] think it's a magic shore. That we wouldn't pretend. Units,

[1:34:11] but in a new subdivision. But I'm sure in a

[1:34:13] new subdivision. Of over 100 units, we'd have at least

[1:34:17] a little park space for them to this. Date. Through

[1:34:21] the chair. If it's proper, solicit to the clerk. We

[1:34:29] can share maps. That show. The buffer that surrounds existing

[1:34:34] parkland and how it affects these properties. Anyway. I just

[1:34:40] did the math here quickly, and from what Mr. Schwartz

[1:34:43] said earlier, that it sounds like a subdivision of this

[1:34:47] magnitude. Hundreds of houses in the area. Would at least

[1:34:51] have a little parquet or green space. The service objective

[1:34:55] that was applied to identify these lands for a potential

[1:34:59] surplus was that. Most residents be serviced within 400 meters

[1:35:08] of parkland. So we do have maps available that show

[1:35:14] how that objective is met, if that's helpful. To council.

[1:35:17] Okay. We heard 1.2 km today from the deputation anyways.

[1:35:24] Later on, I won't support. Selling these slots. Thank you.

[1:35:29] Councilor Trini. Thank you. Through the chair, we've heard language

[1:35:33] like untouchable. Areas. How did administration pick the surplus lands?

[1:35:39] The 40 surplus lands that will be coming forward. Through

[1:35:44] the chair, a multidisciplinary team was established to review city

[1:35:48] owned land. It certainly wasn't an exhaustive search, but we

[1:35:51] paid close attention to vacant lands. Parking lots and parkland

[1:35:58] as directed by council last year. In that review, we

[1:36:03] primarily looked. For infill lots, meaning lots on existing servicing

[1:36:07] and existing neighborhoods that could support housing. And we compiled

[1:36:12] that list and brought it into three categories for council.

[1:36:17] So that list is comprised of city owned land, vacant

[1:36:19] land and parkland, and we separated those. As I said,

[1:36:22] into three categories, the ones that were most easily brought

[1:36:25] to market for the purpose of housing and then others

[1:36:27] that required a little bit of work to get them

[1:36:29] to market and others that were the long term plan.

[1:36:32] And the ones recommended. The eight brought to council on

[1:36:35] June 3 are among the first lists the ones that

[1:36:37] are most easily brought to market to support housing. Thank

[1:36:41] you for that whole summer. Sorry. If I could just

[1:36:42] add. I just want to do a point. To clarify

[1:36:45] something earlier. Just the eight properties that we're talking about

[1:36:49] today. They could accommodate up to six units. Not eight.

[1:36:53] Up to six. Thank you for clarifying that. My next

[1:36:59] question. Could the money from the thorn little parquet sale

[1:37:02] be used to fix the thornlow park to make it

[1:37:04] flat and more even, so that it was more of

[1:37:06] a usable park. As mentioned by one of the deputies.

[1:37:10] Yes. We'll refer this question to supervisor Shore. Who's online.

[1:37:15] Through the chair. I would have to look at that

[1:37:22] closer, but that would be a possibility, yes. And I

[1:37:26] may also point out that. There is existing field space

[1:37:31] between. The existing houses on Thornle and the Neebing river.

[1:37:35] There is quite a bit of open green space to

[1:37:38] play. In close proximity to that area as well. So

[1:37:44] that would be looked at at the same time. Thank

[1:37:46] you. That's what I saw as well. Thank you for

[1:37:49] those answers. Mayor Boshkoff. Thank you, chair at one time.

[1:37:58] Thunder Bay was rated number one for a percentage of

[1:38:01] parks and parkland in Canada. Out of 5200 municipalities. Where

[1:38:09] are we now? With our ratio. Of parks. To population.

[1:38:17] We had. Supervisor Shore has this information. Yes. So it

[1:38:22] depends on. What type of park land in the 2017.

[1:38:31] Yardstick study. That was the last benchmarking we participated in.

[1:38:38] We were second in terms of overall parkland. And. They

[1:38:44] divided out into overall Parkland, and then. Into maintained parkland.

[1:38:49] So we were somewhat lower on the list on that.

[1:38:51] And I can't. Remember the exact number on that. I

[1:38:56] believe. Remember that the average parkland per thousand was 3.5

[1:39:00] and in maintain parkland. We were at 2.8. Sorry, could

[1:39:07] you elaborate on that? 2.8 versus 3.5. Again, a little

[1:39:11] bit clear. Because we just had a bit of. Noise?

[1:39:16] Sure. So, through the chair. The benchmark study divided the

[1:39:21] parkland into overall parkland and into maintained parkland. So. That

[1:39:26] would be more what people would consider active Parkland, where

[1:39:29] it's either mode or there's infrastructure on it. And the

[1:39:33] average. Of the municipalities that participated in the study. Was

[1:39:38] 3.8. Population. Our number at that time was 2.8. Population.

[1:39:49] We're not sufficient in terms of. So what is the

[1:39:57] difference? That. Puts us 0.7 behind or below average is

[1:40:03] what I'm getting at. Yes. So that does not mean.

[1:40:07] We're in physician and Parkland, it means that slightly less

[1:40:11] than the average of the participants. In actively maintain parkland.

[1:40:18] Thank you very much. Councilor chunk. Thank you. Chair. Chair.

[1:40:25] What I would like to know. I know this came

[1:40:28] forward. As a way to find these lands for infill.

[1:40:35] But I am quite concerned that. The parquets and parks

[1:40:40] are quite well loved and well used. This has come,

[1:40:43] I think, on every term of my council, these parquettes,

[1:40:46] and each time. It's been turned down. I don't see

[1:40:49] the appetite changing in the community. But what I would

[1:40:51] like to know chair is. Where's the list of serviceable

[1:40:54] lens that are not parquet and when? Can we expect

[1:40:57] that to come to council? Because I think in my

[1:40:59] mind, This is too soon to bring this forward. We

[1:41:04] just had struck the mayor's task force for the housing

[1:41:08] advisory. I'd like to see what their opinion is. Because

[1:41:12] maybe these lands aren't really what they're. Looking to develop.

[1:41:16] So, like, some commentary on that? I'd be interested in

[1:41:19] other lands that might be equally. Controversial, but not necessarily

[1:41:23] parks. Chair.

[1:41:34] Through the chair administration of its green council, a range

[1:41:37] of. Plans for potential. For potential surplus. This group of

[1:41:45] properties that we're discussing now is the second batch of

[1:41:49] property. So. The first batch of properties. Did not include

[1:41:56] park land and were street ends. So I think we've

[1:41:59] gone through, we have gotten through most of the lands

[1:42:02] that are not arc land in terms of numbers. And

[1:42:06] just prior to passing over to manager Walker to provide

[1:42:09] some additional detail to that answer. The merits task force.

[1:42:15] Did discuss this issue and pass the resolution supporting. The

[1:42:20] recommending to council that all eight properties be surplused. Over

[1:42:26] to manager Walker. Thank you. Through the chair. In addition

[1:42:30] to what director deputy had suggested, We did bring ten

[1:42:35] properties that were not parkland to council in February. We

[1:42:38] are working, diligently. To bring those to market. In fact,

[1:42:40] I believe the bylaws closing those street ends. The majority

[1:42:44] of those properties are street ends. Closing those street lands

[1:42:46] will be before council. This evening and. We are very

[1:42:51] close to finalizing our agreement framework and scoring matrix to

[1:42:54] receive proposals on those properties. These parquets, as well as

[1:43:00] the other lands brought forward on that list of eight

[1:43:01] in our second batch. And I believe there's one or

[1:43:05] two that are in addition to that. We're all in

[1:43:11] the schedule a properties presented to council in the fall.

[1:43:15] And those, again, were the properties identified as most readily

[1:43:19] available to bring to market. All things considered. Being the

[1:43:22] servicing. Park service objectives. And those were included in our

[1:43:28] review. There are additional properties on the schedule B list

[1:43:32] which we've been working through as well. To work out

[1:43:36] some of the issues with those properties. A few of

[1:43:38] those. Are not classified as any type of green space,

[1:43:42] but many of them are. Chair. I guess my concern

[1:43:46] is that. Well, I appreciate that. These lots take time

[1:43:52] to parcel together and bring to council, but I feel

[1:43:56] like we are doing this in sections, and I really

[1:43:59] don't know. What the future lists are going to look

[1:44:02] like. Is there a big plot of land that might

[1:44:05] be treed, for example. That can satisfy our building requirements.

[1:44:12] I don't know this, and right now. I don't really

[1:44:15] think it's fair for me to sell off the Parklands.

[1:44:22] In these smaller subdivisions that are well loved and well

[1:44:24] used. Because I really don't know. I mean, the question

[1:44:27] was asked earlier, how many lots we have in Thunder

[1:44:30] bay. And, well, a member of administration sent an email

[1:44:34] saying there was 700 tonight. The answer. Is there could

[1:44:38] be a number of them. So I'm really confused how

[1:44:42] much property we actually have. I want to see a

[1:44:45] full list. I don't want to be having a big

[1:44:48] fight with constituents each time. And I'd rather see it

[1:44:52] prioritized. And I'm sorry if it actually. Exists, and I'm

[1:44:55] just not seeing it. But. I would rather see a

[1:44:59] big list. And I get why administration is piecing it

[1:45:02] out like this. But I just don't see it. Chair.

[1:45:05] So I won't be supporting selling off. The parks and

[1:45:08] parklands. Although I understand the value. And I think we

[1:45:15] can meet our target goals with the numbers that have

[1:45:18] already been told. So. Thank you, chair. Councilor Pascalino. Thank

[1:45:25] you very much. And through the chair, my question is.

[1:45:31] That. It appears to me that. Green space. Has become.

[1:45:38] Less important. Like. These spaces that they were talking about.

[1:45:42] The 5% was back in 1955 to 1972. Those are

[1:45:46] the dates that were brought up over at the time.

[1:45:50] Why does it seem to be less important? I mean,

[1:45:53] I lived through, well, most of those years. I was

[1:45:57] born in 58. I remember burning barrels in the backyard.

[1:46:02] Cars had big engines. They weren't an environmentally friendly time.

[1:46:06] In the times between 1955 and 1972. Why is it

[1:46:11] with all the environmental things that we're doing, we're going

[1:46:14] to zero net and all these other things. That now.

[1:46:20] This. Things that have been there forever. Are being considered

[1:46:24] for sale. You have to realize, every one of these

[1:46:26] mayors represented a city council. That's since 1970. And nobody

[1:46:32] decided at that time that these parks would come up

[1:46:35] for sale. Chair. I'd like to jump in here and

[1:46:40] director to Pewter may want to respond. Directly to councilor

[1:46:45] Pascalino, but I'm going to make some general comments, and

[1:46:47] I hope you'll find helpful. And also in response to

[1:46:50] councilor Chung and other discussion that's been happening around the

[1:46:53] table just to bring us back a bit. You've made

[1:46:58] this decision already. You've decided to sell these surplus lands

[1:47:02] now. Councilor. Bentz. The chair said it nicely. There's a

[1:47:05] process here, and when it goes to council, you are

[1:47:08] absolutely able to reconserve that decision. But recall that you've

[1:47:12] already made this decision and you've already had significant debate.

[1:47:16] On this matter. The decision was based. To surplus these

[1:47:21] lands, including the Parklands. Are directly consistent with your strategic

[1:47:27] plan. And several other strategies and plans that have already

[1:47:31] been adopted by council, including getting more homes in our

[1:47:36] city. These strategic goals include the planning and delivery of

[1:47:41] cost effective services supporting urban density and growth, and responding

[1:47:46] to climate emergency. Chair. What I want committee to know

[1:47:51] is that. You have already directed us to do this.

[1:47:55] You've debated these matters already. The priority of the Surplus

[1:48:00] Lands Review was a financial benefit to the corporation. You

[1:48:04] gave us direction. You expect results? The next round of

[1:48:10] lands that are coming are more difficult than this round.

[1:48:16] It will be tougher for you to make these decisions

[1:48:18] downstream. The decision you make today in council later tonight

[1:48:24] is very important and will affect how we move. Forward

[1:48:27] on these matters. This decision will impact progress towards housing

[1:48:34] targets. Council, you have administration's advice. And that advice? Is

[1:48:39] consistent with direction that you've given to us, specifically through

[1:48:42] resolution and through strategic plans. And the housing accelerator planning

[1:48:47] and the mayor's task force on housing. I look to

[1:48:50] director to pewter chair through. You, if that's okay. If

[1:48:52] he wishes to make any further comments. To add some

[1:48:57] additional detail. To. The direction that's been given through the

[1:49:03] surplus process. So council did initially receive a list of

[1:49:08] all 40 properties that. Were being considered for surplus. That

[1:49:13] list was considered in closed session. It participated in separating

[1:49:20] these properties into batches and directed that we bring the

[1:49:24] schedule a lands. Which these are included first, prior to

[1:49:29] some of these larger properties that are more complicated. And

[1:49:33] require more time and work. To unlock lands for housing

[1:49:37] is a fundamental pillar of the housing accelerator strategy to

[1:49:42] make lands available. For housing each year during this very

[1:49:46] compressed window between 2024 and 2027. So there was an

[1:49:55] open session component as well. All 40 properties were not

[1:49:59] listed to the public. However, there was a process memo

[1:50:02] that did go to open session and reiterated this approach.

[1:50:06] That council had directed that these properties be brought forward

[1:50:09] in batches, largely based on complexity and time to market.

[1:50:14] So we hear from the development community. We hear enthusiasm.

[1:50:19] We also hear that. It is difficult to find these

[1:50:24] infill properties that can support. More dense housing, and for

[1:50:30] that reason, these properties are a priority. I. Appreciate.

[1:50:40] City manager Norm Gail's answer. He's corrected that. I just

[1:50:45] like to say that. It was the majority of city

[1:50:48] council. Not everyone on city council. So it would be

[1:50:51] fair. I guess that question could be shut back to

[1:50:55] city council itself. Thank you. Councilor hamilton. Yeah. Thank you,

[1:51:02] chair Benz. So I guess a question for manager Schwar.

[1:51:07] How did the park gets in question because there's other

[1:51:10] park ets throughout the city that are not on the

[1:51:12] list? How do the ones in question end up on

[1:51:15] the list? And how did we evaluate. Why they're there.

[1:51:21] We looked at it in different ways. So the first

[1:51:24] one was that in general, There were other park facilities

[1:51:31] in the neighborhood. It doesn't always work quite cleanly with

[1:51:36] that 400 meters general guideline. But sometimes it's a bit

[1:51:41] more. Sometimes it's a bit less. And then we also

[1:51:45] looked at what investments we had in the park. So

[1:51:50] if there were. Any hard infrastructure, such as playgrounds, that

[1:51:56] sort of sports fields, court amenities. They were automatically taken

[1:52:00] off the list and things. Like, perhaps, like in the

[1:52:06] case of Holly and Thessal, we're tree planting. What? Had

[1:52:09] taken place. We looked at those, and the opportunity, if

[1:52:13] there was. To transplant those if they would be. If

[1:52:18] it was surplus. So it was more looking at. What

[1:52:22] infrastructure we did or did not have. In the parquet.

[1:52:28] Okay, so thanks for that. And just while the deputies

[1:52:30] are here and there's so many people in the gallery

[1:52:32] and supportive, and I know I'm kind of in the

[1:52:35] hot spot. Right now, and I'm not coming for your

[1:52:37] parks. That's not the case, however. There's a lot on

[1:52:41] the line here. Right. My guess is through you, chair

[1:52:44] is that. A lot of people own homes. They're not

[1:52:48] aware of the housing crisis, so it affects each and

[1:52:50] every one of us differently, and indeed everyone here on

[1:52:52] council. So to that end, I would ask that these

[1:52:56] three years are important. So I just want to ask

[1:52:58] through you, chair, just on. What's on the line? We

[1:53:02] got an allocation of almost $21 million through the half,

[1:53:05] potentially 5 million through the building homes. Faster through the

[1:53:07] province. We have housing targets set. So what's on the

[1:53:12] line financially for the city? It's under bay. If we.

[1:53:15] Fail to reach those targets. So the housing accelerator.

[1:53:25] Agreement includes that should the targets be met in 2017,

[1:53:29] an additional $5 million would be awarded which could be

[1:53:33] used for eligible expenses and offset various cost of various

[1:53:38] projects. Beyond that. The land sale revenue associated with these

[1:53:44] eight properties. Would be approximately $1.5 million. The land sale

[1:53:50] revenue associated with all 40 properties. Would be several million

[1:53:54] dollars. There is an ongoing tax benefit. So with respect

[1:54:00] to these eight properties, that's estimated at $120,000 annually. And

[1:54:05] that would be achieved with the municipality taking on no

[1:54:09] additional costs, no additional. Driven by no additional infrastructure. There

[1:54:15] are also financial benefits to meeting the province's targets. So.

[1:54:25] The amount. Which is approximately $1 million per year in

[1:54:27] funding. Should the city be able to meet those targets.

[1:54:32] Chair. And I do have one more question. I knew

[1:54:35] there was going to be headwinds. It's not easy. This

[1:54:38] has changed. This is definitely swimming against the status quo.

[1:54:42] But I produced this motion anyway in a really thoughtful

[1:54:44] way, given some of the points that we heard now

[1:54:46] about asset management revenue and reaching critical housing targets. That

[1:54:51] may be some accounts, if they own their own homes,

[1:54:53] are not aware of. Acutely, like some of us are.

[1:54:57] My last question through you, chair. Is on what's next

[1:55:02] right for surplus lands, because even some of the deputies

[1:55:04] here, they're very mindful of their parks. These community spaces,

[1:55:10] there's value. I certainly recognize the value. I used to

[1:55:13] live at 647 thistles, my first house. In 1993, I

[1:55:18] think. But anyway, so what is next? Because. If we

[1:55:23] exclude these from the list, they're not coming back. Are

[1:55:26] we going to have to dig deeper into forest lands.

[1:55:28] We're talking a lot about green space. We're talking about?

[1:55:31] Wilderness territory. What's next? You said it's not going to

[1:55:36] be easy. If you could just. Put a finer point

[1:55:38] to that. That might be helpful. All of these lands

[1:55:42] are important to meet the housing target. So many of

[1:55:50] the first. The schedule a properties. Are of smaller scale

[1:55:56] and would support that six unit. Range of development. There

[1:56:03] are additional properties that are coming forward that may support

[1:56:07] multiple. Larger forms of development, however. Our targets are so

[1:56:13] ambitious that it requires all sectors to be running full

[1:56:17] steam. So it is. Different developers that develop these different

[1:56:21] scales of housing, and so we need high performance. Across

[1:56:25] this entire group. In order to meet these very ambitious

[1:56:31] targets that have been set. Okay? If you'll permit me,

[1:56:35] just because the deputies are here, it's my motion that's

[1:56:37] going to affect them. They're not going to be around

[1:56:39] for the debate further. I just want to thank everybody

[1:56:41] for coming. We're here. We're listening, and I hope you

[1:56:44] could appreciate that it's. A complex issue, and we're really

[1:56:48] trying to balance a lot of needs in the community.

[1:56:50] And thank you for being here. I appreciate it. Okay,

[1:56:54] second round, we had Councilor Gertuca to admit. Thank you.

[1:56:57] Just really quickly, I. Just wanted to clarify. The city

[1:57:00] manager said that this was our direction and we debated

[1:57:03] it, but. We debated it and we removed these three,

[1:57:06] so that's why we're here now. So I just wanted

[1:57:07] to clarify that. We had. Councilor Agarwal had wanted to

[1:57:13] speak. Is there anyone wishing to speak prior to her

[1:57:18] return? Mayor Boshkov. I think it must be said, chair.

[1:57:28] That. These decisions before us tonight are probably the easiest

[1:57:34] that we will be presented with. And what we're faced

[1:57:40] with. Is. That? Because it won't affect our percentage of

[1:57:46] being the city with the highest percentage of Parkland. Because

[1:57:50] we still be providing parks and recreation opportunities for the

[1:57:55] areas that. Are directly affected. The opportunity for us to

[1:58:01] use infill. The next set of decisions I could only

[1:58:05] say will be more difficult that we have to face.

[1:58:13] So I would. Think that. I'm as a former environmental

[1:58:20] planner, Convince that these neighborhoods will not be severely impacted

[1:58:28] by neither traffic nor congestion. And that the space occupied.

[1:58:36] Will be of minimal impact to the community. So. If

[1:58:43] it was otherwise, it wouldn't even come close to supporting

[1:58:46] it. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor back to first round.

[1:58:51] Councilor Aguilar Aguwal, you're the last. Speaker at this point.

[1:58:54] Thank you very much. Through the chair. Can you please

[1:58:58] to administration. Can you please remind us what the lot

[1:59:01] size frontage? Of thornel Thistle and Woodside are place. Frontage

[1:59:07] and depth. Through the chair. If I may just have

[1:59:10] one moment. So take a look here. One moment.

[1:59:50] Through the chair. I'm able to provide the total area

[1:59:52] of these lots, but not the frontage and the depth

[1:59:55] collector separately. Sorry. The reason I'm asking for a frontage

[2:00:03] is because frontage will be making. A very big determinant

[2:00:06] on. How many units can be built on? A lot.

[2:00:10] As opposed to. Square meters because a depth is different

[2:00:15] than the frontage. But we build. You're saying, okay, you've

[2:00:19] got ten meter frontage, you got. 30 meters. Frontage, whatever

[2:00:22] it may be, determines the quantity of unit allowable on

[2:00:27] a setting. Lot. Maybe we can get that for city

[2:00:30] council later. When this actually comes up for a decision.

[2:00:35] Okay, then. If I could make a comment here. The

[2:00:37] concern I have is we heard earlier that one of

[2:00:39] the maximum number of units could be built on Thornlow

[2:00:43] would be eight units, approximately. Six units. Was it six

[2:00:48] or eight? What was brought forward there? If I'm not

[2:00:52] mistaken. Through the chair. Six units on one lot if

[2:01:02] it remains one lot, up to potentially eight if it

[2:01:05] were to be split into two. Some of these do

[2:01:07] depend on how we split up the lots, or rather,

[2:01:09] leave them whole. Therefore, the concern that is brought forward

[2:01:13] by our deputies today is how many? Lots. And what

[2:01:16] kind? Of insole we're going to do on a curved

[2:01:18] road in a predominantly single family. Residential neighborhood. When you

[2:01:24] do with frontage, and it was 150 foot frontage, you

[2:01:29] can put up. An easily. With allowable parking on site.

[2:01:34] A low rise condominium or apartment. We're doing questions to

[2:01:40] administration. That's why it needs regarding. This stuff you're saying

[2:01:45] is valuable for city council during the debate portion. Thank

[2:01:50] you. Unfortunately. We have to do that. I know people

[2:01:53] in the gallery would probably like to see this resolve.

[2:01:55] But it's got to go to city council, which comes

[2:01:57] after a number of business items. Tonight, and I appreciate

[2:02:00] that very much. That's why just the frontage would have

[2:02:03] been quite beneficial here to be able to give people

[2:02:07] a true understanding of what size of building would be

[2:02:11] able to be. Constructed. In the parquettes that they are

[2:02:16] asking about and they're concerned about, well, hopefully by city

[2:02:20] council will have those numbers. We can all go on

[2:02:22] Google Earth and use a little ruler there and get

[2:02:24] a pretty good idea. Well, that doesn't work on a

[2:02:27] curved road as easily as it does on the straight.

[2:02:30] Road. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. So my second

[2:02:35] question then would be, To. Manager Schwartz in regards to.

[2:02:42] Climate change. Our city manager brought up that our strategy

[2:02:45] is on climate change. Would the elimination and removal of

[2:02:51] these parquets to be sold. In these neighborhoods. Affect any

[2:02:56] climate change or biodiversity in the park. Systems that we

[2:03:01] have and your overall plan. So through the chair, if

[2:03:05] I may. I'm supervisor Schwar, not manager Schwarzene. That's okay.

[2:03:12] It's. Just been a few times, so I just wanted

[2:03:14] to correct that. So again, it depends on the lens

[2:03:18] you're looking at. The reason we are looking at Parklands

[2:03:24] as infill is so that. We don't further do urban

[2:03:29] brawl outside of the city. When we do urban sprawl

[2:03:33] outside of the city, we are generally removing forested lands

[2:03:36] or wetlands, which arguably have a greater environmental benefit than

[2:03:42] a moan lawn park that currently exists there. If you

[2:03:48] look at it that way, if you look at it

[2:03:50] in terms of the fact that we have less hectares

[2:03:54] of green space. Within the city. Proper. Than there is

[2:04:03] somewhat a reduction in benefits, but I believe that there

[2:04:08] is greater benefit to not developing outside of the city

[2:04:11] than developing within. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.

[2:04:17] Just on titles. I've just been informed by the city

[2:04:21] clerk that we can. Reference everyone as city official and

[2:04:24] their name. I can't remember all the different titles. So

[2:04:30] I'm going to start using city official with the name.

[2:04:32] So I share that with you, because I know a

[2:04:34] lot of you are struggling with that tonight. Okay, we're

[2:04:38] done. Next item. Thank you all for coming out. By

[2:04:41] the way, appreciate your engagement. So chair the next item.

[2:04:45] Ask for the change in the agenda is. Item 8.7,

[2:04:49] report back response to unsheltered homelessness designated encampment. Framework at

[2:04:54] the April 22, 2024 committee of the whole meeting, a

[2:04:56] resolution was passed recommending administration report back to city council

[2:05:01] and to provide recommendations on the consultations that occurred relative

[2:05:05] to unsheltered homelessness report number two. 52 City manager's office

[2:05:10] strategic initiatives and engagement provides a recommendation relative to this

[2:05:14] matter for council's consideration. This was distributed separately on Friday,

[2:05:18] June 21. Further, he received a memorandum from Director Cynthia

[2:05:22] Olsen requesting an opportunity to provide a presentation. This was

[2:05:26] also distributed on Friday, June 21. We do have two

[2:05:29] deputations chair prior to getting to the presentation and the

[2:05:33] two deputations it's my understanding that city manager Gail now

[2:05:37] would like to provide some opening. Remarks. Is this the

[2:05:41] right time, Jerry? Yes. You're safe. For takeoff. I'm going

[2:05:49] to start again, chair, and thank you for your indulgence.

[2:05:53] Tonight you are considering another important report in the municipality's

[2:05:56] response to encampments and unsheltered homelessness. Since the pandemic, there

[2:06:01] has been a growth in encampments and temporary shelters not

[2:06:05] only in Thunder Bay but across Canada. There is also

[2:06:09] a growing recognition, led by the federal housing advocate, of

[2:06:13] the imperative to uphold the dignity and human rights of

[2:06:17] people living in encampments. In her recent interim report, the

[2:06:22] advocate noted that municipalities are, quote, The first line of

[2:06:27] response, but often not empowered and generally not adequately resourced

[2:06:32] to meet the complex housing and public health crisis growing

[2:06:36] in their communities. This is absolutely the case in the

[2:06:41] city of Thunder Bay. In fact, Housing and all matters.

[2:06:46] Homelessness are not even the city of Thunder Bay's responsibility.

[2:06:49] You have no lawful authority in this domain, but that

[2:06:52] doesn't mean you can't dip. Your toes in and there

[2:06:54] is stuff you can do. And that'll be shown in

[2:06:57] the report. In presentation. A few key facts, chair, that

[2:07:03] puts us in the city between a rock and a

[2:07:06] hard place. Experiences of homelessness. Encampments and temporary shelters are

[2:07:11] growing across Canada. We are, and we must take a

[2:07:15] human rights approach. We have competing needs as temporary outdoor

[2:07:21] shelters affect the perception of other residents of their neighborhoods

[2:07:24] and city. Unlike other municipalities, the Province of Ontario does

[2:07:30] not provide funding directly to our municipality to address homeless

[2:07:34] homelessness. And our work is done at the corner of

[2:07:38] our desk. That's been a big corner. It's a lot

[2:07:42] of work that's been happening there. Provinces designated and funds

[2:07:46] the district of Thunderbased Social Services Administration board as the

[2:07:50] housing service system manager. The city has influence, but not

[2:07:56] decision making authority on which priorities those funds are to

[2:07:59] be allocated. The province has recognized a significant and complex

[2:08:04] homelessness situation in the municipality, and they have responded by

[2:08:09] more than tripling the amount of funding to the DSAB

[2:08:11] from 5.3 to 16.5 million annually beginning in 2023. Chair

[2:08:19] administration is not well positioned to respond to questions about

[2:08:24] what the DSAB may or may not be doing and

[2:08:26] how they are doing what they're doing. D seven does

[2:08:30] have a board, however, and six members of council are

[2:08:33] members of that board, including the chair is here, and

[2:08:37] they are best positioned to respond to any questions about

[2:08:39] the DSAP. The city does, however. Have a responsibility to

[2:08:45] all of its citizens in Thunder Bay, including residents of

[2:08:49] encampments. Do keep that in mind, please. In this very

[2:08:53] challenging environment. Director Olsen and analyst Willanen. City officials have

[2:09:00] prepared a thorough report on what we can do now

[2:09:04] as a municipality, what we can do. That is lawful,

[2:09:09] what we can do, that accepts we are part of

[2:09:12] the solution, which I know. To be your desire. What

[2:09:15] we can do to move forward in a good way.

[2:09:19] Long term solutions will only be achieved through true collaboration

[2:09:24] with our community partners. Director Olsen and. Analyst Willingan are

[2:09:33] a small but mighty team. They do not have the

[2:09:37] benefit of provincial resources to address homelessness. They are smart.

[2:09:43] They are dedicated and they are looking for concrete solutions

[2:09:47] to present to you. Chair. This is an extraordinarily difficult

[2:09:51] file for all the reasons I've stated. I ask, request

[2:09:58] that as you explore this further tonight, That we all

[2:10:02] take special care to focus discussion on the issues and

[2:10:06] solutions in a way that is respectful of individuals experiencing

[2:10:12] homelessness. And our professional staff, who are working very hard

[2:10:18] in good faith. Chair, I'd like to do I go

[2:10:21] to director Olson now? No, chair. Back to you. Yes.

[2:10:26] We're going to the presentation next, I believe. Through the

[2:10:30] chair. I thought the deputations were next, but we're going

[2:10:32] to do the. Just one moment while we pull this

[2:10:37] up. Thank you, chair.

[2:10:56] Thank you, city manager Gail. And through the chair. Good

[2:10:59] evening, council. We are grateful for the opportunity. To present

[2:11:03] administration's recommendations on designated encampment sites in Thunder Bay. We

[2:11:08] bring you this report under very short timelines, as we

[2:11:12] were just before council at the end of April. This.

[2:11:16] Year. In devising our recommendations, we considered three critically important

[2:11:22] factors. We recognize the need to balance the human rights

[2:11:26] of those living in encampments with broader community concerns. We

[2:11:32] conducted an environmental scan of approaches from other Ontario municipalities.

[2:11:37] We looked at their experiences and sought professional guidance to

[2:11:41] inform our strategy. And in relation to municipal jurisdiction and

[2:11:46] capacity. The city of Thunder Bay does not receive provincial

[2:11:49] or federal funding directly aimed at addressing unsheltered homelessness. We

[2:11:53] present you efforts which align with our jurisdiction and our

[2:11:57] capacity. Please note that we bring you our best recommendations

[2:12:03] tonight. In a landscape that is largely unknown, there are

[2:12:07] no quick fixes and no single response will address everyone's

[2:12:11] needs. Our recommendations were informed by the factors that I

[2:12:15] just outlined, and they were not developed to include or

[2:12:19] exclude any current encampment. I will now pass the presentation

[2:12:24] over to analyst Willan. Thank you, Director Olson. What these

[2:12:28] factors in mind, let's look high level at administration's. Recommendations.

[2:12:34] The first recommendation is to adopt the distance guidelines, establishing

[2:12:38] clear distance guidelines that balance public concerns and the needs

[2:12:40] of encampment residents. Our second recommendation is identifying land for

[2:12:45] a built structure. Pilot and also provide a letter of

[2:12:47] support from the mayor on behalf of city council to

[2:12:49] potential external funders. And our third recommendation is around advocacy,

[2:12:56] urging the Government of Ontario to match federal contributions under

[2:12:59] Canada's. Housing plan, increased social assistance rates and fund 24/7

[2:13:03] crisis stabilization spaces there's. Also an additional advocacy piece to

[2:13:07] the canadian government to establish a national encampment response. Plan,

[2:13:10] which was a recommendation from the Office of the Federal

[2:13:12] Housing Advocate. We'll now explore our first recommendation to adopt

[2:13:16] distance guidelines. Permissible and sanctioned encampment sites are broadly defined

[2:13:21] as areas on municipally owned land where encampments are allowed

[2:13:23] as determined by a set of criteria. In adopting such

[2:13:26] criteria, it also creates areas where encampments are not allowed.

[2:13:30] The goal is to balance public concerns. With the needs

[2:13:35] and rights of encampment residents. The guidelines rely on voluntary

[2:13:38] compliance, which requires trust and cooperation between encampment residents and

[2:13:42] the people who support them. Historically, nearly all residents that

[2:13:46] have needed to be relocated have done so willingly with

[2:13:49] support from an external partner. Additionally, we expect success with

[2:13:53] compliance because we've. Received input and buy in from encampment

[2:13:56] residents. Next, let's take a look at the proposed distance

[2:14:00] guidelines. So these guidelines were adopted from other municipalities that

[2:14:04] are taking a similar approach. Administration first used their professional

[2:14:08] judgment to adopt the guidelines to be appropriate for our

[2:14:10] community. Those guidelines were then reviewed collaboratively with individuals living

[2:14:14] in encampments. And we also heard from those folks that

[2:14:17] they want the guidelines and that they were generally well

[2:14:20] received. Where appropriate, their feedback was incorporated into the guidelines.

[2:14:25] For example, residents advised that the distance guideline relating to

[2:14:29] private property, which was initially presented at 10 meters, should

[2:14:31] be doubled to 20 to respect privacy, security and to

[2:14:35] keep the peace. The amended guidelines were then reviewed with

[2:14:38] the response to unsheltered homelessness task force and their feedback

[2:14:41] was incorporated where appropria. Appropriate. For example, the distance from

[2:14:44] highways was suggested to increase from 10 meters to 20

[2:14:46] meters for safety reasons. Other notable aspects of the guidelines

[2:14:50] include expert guidance to cap the amount of temporary structures.

[2:14:55] At 25 structures or 30 individuals, which overcomes first identification

[2:14:59] of area susceptible to erosion and flooding. Via the environmental

[2:15:02] protection zone, and that structure should aim to be freestanding.

[2:15:08] So I'll just quickly go over the guidelines. So encampments,

[2:15:10] which are defined as locations where one or more people

[2:15:13] live in an unsheltered area in temporary structures are not

[2:15:16] to be located on or within 100 meters of a

[2:15:19] playground, a school, or licensed daycare. A pool or a

[2:15:23] splash pad on or within 50 meters of any lake,

[2:15:26] beach or pond. A boat. Launch a multi use sports

[2:15:30] field or golf course which is inclusive of hockey rinks

[2:15:33] on or within 20 meters of any highway or private

[2:15:36] property line on or within 10 meters of any public

[2:15:39] transit stop or formal heritage property designation on or within

[2:15:43] 5 meters of any off leash dog area. Community garden,

[2:15:46] cemetery, sidewalk or. Trail, fire route or blocking a fire

[2:15:50] hydrant, a bridge or parking lot, an accessibility entrance or

[2:15:53] ramp and an entrance, exit or doorway and not to

[2:15:57] be located within the environmental protection zone and to be

[2:16:01] assessed on a site by site basis. The recommendation is

[2:16:04] that there'd be no more than five tenths per cluster

[2:16:06] at one location. With 10 meters of separation, up to

[2:16:10] a max of five clusters per site. So 25 temporary

[2:16:13] structures also, please keep in mind that this infographic is

[2:16:16] not a comprehensive summary of all of the distance guidelines

[2:16:20] that are further outlined in the report. Sykes found to

[2:16:23] be in violation of these guidelines would be subject to

[2:16:25] health and safety reviews as determined by the task force.

[2:16:28] Where such a review is required, the task force would

[2:16:30] determine who should be involved. The professionals conducting the review

[2:16:34] would use their professional opinion and a risk assessment tool

[2:16:37] to examine the severity of risks. Those who do not

[2:16:39] pose a serious health or safety risk would be subject

[2:16:41] to the planned relocation prot. Protocol, which is attachment B

[2:16:44] in the report. Whereas those who are determined to be

[2:16:46] at serious risk. Of injury, illness or death would be

[2:16:49] subject to the emergency relocation protocol. Also attachment B. And

[2:16:53] this brings me to our next recommendation. Built structure sites.

[2:16:58] Some communities have successfully introduced various models of built structures

[2:17:01] for transitional sheltering. There is interest from external partners to

[2:17:04] explore a pilot project at this site. The project has

[2:17:07] received conceptual support from infrastructure development and operations and in

[2:17:12] keeping in line with our municipal jurisdiction and capacity, the

[2:17:15] city would work in partnership with. An external partner to

[2:17:17] help them secure capital and operating funding. To assist administration.

[2:17:21] Suggest council provide a letter of support to external funders.

[2:17:24] An administration is committed to collaborating with partners to identify

[2:17:28] or apply for appropriate funding sources. The city can support

[2:17:32] this endeavor. By identifying a piece of municipality online for

[2:17:34] this project. The proposed site at present is an underused

[2:17:38] parking lot approved for closure by council earlier this year.

[2:17:42] It's been identified as a good location for a few

[2:17:43] reasons. Its proximity to essential services such as the DSAB

[2:17:47] TBD. Shelter house pace and public transit. The pave law

[2:17:53] is also suitable for quicksite preparation. It has convenient access

[2:17:56] to water and sewage hookups, and the site does already

[2:17:58] permit emergency shelter as an appropriate use of zoning, so

[2:18:02] we believe this would align with the designation. I'd also

[2:18:06] like to make note that due to time constraints, there

[2:18:07] was no opportunity for any consultation to happen on this

[2:18:10] site. And we'll now consider our last recommendation, which is

[2:18:14] advocacy. Encampments are the result of systemic failures that require

[2:18:18] policy reform and steep investments into a suite of upstream

[2:18:22] midstream and downstream interventions for upstream. An example is as

[2:18:27] the cost of living increases, social assistance rates have not

[2:18:30] adequately increased alongside it. And while the Ontario government has

[2:18:34] taken actions to improve this. There is a dire impressing

[2:18:37] need to increase ODSP and Ow rates to prevent people

[2:18:40] from becoming homeless and to support those in transitioning out

[2:18:43] of homelessness. A midstream intervention. Is the matching. Sorry. Urging

[2:18:53] the provincial government to match. The cost. To match the

[2:18:59] commitment in Canada's housing plan for $250,000,000 through budget 2024

[2:19:03] for communities that are responding to unsheltered homelessness from a

[2:19:06] human rights perspective and an example of downstream is to

[2:19:10] recognize that there is often an overlap between people experiencing

[2:19:13] unsheltered homelessness and people with poor substance use health. We

[2:19:16] are recommending that advocacy efforts be directed towards the. Government

[2:19:19] Ontario government to fund low barrier crisis stabilization spaces for

[2:19:22] people with mental health and or substance use related issues

[2:19:25] that operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

[2:19:29] To close. It's important to note that our recommendations are

[2:19:31] not long term solutions. They are interim measures to best

[2:19:38] respond so that our community, including businesses housed and unhoused,

[2:19:43] residents have an effective response and support in our community.

[2:19:48] Our recommendations are to implement the distance guidelines, identify land

[2:19:52] for a pilot project featuring a built structure and provide

[2:19:55] letters of support. For external partners and external funding opportunities

[2:20:00] and to do advocacy with other orders of government. We

[2:20:04] would like to leave you with this final consideration. While

[2:20:07] the federal housing advocates office has recently released its final

[2:20:11] report. The office's work has not stopped. They continue to

[2:20:15] monitor and will likely provide further recommendations. Administration maintains ongoing

[2:20:20] communication with the federal Housing advocate's office and have been

[2:20:23] invited to. An update meeting in the coming weeks. We

[2:20:27] must, and we are. And we must follow a human

[2:20:30] rights based approach as a municipality with human rights obligations

[2:20:35] to all citizens. Thank you, and we are happy to

[2:20:38] answer any questions members of council may have. Thank you,

[2:20:43] council. I was hoping we could go to the deputations

[2:20:46] and come back. To administration once the report is on

[2:20:50] the floor. Kind of wrap it all up into one

[2:20:54] package rather than doing. Two essentially question periods. Okay, consensus.

[2:21:01] Okay, so we'll go to deputation first. So. Thank you,

[2:21:05] chair. We do have two requests for deputation. The first

[2:21:08] was received on June the 20th, requesting an opportunity to

[2:21:12] come forward this evening as Andre Ganier. Deputy Ganye is

[2:21:16] in the gallery. We welcome him to come forward. Welcome.

[2:21:20] You'll have ten minutes for a presentation over to questions.

[2:21:26] Please pull it up. Okay.

[2:21:39] Hello. My name is Andre Ganier, and I am a

[2:21:41] resident here to urge you to refrain. From designating. Homeless

[2:21:46] encampments. And to comment on the process as I've observed

[2:21:50] it generally, as some of you may already know, I

[2:21:53] strongly oppose allowing homeless individuals to monopolize our shared public

[2:21:57] spaces. Historically, if you were homeless. You had to reside

[2:22:00] where you were not bothering anyone. Nobody had special rights

[2:22:03] to any of our shared public lands and service providers

[2:22:06] adjusted to that reality. However, since our charter was upended

[2:22:10] in 2019 to introduce a right to housing and with

[2:22:13] the recent Hamilton provincial court decision, we find ourselves in

[2:22:17] a legal limbo where enforcement parameters are poorly. Defined on

[2:22:21] this frontier. There exists potential enforcement avenues that can be

[2:22:25] explored in our city. For example, The Municipality of Kingston

[2:22:29] is currently enforcing daytime bans on encampments within parks. There.

[2:22:34] The bylaw officer writes the ticket and the police enforce

[2:22:37] it. Kingston has committed to investigating. Human rights violations on

[2:22:41] an individual basis. The ruling from the Hamilton decision clearly

[2:22:45] prevents removing overnight in gamuts with insufficient shelter space available.

[2:22:50] However, it is less clear why in Cambett's people. Why?

[2:22:53] Encampment people? Should be allowed to use the park all

[2:22:55] day. Why aren't we doing this? Many of you know

[2:22:59] the answer. On April 24 of last year, in a

[2:23:02] committee of the whole, you adopted a human rights based

[2:23:04] approach that I argue many of you did not fully

[2:23:07] understand the consequences of. At the time, strategic director Olsen

[2:23:12] explained it best to. A response to Councilor Chung about

[2:23:16] the implications of this approach. In her words, the human

[2:23:19] rights based approach is, quote, to not err on the

[2:23:22] side of enforcement. Again to not err on the side

[2:23:26] of enforcement. In fact, the report. On the human rights

[2:23:29] based approach explicitly prevents counsel or administration from even considering

[2:23:34] enforcement approaches to this issue now. I've just told you

[2:23:37] what Kingston is attempting. Your staff are forbidden by you.

[2:23:40] Since last year from exploring that avenue because it includes

[2:23:43] an enforcement approach. You are handcuffing your wrists to your

[2:23:46] ankle and trying to do a backflip. What your administration

[2:23:50] instead is doing is softly suggesting to encampment people at

[2:23:53] the discretion of the task force to relocate. With inconsistent

[2:23:57] success. You have poisoned the well of information that administration

[2:24:00] can even present to you. What you can do, and

[2:24:03] you should do is reconsider the vote you cast in

[2:24:07] favor. Of this approach. I will help you. Because I

[2:24:09] went back and watched the beating you all voted. For

[2:24:11] it. Two thirds of you have to agree with a

[2:24:13] motion to reconsider. Minutes to eliminate the approach. You don't

[2:24:18] have to replace it with any new restrictions. You just

[2:24:21] have to eliminate it. Then ask administration to consider approaches

[2:24:24] to the issue, and they will if they are unbiased.

[2:24:27] Present enforcement options, especially if directed crucially tonight before you.

[2:24:33] Tonight. Before you next consider sending administration to do another

[2:24:36] second of work, you need to unbind their hands. You

[2:24:39] need to let them explore the breadth of a complicated

[2:24:41] issue to which many communities are attempting different approaches. If

[2:24:45] you choose not to do this, then. Whenever anyone in

[2:24:48] the public asks you why you can't remove an encampment,

[2:24:51] you need to tell them because you have forbidden yourself

[2:24:53] and the corporation from considering enforcement options. Now look at

[2:24:57] the report before you report. Two five two. 2024. There

[2:25:01] are distance guidelines and. Yet because of last year's self

[2:25:06] restriction, they are not enforceable. See page 68 in the

[2:25:10] last paragraph. It lets you know in plain English. English.

[2:25:15] It's ironic English that the quote. Distance guidelines are not

[2:25:20] enforceable regulations. Now, these are to be administered by the

[2:25:25] task force through gentle suggestions at the discretion of the

[2:25:28] strategic director and her task force. I don't want discretionary

[2:25:32] guidelines. I want robust policy that administration must follow and

[2:25:36] that police will enforce within legal. Boundaries. Many of you

[2:25:40] are under the misapprehension that if you had. A designated

[2:25:44] encampment location, you would be able to allocate problem individuals

[2:25:48] and other encampment people to that one area and provide

[2:25:50] better services. This misunderstands the legal framework. We are actually

[2:25:55] operating under. You cannot enforce any approach. And even if

[2:25:58] you ignore your own removable. Self restriction. You cannot make

[2:26:02] a homeless person stay in a designated encampment, so. You

[2:26:06] would expand your liability and your costs for nothing. Director

[2:26:08] and Olsen and I fundamentally disagree on our perspectives, our

[2:26:12] respective preferred approaches. And to be clear, this is her

[2:26:15] preferred approach. In the April 24 report from last year.

[2:26:19] It mentioned the intention was to formalize what was already

[2:26:22] happening under her guidance. That said, despite. Our fundamental disagreements

[2:26:27] about servicing the homeless. We both agree that designated encampments

[2:26:30] are a horrible idea. I am also concerned about the.

[2:26:34] Ambitions of our director of strategic engagement to massively expand

[2:26:37] staffing under her direct control, which started as a $250,000

[2:26:42] in new homeless worker staffing for budget year 2025. Deceitfully

[2:26:47] passed at the tail end of the 2024 budget process

[2:26:50] as a 2020. Mr. Ganye, I'd rather you not suggest

[2:26:54] that staff are doing things. For purposes that. Are not

[2:27:01] honorable. Honorable? Is my perception. I know. I'd rather you

[2:27:06] not err those perceptions publicly tell us. What you would

[2:27:10] like us to do. Okay, I'll withdraw. My deceitful characterization

[2:27:17] and apologize. But I will point out the 250,000 passed

[2:27:23] introduced and let me restate it. What started as a

[2:27:27] 250,000. Yeah. I apologize to Director Wilson. I don't know.

[2:27:36] It's a clumsy, I guess. Temperatures are high with this

[2:27:40] topic, so I would just ask all to be respectful.

[2:27:45] Actually, I've spoken to her about the issue. She's a

[2:27:49] likable person and very knowledgeable. We appreciate your apology and

[2:27:53] your acknowledgment. Yeah. So what started is $250,000. In new

[2:28:00] homeless worker staffing for budget year 2025, which is passed

[2:28:05] at the tail end. Of the 2024 budget process as

[2:28:08] a 2025. Budget direction has now ballooned. I hope to

[2:28:13] 450,000 in the report in front of you shown on

[2:28:16] page 72, paragraph two. Why I say I hope is

[2:28:20] because I sincerely hope that this 450,000 is in fact

[2:28:23] cumulative, with the amount suggested earlier this year and not

[2:28:27] in addition to that amount. I am worried this significant

[2:28:31] staffing expansion is duplicating services that are under the jurisdiction

[2:28:34] of the DSAB. The state of purpose of this additional

[2:28:37] staff is to manage the unenforceable guidelines it should be

[2:28:41] that we have enforceable guidelines with the bylaw, officers handling

[2:28:45] notices of violation of our minimum distance guidelines followed up

[2:28:48] by police enforcement, if that is what you choose to

[2:28:50] do and not homeless agents working under the director. Skip

[2:28:56] that part. Yeah, making a permanent homeless bureaucracy that is

[2:29:02] bridged to nowhere where that, I believe is a bridge

[2:29:04] to nowhere. As proven by western canadian models of endless

[2:29:11] homeless intervention to the. Perpetual inconvenience of residents with little

[2:29:16] to no improvement. That I'm worried. We are in the

[2:29:19] early stages of. In conclusion, we must redefine. Our approach

[2:29:23] to managing homeless encampments by removing self imposed restrictions that

[2:29:27] have led to inefficiencies and public confusion by reconsidering our

[2:29:31] current human rights. Human rights based policy which inhibits actual

[2:29:35] enforcement and. Establishing a task force to coordinate. With successful

[2:29:40] models like Kingston, we can balance compassion with practical governance.

[2:29:44] This new, more balanced task force, with streamlined efforts, reduced

[2:29:47] redundancies, and ensure both the community safety and respectful treatment

[2:29:51] of the homeless. Let us empower our administration to act

[2:29:54] decisively, creating a sustainable solutions that benefit our residents. Thank

[2:29:58] you for considering my perspective. And thank you for coming

[2:30:02] forward tonight. We appreciate your input. Questions to the deputy.

[2:30:08] Yes, mayor Bolshekov. In your review. Have you come across?

[2:30:17] Workable solutions. Because, as you know, The whole world essentially

[2:30:24] is trying to deal with this issue at this point.

[2:30:27] So when you put it to North America. Canada, ontario,

[2:30:32] zunder bay. It's part of a problem. With addictions and

[2:30:39] other issues. So I'm interested. You seem to know about

[2:30:45] some other communities where they have had. Some attempts at

[2:30:51] finding solutions. But. I've seen some of those cities where

[2:30:56] they're supposed to be. And they're not. I guess I

[2:31:01] would say. I would just refer. To early on because.

[2:31:08] I guess. Two part answer. The Hamilton decision prevents. Overnight

[2:31:17] encampments. Overnight encampments. From being evicted or removed. But less

[2:31:25] clear is during the day. Right. So that's one approach

[2:31:28] that Kingston is actively trying. And they have some municipal

[2:31:33] legal advice that is headed by expert municipal lawyers. I

[2:31:37] mean, they have a lot more funds down there. And

[2:31:40] to your second point. If you look at the west

[2:31:44] coast, it's a nightmare. Like, if you look at, like,

[2:31:46] I mean, I don't want to bring up the states,

[2:31:47] but Los Angeles is just like. A post apocalyptic nightmare.

[2:31:52] There's drug use everywhere. All across the streets but western

[2:31:55] Canada, British Columbia. There's these industries of servicing the homeless.

[2:32:00] I don't think homeless experts exist because you can't find

[2:32:04] a homeless expert that's ever actually solved the problem. It

[2:32:07] just. Creates a bureaucracy. That just. It feeds on itself

[2:32:11] and it just never goes away. And then the final

[2:32:14] component to my answer is that. Obviously, addiction is a

[2:32:18] horrible thing. It absorbs, like it eradicates your personality or

[2:32:23] your connections. It codomates your life. You're just oblivious and

[2:32:27] wasting away, but. I don't want to sustain. That behavior.

[2:32:36] Or lifestyle longer. And if you make it more comfortable

[2:32:39] to do drugs and you make it more easier with

[2:32:42] all your services provided. I worry that rock bottom you

[2:32:45] don't hit it for. Much longer, and people are stuck

[2:32:48] in that cycle for much longer. But that's what I'll

[2:32:52] say to that. Yes. And while you may not have

[2:33:01] intended this, not all homeless are drug addicted. But. A

[2:33:07] lot of stereotypes are going to come out tonight and.

[2:33:11] We're trying to ask people to be respectful. Of people

[2:33:15] in this predicament as they discuss what they would like

[2:33:18] us to do in terms of policy. Can I just

[2:33:21] say one thing to that? No, I'm just making a

[2:33:25] statement too. You said about me that I had said

[2:33:28] is only. No, it is something that was said that

[2:33:31] I'm just reminding everyone in the gallery. I don't want

[2:33:34] to debate that point. Councilor Chung. Thank you. Chair. Chair.

[2:33:41] I heard the deputy say? He does not want encampments.

[2:33:48] No permissible sites. Our shelters are full. He wants us

[2:33:53] to use police enforcement to arrest ourselves out of the

[2:33:56] situation. My question through you, chair to the deputy. Is.

[2:34:04] If we remove these people and have police enforcement like

[2:34:07] you suggest, where do they go? Okay. Just to characterize

[2:34:13] my argument. I'm not saying nothing should be done. I'm

[2:34:17] saying the extent of responsibility for the city. Is whether

[2:34:23] our shared land should be used for makeshift encampments. I

[2:34:26] think this falls under the DSAB and the provincial government

[2:34:30] to service the many reasons people are homeless. We know

[2:34:34] that there's mental health concerns where they struggle and they

[2:34:37] can't really hold down. A different lifestyle or drug use.

[2:34:43] Or. Just hard. Luck circumstance, but I think for the

[2:34:49] city. To take on this mission. As to your question,

[2:34:55] where they should go. Where did they go, historically? Where?

[2:35:03] They weren't bothering anyone, basically, and it makes it harder

[2:35:05] for the service providers, but there are. I think residents

[2:35:08] concerns are more important. I mean, I was just at

[2:35:11] Cam River park. It's a nightmare yesterday. There's garbage everywhere,

[2:35:14] and they're tapping into the power. Free power. I mean,

[2:35:17] if you guys approve that, that's fine, but I don't.

[2:35:19] Think you guys approved them to use free power. Unless

[2:35:23] you did, and I don't know about it. But, yeah,

[2:35:26] I just think. I don't want to see a bloated,

[2:35:31] homeless bureaucracy that doesn't actually solve anything, and I'd like

[2:35:34] to see, like, actual, measurable goals instead of just bottomless.

[2:35:40] Allocation of money because you could spend endless amounts of

[2:35:43] money to not solve anything. Sorry, chair. I just want

[2:35:49] to ask a follow up question. I just want to

[2:35:52] ascertain where you're coming from with this. I think I

[2:35:55] heard you say this, and correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:35:58] That the people who interact with homeless people. Their rights

[2:36:04] are more important than the homeless people's housing rights. Is

[2:36:09] that what I just heard you say? No. Well. I

[2:36:17] think this full extent of the housing rights isn't clear

[2:36:20] like we know that from. The Hamilton decision, where we

[2:36:22] don't even know what enforcement measures we can use. And

[2:36:25] you look at Kingston, they're trying daytime bans of parks,

[2:36:30] shared public spaces. I don't know. The full consequences of.

[2:36:37] How the federally decided. Like housing rights. So I don't

[2:36:43] know, maybe. I'm completely wrong. And everything goes a different

[2:36:47] way. I believe in a liberal democracy, so I'm just

[2:36:51] voicing how I see things, right? Now. Yeah, sorry, chair.

[2:36:56] I don't really understand what the ask is, so I

[2:36:58] don't. Have any more questions. Thank you. We will go

[2:37:02] to Councilor Dirtuga next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you

[2:37:11] for coming. For Mr. Ganye. I certainly agree with you.

[2:37:16] That. I believe. We should revisit the human rights approach

[2:37:20] and consider a compassionate approach. Now, I did try to

[2:37:27] bring that forward, just so you know, but back in

[2:37:31] January, but because. I wasn't present for that vote. I

[2:37:35] was told I couldn't bring it back. For reconsideration. I

[2:37:39] have tried to do that, and I mentioned other counselors

[2:37:42] that if that's where they want to change. That's what

[2:37:43] they should do. But until we do that, do you?

[2:37:46] Have any suggestions on where we could go, though? Some

[2:37:48] solid suggestions from where we can go other than. If

[2:37:53] we can't get that reversed. You can go. With the

[2:37:57] human rights based approach. You just can't use enforcement. I

[2:38:01] mean, the guidelines for the distances between that you're. Looking

[2:38:05] at tonight. Those aren't enforceable. It's just. Your task. Maybe

[2:38:11] you can make the task force more balanced. That's one

[2:38:14] thing, because. There's, like, the Lakead Conservatory board membership and,

[2:38:20] I mean, There should be some kind of. Resident representation

[2:38:24] on the task force to at least bring the resident

[2:38:26] perspective to the team that's. Solving this problem under the

[2:38:29] current framework. But barring. And that's what I was asking

[2:38:33] for, was. A removal of the framework, the rum and

[2:38:37] rights based approach, which limits what you can actually do.

[2:38:40] About the problem. Just to clarify from the last questioner,

[2:38:46] Okay. So just my final question then. If we continue

[2:38:50] on this path and approve the recommendations tonight, As. Recommended

[2:38:56] by administration. Do you see anything really substantially changing at

[2:39:00] all as far as the accountants in Thunder Bay. What

[2:39:04] are the deliverables of this approach? It's common thing across

[2:39:12] a lot of social issues the city chooses to fund,

[2:39:14] which. Are very well. Founded. Reasons. That. Are very relatable

[2:39:23] to a lot of people, but we're not quantifying success.

[2:39:26] We have no idea what success even looks like. We're

[2:39:29] talking about these clusters. We're going to put clusters, people

[2:39:31] together. I don't know. I just think you're going to

[2:39:36] spend a lot of money. You're going to have to

[2:39:38] spend 450,000 on staffing, I guess. To not. Enforce. The

[2:39:45] guidelines. And then it's just going to be expensive. You're

[2:39:48] going to keep spending money. And then. You're going to.

[2:39:52] If there's any results, tell me. I would love to

[2:39:55] just. Know what? The success looks like. But I don't

[2:40:00] know what it even looks like. It's not defined. That's

[2:40:04] how I see it, I guess. If I read between

[2:40:07] the lines you're suggesting you don't see really any real.

[2:40:10] Substantial changes. Correct. In the current framework. You can't even

[2:40:16] hear the full suite of information from your administration. You're

[2:40:18] going to give them an advice. They can't come back

[2:40:20] to you with enforcement approaches, so. You're going to get

[2:40:25] the housing advocate. When you guys took on the housing

[2:40:28] advocate approach, from the federal body that was created, like,

[2:40:31] 5 seconds ago. Who's never solved homelessness anywhere. And you

[2:40:36] took on that guideline. They knew. Exactly. What they were

[2:40:38] setting you up to do. They put you on some

[2:40:40] rails and you're. Just on the journey. Now you're going

[2:40:43] down one. Singular approach that you can't ever touch. That

[2:40:46] I don't think you knew you. Were accepting at the

[2:40:48] time. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you for

[2:40:52] coming forward. Thank you. Councilor aguwal. Thank you very much.

[2:40:59] And thank you, Mr. Ganye, for being here again today.

[2:41:05] He always bring another perspective to coun? Counsel and bring

[2:41:08] a lot of good thought. In your presentation. You bring

[2:41:15] up? The unhoused. We all are very concerned. We all

[2:41:18] want housing. Is there another approach, other than enforcement. Let's

[2:41:24] put a forcement aside. Because. That may not be. The

[2:41:28] enforcement is not always the solution. Is there another approach

[2:41:31] that you can see and feel that might work. Well,

[2:41:35] one, actually. That's a good question. One cost effective approach

[2:41:38] that I see, and this. Is stepping outside of what

[2:41:39] I consider the city's responsibility. But if you want to

[2:41:42] take it on. One thing is, you see a lot

[2:41:44] of despair. In encantment residence and a lot of the

[2:41:48] philosophical ingredients that make up their character. Are not as

[2:41:54] complete as what we've experienced in our lives. I'll say

[2:41:57] that's. Polite way of phrasing it, and this is pretty

[2:42:00] cost effective. But if you just connect them with people

[2:42:02] who understand their struggle and can introduce them to alternative

[2:42:06] ways of thinking. I think that would really broaden their

[2:42:11] horizons in a cost effective way, because you just have

[2:42:13] to find the people that have experienced it and connect

[2:42:15] them as a mentorship or something. And. You can give

[2:42:21] them, I don't know, some kind of hope or some

[2:42:23] kind of. Something, just something different. I'm not religious. Even

[2:42:27] religions, like religions work for free. Is it really that

[2:42:31] much worse? And I'm not religious, like I said, but

[2:42:35] in religions. There's a lot of that moral character strewed

[2:42:40] along the myths. So is it? Really that bad of

[2:42:43] someone I don't know donates to a church? If they

[2:42:47] are able to donate to a church. You know what

[2:42:48] I mean? They've found this new meaning in their life

[2:42:51] that's separate from the despair of just like wasting away

[2:42:53] on drug use. And. I think that's something you could

[2:43:00] do under this approach. I realize you got a similar

[2:43:03] answer to Councilor Gertrude. Just maybe the way you asked

[2:43:05] it, I don't know. Or. Maybe I just thought of

[2:43:07] it, I don't know. Mr. Ganye, we know that homelessness

[2:43:11] and unhoused are for various factors. One is cost of

[2:43:15] housing or lack of affordable housing. Another is mental illness.

[2:43:22] And another might be addictions. Some are all combined and

[2:43:26] some are individual. So would it not be more appropriate

[2:43:31] than to look at it in a broader perspective rather

[2:43:36] than a blanket perspective. I agree. But then that's why

[2:43:42] I'm coming at this. From? What's the city's responsibility? Should

[2:43:47] they be at the full holistic approach, or are they

[2:43:50] just looking at the issue of the shared public lands

[2:43:52] and the consequences to residents. The provincial government are trying

[2:43:56] to solve those elements. That you're referring to, and there's

[2:43:59] a lot of programs and a lot of efforts to

[2:44:01] do that. What I just don't want to see is

[2:44:03] us try to do that have no results and have

[2:44:05] a bloated bureaucracy. And then we won't be any further

[2:44:09] ahead. Residents will be angry and the homeless won't. Be.

[2:44:13] Like they won't be serviced in a way that I

[2:44:17] don't know, but I could be wrong. What do I

[2:44:18] know? That's just what I think. Okay. Through the chair.

[2:44:23] My last question through you. Chari is. You brought up

[2:44:29] the different orders of government and having. Them have. Take

[2:44:33] some responsibility. And are you aware that. Councilor, have you

[2:44:38] not expended your three questions? This is. My third. This

[2:44:41] is your third. Thank you. Are you aware that the

[2:44:46] provincial government. Has increased their funding by $90 million. To

[2:44:53] our area and also $16 million to DSAP for their

[2:44:57] housing. So an increase of a total of $106,000,000 just

[2:45:03] to Thunder Bay and area to help. For this situation.

[2:45:08] Yes. Good news. Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Thank

[2:45:16] you for coming forward. We appreciate it. Council, did you

[2:45:20] want to go to questions of administration on these specific

[2:45:23] items? Because the next deputy is a little bit different.

[2:45:27] I think they're more focused on a lot. What's your

[2:45:30] preference? Do you want to wait? It is. Unlimited rounds

[2:45:38] with the report. So we'll ask questions of the deputations

[2:45:43] during that time. So we'll go to the next deputation.

[2:45:47] Thank you, chair. So we receive correspondence from Aldo Roberto

[2:45:50] Fort. William Business District improvement area, dated June 21. Requesting

[2:45:54] an opportunity to come before this evening. Thank. You. It's

[2:45:59] a pleasure to be here. Mr. Mayor, councilor's administration. Norm,

[2:46:03] congratulations. Your retirement, that's for sure. I'm here tonight. As

[2:46:08] the intern chair of the BIA. We're trying to get

[2:46:12] someone else in there. So I'm just there to help

[2:46:14] them and pass it on to somebody else. I hope

[2:46:18] tonight when I'm speaking. I don't want to be disrespectful

[2:46:22] to anybody. I'm just trying to tell the truth and

[2:46:26] just mention facts. That's it. So. However the facts come

[2:46:30] out. That's the way it is, and I'm doing it.

[2:46:32] From the BIA perspective. Okay. We would ask you not

[2:46:37] to identify. Individuals or individual. Encampments? No. We can speak

[2:46:46] to a high level. Absolutely. And if you see me

[2:46:49] hearing, of course, please. Rein me in because I do

[2:46:53] get emotional when I'm speaking about these things. Are there

[2:46:56] enough of us to do that? Could use a few

[2:47:00] more. So I'm going to start out about how I

[2:47:04] found out about this report. Normally, Thursday. The media gets

[2:47:09] the information, gets all the reports. Lets the public know

[2:47:13] what's going on, et cetera, et cetera. I got a

[2:47:15] phone call. About 930. 10:00 on Saturday night. Had plants

[2:47:21] do something Sunday. So when I get to spoke up,

[2:47:23] the gentleman's back there. Actually, he bought a building. Right

[2:47:27] across the street from this location. You're thinking of. Okay.

[2:47:32] He just bought it. He had no idea. That it

[2:47:36] was going to become an encampment. The gentleman that's adjacent

[2:47:41] to that building. Is from out of town. He just

[2:47:44] bought that old audience theater or storage place. Right now

[2:47:49] he was going to spend up to a million dollars

[2:47:51] in renovations and he wanted to buy the parking. Lot,

[2:47:55] but was told it's not available. He wants to buy

[2:47:58] the parking lot so he could do demonstrations, et cetera.

[2:48:03] Now. I haven't even met the gentleman. I don't know

[2:48:06] if he's. In town. Out of town. He doesn't even

[2:48:08] know what's going on, so I'm. Going to just jump

[2:48:11] around a lot, because even today I didn't get a

[2:48:14] chance to go to my computer till today to start

[2:48:17] writing things down, and this is such a complex issue

[2:48:20] that I'm just going to go eclectic jumping from one.

[2:48:23] To another. To another. So just try to follow me,

[2:48:26] okay? So I want to mention those businesses because that's

[2:48:30] so important, because we're trying. To revitalize the area. The

[2:48:35] BIA is spending $120,000 or more of a reserve to

[2:48:40] enhance the area. This year alone, we've hired our own

[2:48:43] security. We've hired junk await to clean up the area.

[2:48:48] We've ordered, like, tons of banners, new banners, et cetera,

[2:48:51] to make things exciting. We've ordered twice as much flowers

[2:48:55] for the area, and we're getting more pots. Potholders, et

[2:48:58] cetera. We're getting more garbage cans. We're. Trying to get

[2:49:01] the area revitalized. And we have a big event coming

[2:49:06] in September. Guess where it starts. The corner of Simpson

[2:49:10] and Victoria. The exact corner where. Your supposed encampments going

[2:49:17] to be, and the gentleman that bought that building was

[2:49:20] going to. Do. Like a museum. Pieces outside of motorcycles,

[2:49:26] et cetera, bikes, et cetera. Anyway, I'll leave that part

[2:49:30] there for information for you, okay? And when they said

[2:49:34] about consultation. In the report, it's mentioned that they consulted.

[2:49:41] The people that are affected, the homeless people. They consulted

[2:49:46] this task force, which has no business on it and

[2:49:49] no homeowner that lives. In this area. They did not

[2:49:53] consult. Any homeowner in the downtown area. If you look

[2:49:57] out the window, there's three. Big apartment buildings that has

[2:49:59] a ton of seniors in there. There's tons of businesses

[2:50:04] downtown. Not. One was contacted. And as chair of the

[2:50:09] BIA, I wasn't contacted. Nobody. Okay, now. I was told

[2:50:15] that there was no time for consultation. This morning we

[2:50:18] had a letter printed up. By our coordinator. She went

[2:50:20] around to every business in the area, handed in the

[2:50:23] area. They're. Starting to freak out. You'll probably get a

[2:50:25] lot of phone calls and messages. Angry people because. This

[2:50:30] is their investment and. They. Respect to be approached and

[2:50:36] say, hey, what do you think? Now, when we do

[2:50:38] consultations, correct? Me if I'm wrong, because I've been here

[2:50:40] 16 years as a counselor. We should talk to everybody

[2:50:43] that's impacted. Everybody's impacted, not just one group. Because you

[2:50:50] want to get a broad sense of what's going on

[2:50:52] and. Thank you, Manager Norm. For saying you base your

[2:50:58] decisions on information. But from what I'm reading, the report,

[2:51:02] you're getting limited information, and it's. Not to be disrespectful

[2:51:05] to anybody in administration, but you're not getting all the

[2:51:09] information. That's why it's hard for you to make a

[2:51:11] decision sometimes. And I don't say it happens all the

[2:51:13] time, but it does happen because there's so much information

[2:51:16] on this that was not in the report. If I

[2:51:19] asked you. Was it cost for those? Houses, those little

[2:51:21] houses they want to set up. Nobody knows, but I'll

[2:51:24] tell you because. I looked it up. And don't be

[2:51:27] fooled. They say this is a pilot project. You know

[2:51:32] and I know pilot projects will be there forever. Once

[2:51:35] you're there, you're. There forever, and this will affect the

[2:51:39] rest of the city. Because this is only going to

[2:51:42] take care of 25 to 30 people. What about the

[2:51:45] other people? That are out there, where are they going

[2:51:47] to go? They're still going to have encampments they're still

[2:51:49] going to have tents. They're still going to be wherever.

[2:51:53] The solution tonight or the direction tonight? From what I

[2:51:55] listened to the last council meeting. Council Pascalino. Councilor Benz.

[2:52:00] A few others were talking about. Hey, when you come

[2:52:02] back with a report. There should be a report with

[2:52:05] a location where we could put just about everybody there

[2:52:08] with security. A cleaning company. All the services there, that

[2:52:13] minimal impact on the rest of the people. That was

[2:52:16] the direction I didn't see a direction saying permanent site

[2:52:20] with buildings, et cetera. And in the downtown areas. Okay,

[2:52:24] so I'm going to jump around. So follow me. This

[2:52:26] is going to be. Fun. We have. 29 empty spaces

[2:52:32] in the BIA right now, business basis that can be

[2:52:35] rented. 29. And about a five, six block radius. Do

[2:52:41] you know much taxes that would bring in if it

[2:52:43] was rented? You know what the values of those properties

[2:52:45] would be if they were all fully rented, the values

[2:52:48] would go up. There's also around that area on Simpson.

[2:52:52] In those areas, there's 22 empty spaces. For a total

[2:52:55] of about 51 empty spaces. Now, we have an encampment

[2:52:59] there. Let's. Bring more people downtown. That's really going to

[2:53:04] help. Those empty spaces that's going to attract new businesses.

[2:53:10] It's not going to happen. So my questions are, and

[2:53:15] I'm going to ask you to defer this report. My

[2:53:17] questions will be, and I'll start asking the questions. Tell

[2:53:20] me how this encampment is going to enhance the area.

[2:53:24] Tell me how it's. Going to bring new business. Tell

[2:53:27] me how it's going to make it more comfortable for

[2:53:29] people shopping, working and especially. Living in the area. Those

[2:53:35] people. Are going now. And there's also people in that

[2:53:37] district housing there, seniors that are scared. To go out

[2:53:40] at night. How's this going to help them? And I'm

[2:53:42] not? Trying to be disrespectful, but I know that encampments,

[2:53:46] when you have encampments that are mentioned in the report

[2:53:48] itself. There was violence, there was fights there. Was murders.

[2:53:53] Everything goes on in there because there's no rules, there's

[2:53:56] no security. None. Okay. I called Peterborough and I talked

[2:54:02] to the mayor, the mayor's assistant, Jeremy, to. Get information

[2:54:06] about. These so called. Pallet facilities. It's located. 1.2 km

[2:54:16] away from the downtown. 1.2 that wasn't mentioned in the

[2:54:20] report. I didn't see that anywhere. The cabins cost 2.4

[2:54:24] million. For 50 people. 2.4 million. Operating costs were 1.9

[2:54:32] million a year. 1.9 million. The province gave them 2.5.

[2:54:38] Which leaves about 1.8 million. Dollars in operating for the

[2:54:42] city to take on. 1.8 million. So when you get

[2:54:49] information, you should have got this information too. I have

[2:54:52] to phone Peterborough, get to hold the person. I tried

[2:54:56] to phone a few other cities that are dealing with

[2:54:58] this. I already talked to people in the past because.

[2:55:02] I was on the poverty reduction committee and on district

[2:55:04] social services, so I've had a lot of conversations. Two

[2:55:06] minutes. How many? Two minutes. Pardon me. Okay, I'm going

[2:55:11] to try to be as fast I possibly can. DSAP.

[2:55:14] I want to talk about DsAP just a little bit,

[2:55:16] and it's already. Been mentioned. I won't go over too

[2:55:18] much, but I want someone to ask me after. To

[2:55:20] expand on that question. Dsap has been doing this job

[2:55:26] for years. They created about 170 something spaces in the

[2:55:33] last five years. 140 are occupied, 30 more are being

[2:55:38] built. There is a transitional housing coming up by the

[2:55:41] indigenous. Society closer to the boys and girls Club, which

[2:55:44] will have about, I think it's 51. More spaces, and

[2:55:47] there's other organizations out there that are looking to provide.

[2:55:52] Housing for these individuals. Why are you taking on that

[2:55:56] responsibility when you don't have to? That's a question I

[2:56:00] don't understand. Okay, finally I'll say that the drug strategy.

[2:56:07] Belongs at the health unit. We're dealing with mental illness

[2:56:10] and we're dealing with addiction. That's not. The cities. As

[2:56:15] manager McGill pointed out, that's not the city's responsibility. Those

[2:56:18] are. Health issues. Why are we dealing with it? And

[2:56:21] as you said, our administration is, Mr. Alberto, we're not

[2:56:26] discussing the health strategy. Okay. Sorry. I was just throwing

[2:56:29] that in there. Okay. And when you look at other

[2:56:31] countries, other cities in Europe, there's no encampments. Downtown. In

[2:56:36] the downtowns in Europe, they're located further out. Halifax is

[2:56:39] in a strategy right now, where they're moving their encampment

[2:56:42] or people who are in the downtown areas out because

[2:56:44] it's affecting their tourism, their business, et cetera. I'll wrap

[2:56:47] it up there. I am requ? Requesting that. Council deferred

[2:56:52] this issue. Until the businesses, the homeowners and the rest

[2:56:57] of the city, the chamber included, get a chance to

[2:57:01] read the report and respond to report. Thank you for

[2:57:06] that. And if there's any questions, happy to answer. And

[2:57:08] just on that. Ratification is on the 15 July? Yes.

[2:57:14] Okay. So there is time for members wishing or citizens

[2:57:19] wishing. To. And could you mention the process of people

[2:57:22] at home could listen to this. The process will. Be

[2:57:25] that tonight we're at committee and we make a decision

[2:57:28] at the committee level. And that committee decision goes up

[2:57:32] to city council on the 15 July. And it can

[2:57:36] be redef or revoted or there's all sorts of things

[2:57:40] that can occur. So it's a two stage process. The

[2:57:43] committee and then city council. Okay. And can someone. Ask

[2:57:46] me a question about distances when you get a chance.

[2:57:48] Sorry. We have questions for you. We have Councilor Gurtuga.

[2:57:55] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you to Mr. Roberto. Thank

[2:58:00] you for coming forward. I appreciate it. You talked a

[2:58:03] little bit about DCEp. Can you just expound a little

[2:58:06] bit about what DSAB's? Role is. With homelessness. Thank you

[2:58:14] for asking. You have the chair of dsap over there?

[2:58:19] I asked councilor Hamilton to look up some information for

[2:58:22] me, but I never received it, so. I asked the

[2:58:25] chair myself. I reached out and here's what I asked

[2:58:29] them. I said, When all the shelters are full. What

[2:58:34] does Dsap do? What do they do? Mr. Roberto, I

[2:58:38] think we have the chair of dsab here. Yeah. So

[2:58:43] any matters pertaining to DSAB, I think we will defer

[2:58:46] to that. Yeah, but I don't know if I've got

[2:58:51] the answer. From the CEO of DSAP. I think it's

[2:58:55] important that I read it to you. Because it contains

[2:58:57] information that think it's pertinent to this discussion. So he's

[2:59:02] asked me the question. I think I have the right

[2:59:03] to respond. And you could defer. To the chair after

[2:59:07] and say, hey. That'd be great if you have an

[2:59:10] answer from the d shop. Yes, I do. Yes. Then

[2:59:12] go ahead. So when emerging shelters are full. Dsap will

[2:59:16] pay for hotels. It is also to note that some

[2:59:19] organizations that provide outreach services have also been paying for

[2:59:23] hotel stays using their funding for those people do not

[2:59:27] wish to stay at a shelter, I. E. Couples. Due

[2:59:30] to human rights. It is my understanding that they have

[2:59:32] received funding under the federal research. Researching home program. Now,

[2:59:38] I don't know if you knew that or not, but

[2:59:40] there it is. Here's the other part. Capacity, right. In

[2:59:44] the last few years, we have 173 transitional supported housing

[2:59:48] units funded by DSAP. In the last five years, 130

[2:59:51] an hour in operations. 41 more expected emergency shelter capacity

[2:59:57] in Thunder Bay has also increased this past winter. And

[3:00:02] more supported houses is in place. So this app is

[3:00:07] doing a great job. Okay, they've got people at Shelter

[3:00:11] House. They got people in outreach programs going to the

[3:00:14] tents, talking to the individuals, trying to get them into

[3:00:17] housing. Let them do their job. Let them partner with

[3:00:22] organizations. Let them build these facilities, save the city millions

[3:00:26] of dollars. Why are we getting involved? We could support

[3:00:30] them. We can lobby for them. We could do everything.

[3:00:34] For them, but we shouldn't be doing their job. And

[3:00:37] they have been doing a good job in the last

[3:00:39] couple of years. I know that because I know that

[3:00:41] at least 252 people have been placed. And I know

[3:00:44] that our count for homelessness went from Ford. 75 about

[3:00:49] five, six years ago, to 225 now. And according to

[3:00:53] DSAP, in the last ten days, dated account of the

[3:00:56] tents that are out there. There's 70. Ten. And not

[3:01:01] one person in a tent. There might be two or

[3:01:03] three, but they said there's. 70 tents out there. Unfortunately,

[3:01:06] some have been sold in the last little while, and

[3:01:08] I can't say what's happened in the last ten days.

[3:01:10] And more tents have come on. Board. I don't know

[3:01:12] if you got that information, but that's important information to

[3:01:15] know. Okay, I'll wait for next question. Sorry. Thank you.

[3:01:20] Councilor Gretuki, you still have the floor. Yeah. Thank you

[3:01:23] very much for that answer. With this new proposal tonight.

[3:01:27] Do you see? I guess. Any change? To be any

[3:01:32] impactful change. For people on the McVicker area, for other

[3:01:37] areas of city. I guess. Ask the last. Dedication of

[3:01:42] the same question. Do you see any change with this

[3:01:44] coming forward? Yes, I do. Right. Now. There's 33 social

[3:01:48] agencies, at least in the downtown Fort William area. 33.

[3:01:54] We, as a city are doing amazing work trying to

[3:01:57] help people. Okay. On this side of the city, the

[3:02:02] downtown. Have a tent city already. We have encampment, and

[3:02:08] we're doing all we can. To assimilate it, work with

[3:02:12] it. Now you want to throw more people on? You

[3:02:15] want to throw more and more people. And permanent places.

[3:02:19] You want to make them permanent? I don't understand that.

[3:02:24] Because you could locate them in other areas. And I'll

[3:02:26] give you an example. The bus. Station on Fort William

[3:02:31] Road that's fenced in. They fix the buses, et cetera.

[3:02:35] That doesn't affect very many people because it's, fenced in.

[3:02:38] It's on Fort William Road. You got people working there.

[3:02:42] It's? Close to down. As close to the city, as

[3:02:44] close to the part. You're right. There by the bus.

[3:02:48] So there are other locations. Why were they not brought

[3:02:50] forward? Why didn't we partner with the conservatory area or

[3:02:54] some other area? Why are we only getting. Two choices,

[3:02:59] and we don't even know what the second choice was

[3:03:01] that they refused. I still don't know where it is.

[3:03:03] It wasn't mentioned. So those are the things. Mr. Roberto,

[3:03:07] the question was, do you think this is going to

[3:03:09] aid absolutely. Has been affected downtown? To answer, no. My

[3:03:16] question was, do you think that if we go with

[3:03:18] administration's recommendations tonight. That there are any positive change will

[3:03:23] come forward as far as the housing and accountment issues

[3:03:27] in the thunder bay. Long term, I think this is

[3:03:32] going to destroy our city, not make it better. Any

[3:03:36] encampment. Any. If you look at any city with encampments

[3:03:39] in core areas, you destroyed the core. Area and they're

[3:03:43] doing everything they can to reverse their decisions. What we

[3:03:46] should be looking for is supporting shelter house. Supporting grace

[3:03:50] place supporting. Salvation army, supporting the services that are already

[3:03:56] there. Give them more money. Let them do their job.

[3:03:59] They've been doing it up to this point. You've answered

[3:04:02] the question. I answered the question. Sorry. I just want

[3:04:04] that little more because. I think it's pertinent. Sorry. Thank

[3:04:07] you, Mr. Chair. And my final question. I plan to

[3:04:12] put forward a referral tonight. Because we've only had this

[3:04:17] report since Friday, and, of course, there's been absolutely no

[3:04:21] consultation with the community, the business sector. You're coming from

[3:04:25] the BIA. I know. It's been suggested it'll be ratified

[3:04:29] on the 15th, which is less. Than three weeks away.

[3:04:32] That doesn't give it ample time for any consultation, and

[3:04:35] I don't see any change coming forward. With. These recommendations

[3:04:40] tonight, so. You're comfortable with the referral at this point?

[3:04:45] For consultation, I guess, is my question. Absolutely. Would you

[3:04:48] prefer. Yeah. Okay. I thought I heard you mention that.

[3:04:50] Okay. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. For doing. I heard you

[3:04:53] mention. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[3:04:56] Thank you, councilor. Agarwal. Thank you very much. I'd like

[3:05:00] to also mention that I sit on the Fort William.

[3:05:03] BIA. And when we found out about the report. The

[3:05:11] immediate reaction. Was quite chaotic. I'm going to ask you.

[3:05:20] As our chair. Interim chair. Interim chair of the BIA.

[3:05:26] How much progress have you seen? And what has been

[3:05:30] the feeling amongst business owners within the last six months

[3:05:35] in the BIA. Wow. Good question. Excellent question. I'm going

[3:05:39] to tell you. There's renewed hope. There's renewed hope. People

[3:05:44] feel more optimistic as. I said, two buildings just got

[3:05:47] sold to young man back there who's eager, and then.

[3:05:51] Obviously another person from town does. So people are starting

[3:05:54] to move in, new ideas are coming, and they're looking

[3:05:57] to say to us as a BIA, hey. What are

[3:06:01] you doing for us? And we've done things because actions

[3:06:04] speak louder than words. So we've got events, we got

[3:06:08] security, our own security you have to go pay for.

[3:06:10] Security. I got to say one thing while I'm here.

[3:06:14] We had a good meeting with the police chief. Excellent

[3:06:17] meeting. Very responsive. He's a fantastic chief. And then we

[3:06:20] had a meeting. With our officers that walked the beat

[3:06:23] around super people. We're very happy to have them. And

[3:06:27] we just thanked them so much for what they're doing.

[3:06:29] So their presence has really helped our area. Our events,

[3:06:34] our flowers. The cleansingness of the area is utmost important.

[3:06:38] So before people come, do their drugs, throw things around

[3:06:42] or empty garbage cans or start graffiti, et cetera. These

[3:06:45] type of things have been happening. Now we've got a

[3:06:48] program to start cleaning that up. We actually applied for

[3:06:51] a spray to get rid of the graffiti. Now, so

[3:06:53] we don't know. Where that is. Hopefully you will get

[3:06:54] the money to do it and keep cleaning up the

[3:06:56] point. Is. You because you pay half. The citizens and

[3:07:01] the businesses who pay their half are putting money in.

[3:07:04] To fix the place up, make it better for everyone.

[3:07:08] Everyone is the key. Not for this person. Not for

[3:07:11] that person. For everyone. And as a counselor, there's one

[3:07:15] question I always ask. Myself, does it? Benefit all or

[3:07:20] one group or one person? Does it benefit all? Anyway,

[3:07:23] I hope I answered your question. Thank you. Now, the

[3:07:26] BIA. Border only goes to Main street. To the west

[3:07:32] side of Bay street? Yes. We are reaching beyond Main

[3:07:37] street as a BIA. These two businesses, one that was

[3:07:42] purchased just recently by the gentleman behind us. And the

[3:07:46] other business? Which is an individual, local individual. Local physician,

[3:07:52] actually. Investing. He wanted to invest over a million dollars

[3:07:58] to revitalize that building he had closed. On June the

[3:08:01] 19th. His realtor, which is not me. Approached the city

[3:08:08] to buy the adjacent lot. The adjacent lot. Was to

[3:08:14] be used. To. Don't just do motorcycle demonstrations. He's making

[3:08:19] a motorcycle museum. Out of his own. I don't want

[3:08:24] to beleague the point, but. We still have the motion

[3:08:27] to put on the floor and lots of discussion yet.

[3:08:30] We've asked to get to question. Thank you. Thank you.

[3:08:34] So being that they have reached out to the BIA.

[3:08:39] Our bordering neighborhood. Is it because. They can see the

[3:08:44] difference in our own BIA, which is right, actually. If

[3:08:47] we look out the front door here. The opposite side

[3:08:51] of Donald street is the BIA. You don't find garbage

[3:08:54] right on our doorstep any longer. Are the neighbors reaching

[3:08:58] out now because they see a difference? Yes, and thank

[3:09:01] you for that. We are getting more and more people

[3:09:04] outside our boundary asking us how they can join, because

[3:09:07] there are so many benefits to joining. You get a

[3:09:10] garbage kind in front of you, you get flower. Pots,

[3:09:12] you might get a bench. You got security, you got

[3:09:15] lighting programs, you got camera programs. The BIA is offering

[3:09:18] $250 to anybody that wants to put a camera up

[3:09:22] or a light. Up for security, for safety, et cetera.

[3:09:25] So these type of initiatives that we're trying to put

[3:09:28] in are there to benefit all. So, yes, more and

[3:09:32] more people. And we are going to do a program.

[3:09:33] When we finish what we're doing, we're going to reach.

[3:09:36] Out to more businesses to come and join our BIA.

[3:09:39] Now, my last question, thank you. Through the chair is,

[3:09:42] are we not? Under the adage of basically, you're looking

[3:09:45] at the model of show and tell. Let's show everybody

[3:09:48] what we can do to grow and build. Business, hope,

[3:09:52] prosperity and growth in that neighborhood. Absolutely. I won't add

[3:09:56] to that because you said it all. That's perfect. Yes,

[3:09:59] thank you. Thank you. Mayor Boshkov. As you have gone

[3:10:07] through. So much organizing and pulling people together. It's been

[3:10:15] quite commendable. As not a ray of sunshine, more like

[3:10:20] a spark plug. 24 watt. Cases, spark plugs. Are you

[3:10:28] optimistic? Do you see hope? You talk to other communities,

[3:10:34] business areas that can tell you success stories that actually

[3:10:39] workable first of all I want to say. It's not

[3:10:42] just one person. It's a board and it's people that

[3:10:46] volunteer. And no one person could take credit for that.

[3:10:49] We have fantastic people on the board. We got a

[3:10:51] great coordinator, and we've pulled together. And one of the

[3:10:56] things I've learned is when you go do a strategic

[3:10:58] plan. You do all action items. You don't do theory,

[3:11:03] you don't care about. You do all action items in.

[3:11:05] The first week, I asked if I could do a

[3:11:07] strategic plan with the board, and they said, okay. What

[3:11:11] do you want to do? And then we put all

[3:11:12] our stuff we want to do. Optimism. Is getting there.

[3:11:16] We, as a board, have to show them first. And

[3:11:18] that's why we're cleaning up, putting the flowers, getting the

[3:11:20] security, getting laid. Once we do that. Then we start

[3:11:24] reaching out from our border and start saying, hey, come

[3:11:27] on in. Come on in. And you know what? There's

[3:11:30] only one thing that drives. Areas. That are don trodden

[3:11:37] when I was in Yorkville, when I went to Greenwich

[3:11:39] Village. Those two areas were the worst areas in Toronto

[3:11:43] and New York, that because the prices came down so

[3:11:46] low because the opportunities were there. That's when you got

[3:11:50] investment, and that's what's happening now? We are getting a

[3:11:52] lot of people from out of town come. In and

[3:11:56] look at the Thunder bay saying, hey, I could buy

[3:11:58] a building here for this much. Money and I can

[3:12:01] fix it up and I could do things, but we

[3:12:03] have to support these. People. We have to encourage them.

[3:12:06] We have to say to them, yeah, we'll help you.

[3:12:09] So, yes, optimism is there. But we need your help.

[3:12:12] We need the help of council to support. Us and

[3:12:15] to back us up. When these things happen. Well, I'll

[3:12:18] just say you are appreciated for your energy. Thank you.

[3:12:21] And I'm trying to get you to be more enthusiastic.

[3:12:26] You really must speak up. We can barely hear you.

[3:12:29] Listen, I was resting at home on Saturday. Night. I

[3:12:31] didn't want to be here tonight. Trust me. Councilor Trini.

[3:12:36] Thank you. And thank you for your deputation tonight. You

[3:12:38] indicated that you researched the pallet homes and the pallet

[3:12:42] village? I did as well. Okay, but I. Don't think

[3:12:45] the public has. And I'd really like you to explain

[3:12:48] the palate. Homepiece. This is important. Talking about, for example,

[3:12:53] the fencing, the security. What it looks like those pieces,

[3:12:57] because it's not the encampment that we see today, and

[3:13:01] I really want people to really visualize what that would

[3:13:03] look like. Thank you. That's a great question. And I

[3:13:05] was surprised that tonight. There wasn't some pictures for you

[3:13:09] to see. I said to myself, there should been pictures,

[3:13:12] so people, I got the pictures here. Okay. Yeah, it

[3:13:15] looks pretty nice right now. They've had challenges. When I

[3:13:19] talked to the mayor's assistant, they said they had challenges

[3:13:21] in the beginning, and they're trying to fight their way

[3:13:24] through it. You know what? I'm trying to say. They're

[3:13:25] trying to fight their way through it to get on

[3:13:28] the right track. It's a lot better than a tent.

[3:13:31] I'll agree 100%. But again, if you're going to create

[3:13:35] a village, that's what you want to. Do? Create a

[3:13:37] village. I spoke to the head of the tiny homes,

[3:13:41] the president of tiny homes. Canada. He was on my

[3:13:43] committee. My tiny home committee. When we were a property

[3:13:47] reduction, he wanted to build 220. Units. Outside the city,

[3:13:54] its own village with common kitchen, common showers, everything. Their

[3:14:00] consultants, nurses, all the programming outside the city. And I

[3:14:04] thought at the time I said, why? Do you want

[3:14:06] to go outside the city? And he said, Because you

[3:14:10] get the people in a place where they don't have

[3:14:12] the distractions. They don't have their triggers. When they walk

[3:14:15] down the street, there's a trigger that person. I used

[3:14:17] to buy my drugs there or I get intimidated, et

[3:14:19] cetera. The point is, when you build something like this,

[3:14:23] it has to be in an area that is unobtrusive.

[3:14:28] And does not impact home. Homeowners. Who are there 24/7

[3:14:32] or businesses you're working for the community. You're going to

[3:14:36] try to help the homeless. We're all trying to do

[3:14:38] that. So that's the approach I think you should take.

[3:14:41] There's nothing wrong with this. As an intermediate step, but

[3:14:45] the long term goal is to get them where they're

[3:14:47] supposed. To go, and I think DSAP is going to

[3:14:48] do that. You don't have to. Go here. You don't

[3:14:50] have to spend $1.8 million in operating a year. Or

[3:14:53] 2.5 to set it up. Thank you for that. I

[3:14:58] appreciate that answer. In the report, it actually indicates that

[3:15:02] council in the city would not be actually funding it,

[3:15:05] that it would provide a letter of support for potential

[3:15:08] funders so it wouldn't be taking on the onus and

[3:15:11] responsibility. Basically, it's providing the land for it to go

[3:15:15] on, and it's a pilot. Project, so I don't believe

[3:15:18] the numbers. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think

[3:15:20] it was like. 23 for a pilot project. I don't

[3:15:24] think it was the numbers that you are 22,000. Units.

[3:15:28] Units. Okay, so it'll be less than 4.2 million. You'd

[3:15:31] be about probably two point something million total costs, operating

[3:15:35] and buying it. Now, your question was? If not the

[3:15:41] city, providing that it would be the partner. Some partner.

[3:15:44] Partner. Yes. Okay, so there's nothing wrong with partnerships, and

[3:15:49] there's a ton of partnerships right now in the city.

[3:15:51] That's great. But. Why is the partner and the city

[3:15:55] get together, find a piece of land and say, here,

[3:15:58] this. Is a better piece of land. Because. It's got

[3:16:03] its own area. It's not intrusive to anybody else. It's

[3:16:05] not impacting businesses, it's not impacting homeowners. But then someone's

[3:16:08] going to say. Wait a minute. What about our services?

[3:16:12] You know what they do, right? Now they got outreach

[3:16:14] workers that go to the tents that will bring them

[3:16:17] their food, water. They got health workers that go there

[3:16:20] all the time. What's wrong with having a place that's

[3:16:23] nice? Place, getting the people to commute. Provide free busing

[3:16:29] if you want. Can you free busing? It's not a

[3:16:31] big deal. Let's make everybody happy. Not just one group.

[3:16:36] Thank you. And thank you for that answer as well.

[3:16:39] I will be supporting the referral because I don't believe

[3:16:42] there was enough consultation to the site itself, but recognizing

[3:16:46] that this palette home piece is nice to look at,

[3:16:51] and the actual program itself is wholesome, with security, lighting,

[3:16:55] fencing and those pieces. So I do recognize that. And

[3:16:58] you mentioned as well, not. Requiring. Its separate sewer services

[3:17:02] doesn't require sewer hookup or water hookup because. They're separate

[3:17:07] entities in that pallet village program. I still have one

[3:17:10] more question. Chair? Yes, please. If you can ask the

[3:17:16] question, I will. So you indicated about supporting our community

[3:17:20] partners. We do have a community partner that does not

[3:17:24] operate. Year round, and I think that would help alleviate

[3:17:27] if we supported that. That group. As we all know,

[3:17:33] we can't paint a brush to everyone that's encampment. The

[3:17:37] same brush. And do you see the reason why we

[3:17:40] don't provide hotels for those who don't? Fit within. Those

[3:17:45] support services that exist now, the community partners that exist

[3:17:49] now, and why we're not providing hotels for those people

[3:17:51] in the summer? Well, my answer to that would be

[3:17:54] I was going to say the winter, right? You didn't

[3:17:56] have an issue in the wintertime. Everybody found a place.

[3:17:58] And one of the organizations that was the first one

[3:18:01] to lobby and say, hey, we need to get these

[3:18:04] tents up because. It's dignified, it's human rights, et cetera.

[3:18:07] When winter came, said to the city. You guys got

[3:18:10] to help us, because now we got winter coming. He's

[3:18:12] going. To be run into problems. I won't mention the

[3:18:14] organization, but the point is, organizations come. And go. It's

[3:18:18] always going to fall in the city of responsibility when

[3:18:19] they can't. Get funding, because what these organizations do, they

[3:18:22] get their funding from the government governments change fund. Funding

[3:18:25] changes, as you all know. So am I going to

[3:18:28] rely on an organization, or am I. Going to rely

[3:18:30] on the city. It's going to fall on your back.

[3:18:33] And the point is, you don't have to do anything.

[3:18:36] DSAP is doing it. Thank you for that. Thank you

[3:18:40] for the questions. Okay. That exhausts our speakers list. Thank

[3:18:43] you. For coming. Thank you for having me. And I

[3:18:46] apologize to anyone if I've offended anyone. I didn't mean

[3:18:49] to do that, but I hope I got the point

[3:18:51] across. Thank you. Okay. Good night. You as well. So

[3:18:57] I think it's time to put the motion on the

[3:18:59] floor. So chair. We do need to move her in

[3:19:01] a seconder, please. Move by councilor Johnson. Seconded by councilor.

[3:19:08] Yes. Now you can ask about anything you'd like. Presentations,

[3:19:12] deputations, report. Councilor trainee will second. I do now, Councilor

[3:19:19] Chung. Councilor Gratuka is next. Okay, I've got the floor

[3:19:26] right now. You do? Thank you. I did have a

[3:19:31] number of conversations. With community members. I did ask them

[3:19:36] to submit their questions to me. So a number of

[3:19:38] these questions do come. From a number of the community

[3:19:41] members, including those in my neighborhood, which. Has about, there's

[3:19:45] at least three encampments within, say, a block block and

[3:19:49] a half radius of where we live. So the first

[3:19:52] question. What happened with the plan that the city would

[3:19:55] propose, the three year pilot project that would choose. The

[3:20:00] 24 to 48 people in the pallet houses. The commentary

[3:20:04] in the community is that the partners are taken aback.

[3:20:09] That they see their like it's going to be on

[3:20:11] them when. They thought, I think in their mind, that

[3:20:14] it was to be the city. So maybe if you

[3:20:16] could shed some light on that. Through the chair. We

[3:20:21] have been in discussion with community partners who have expressed

[3:20:24] interest in us. The city not operating and an external

[3:20:28] partner operating. The recommendations before you tonight are not for

[3:20:33] the city to fund it, but. We are within our

[3:20:37] municipal jurisdiction and capacity recommending identifying a piece of property.

[3:20:43] That could be adequately used. We know that the property

[3:20:45] in question. Appears to have appropriate zoning. That this type

[3:20:51] of use could fit. And that we would support with

[3:20:55] letters of support on behalf of the mayor. From the

[3:20:59] mayor on behalf of city council for us to be

[3:21:03] better positioned to secure. External funding. This wouldn't be. For

[3:21:10] a community partner to fund on their own, but we

[3:21:14] would be there to support. Application writing, letter writing. Proposal

[3:21:21] development and coming together in partnership. Thank you. My next

[3:21:25] question. Can you tell me how you came to the

[3:21:29] 20 meters? Property lines? Other municipalities, such as London. Have

[3:21:33] a much higher density than we do and have 100

[3:21:35] meters. Through the chair. The examples that we did look

[3:21:42] at were municipalities that had much more public facing documentation

[3:21:47] about their distance guidelines. We not only looked at municipalities

[3:21:51] in Ontario, but there have been some counselors that have

[3:21:55] referred us to the work that's occurring in BC, for

[3:21:58] example, in Victoria. Their distance in Victoria is 4 meters

[3:22:04] from a private property. The other communities that we looked

[3:22:07] at in Ontario are in the range of five to

[3:22:10] 10 meters. And so we went with the. High range

[3:22:15] of 10 meters, based on what we had seen. And

[3:22:18] we did bring that out to folks. Who would be

[3:22:22] most impacted as far as being required to move if

[3:22:26] these were to be adopted? By council this evening, and

[3:22:29] they were the ones that actually suggested that. A more

[3:22:33] distance would be preferable. That they felt that this would

[3:22:37] give some safety, would help. Keep the peace. And so

[3:22:39] that's where we ended up with 20. We also did

[3:22:43] examine because there were questions from council the last time

[3:22:46] we brought a report. Around 100 meters, buffer. And that

[3:22:51] almost eradicates any potential location other than moving completely outside

[3:22:56] of the city. Where services. Are supported. Analysts will and

[3:23:02] may have additional information to add. Thank you, director Wilson.

[3:23:06] Through the chair. I just would like to note that

[3:23:09] London's original proposal is 10 meters from a private property

[3:23:12] line, and it was a decision of their counsel to

[3:23:14] increase the distance to 100 meters. And that was only

[3:23:17] last week. The guidelines that we were working under and

[3:23:19] that had been vetted with the people living in encampments

[3:23:23] and the unsheltered. Homelessness task. Force were already created at

[3:23:27] the point that those came out. Thank you for that.

[3:23:29] I appreciate that. Answer. The third question I have is

[3:23:33] we have lakes, ponds and beaches listed. As areas. That

[3:23:40] an encampment would not be permitted. But would this mean

[3:23:43] that creeks and rivers are excluded? Or have they been

[3:23:47] included? But just the language is not clear. Through the

[3:23:50] chair. Not including rivers or creeks. The rationale for that

[3:23:56] is that people do rely on the water. Sources for

[3:23:58] fire safety purposes. The water bodies that are identified in

[3:24:02] the guidelines generally have competing public use, whereas rivers do

[3:24:05] not have that same degree, and many rivers are also

[3:24:09] covered by the prohibition. To be within an environmental protection

[3:24:12] zone. Excellent. Thank you so much. Chair, can you put

[3:24:15] me on the second round, please? Will do, councilor. Gretuga.

[3:24:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I guess. The 20 meters

[3:24:27] buffer. That's 60ft only. I mean, really think about that.

[3:24:32] That's 60ft only. From a residence or a property line.

[3:24:36] I mean, that's not far at all. I think people

[3:24:38] were expecting results from this report. Especially the McVicker people,

[3:24:43] which this will do nothing, absolutely nothing for them. At

[3:24:48] all. First off, before we go through a lot of.

[3:24:53] Debate. I'd like to put a referral resolution on the

[3:24:56] floor. We're going to ratify this on the 15th, which

[3:25:01] is only less than three weeks. To have any meaningful

[3:25:04] public consultation. I hear everyone around the table talk about.

[3:25:10] Public consultation and how important it is. And yet we

[3:25:12] had no consultation with the stakeholders. In the BIA. Surrounding

[3:25:18] businesses before we're going to present this. As a spot

[3:25:22] where we're going to. Have. The encampments here. I just

[3:25:28] think it's unfair to the people. And we just got

[3:25:31] this report on Friday. Reported this magnitude, and something is

[3:25:35] so impactful on the community. As it is seen in

[3:25:39] other communities, I believe. It warrants. Some time to breathe

[3:25:45] this in and hear what the people are saying, because

[3:25:47] I'm telling you people in McVicker area are not going

[3:25:50] to be happy. Many people are not going to be

[3:25:51] happy with this. So rather than spend 2 hours debating

[3:25:55] this, It'll give a few weeks or. Say a month

[3:25:59] to refer this back and have some meaning for public

[3:26:04] consultation. On these recommendations. Not just wait three weeks until

[3:26:10] we ratify, because then we potentially will change. Our decisions

[3:26:12] again, like we potentially may on parquette's right. Public consultation.

[3:26:19] Is paramount here. So if I could get a second

[3:26:21] or. I'd like to put that. On the floor right

[3:26:22] now. Councilor Gretuga. Did you have a date in mind,

[3:26:26] like the 22nd meeting or July? Yeah. I think we

[3:26:31] need to ask administration, but how much time do we

[3:26:34] need to do meaningful consultation? With the residents in the

[3:26:38] area, the businesses in the area. How long? Generally, it's

[3:26:43] about a month. Okay, and so. I think the city

[3:26:48] clerk is asking what type of consultation would you like

[3:26:51] to see, because that's going to determine what administration is

[3:26:56] able to do and what timelines. City manager. Thank you.

[3:27:02] 1 second. Councilor Gutuga, this may help clarify. This is

[3:27:06] an effort to help. It's also an effort to manage

[3:27:09] expectations, because we've heard that. Some of you are disappointed

[3:27:15] in what administration has brought back. First of all, we've

[3:27:19] brought you our best work. It doesn't get better. For

[3:27:23] public consultation. There is perhaps an opportunity. But the opportunity

[3:27:29] is not what many of you might be thinking and

[3:27:31] that is, we're not going to go out. Well, if

[3:27:33] we do public consultation, if the referral pass. We're not

[3:27:37] going to find a place in the city that both

[3:27:41] meets. The needs of under housed people and meets. The

[3:27:47] needs of business people or else others in the area.

[3:27:50] There is no place. That does both. We're not going

[3:27:55] to find that, but where the opportunity may come in

[3:27:58] public consultation is an education process. Where we inform stakeholders

[3:28:04] and neighbors of what this actually means. And that could

[3:28:08] indeed be helpful. Finally, this site that we're talking about

[3:28:12] tonight that's recommended. Is actually, if someone was to build

[3:28:17] a shelter there today. They wouldn't need to come to

[3:28:21] you. That area. Is eligible for a shelter house to

[3:28:26] be built. And council would have no say in it

[3:28:30] unless you change your zoning bylaw or change your official

[3:28:34] plan. Thank you, chair. Councilor Gretuga. Yeah. Thank you. I

[3:28:41] could tell you of a few spots, some along Cumberland

[3:28:43] street. Park there. There's so. Many other areas of the

[3:28:46] city that I think consultation first off, let's talk to

[3:28:50] the BIA we heard tonight. We didn't even talk to

[3:28:53] them. They had to find out. Through the news today.

[3:28:57] I mean the fellow who purchased a building next door.

[3:29:00] Just don't send an email today. So I'm talking about

[3:29:03] public consultation. At the minimalist. We haven't done any here,

[3:29:09] so let's do something at least. I don't know. I

[3:29:13] hear everyone around the table talk about consultation. A public

[3:29:16] consultation here. We have not even consulted anyone, but yet.

[3:29:23] We're going to prove this as a site, potentially. So

[3:29:25] that's why I'm asking. For minimal consultation. Let people know,

[3:29:30] find out what their thoughts are as we do at

[3:29:32] normal consultations. I mean, it shouldn't take more than a

[3:29:34] month at all. Well, can I get a response from

[3:29:37] administration? Yes, that's what I was just about to ask

[3:29:40] them. Is July 22 even an option, or does it?

[3:29:46] August through the chair. I will remind counsel that we

[3:29:51] did public consultation on the feasibility of designated locations. We

[3:29:56] heard from community that vacant lots were the most desirable.

[3:30:01] And so we brought you forward a vacant lot. We

[3:30:04] also did consultation. Where the BIA would have been welcomed

[3:30:09] to participate. It was an online survey that was open.

[3:30:13] For several weeks. We worked with indigenous leaders in the

[3:30:16] community. We worked with community partners. And we met with

[3:30:20] individuals who have experience of living in encampments. We brought

[3:30:24] you all of that information. Two months ago. In order

[3:30:28] to do effective consultation, we will likely get, as city

[3:30:33] manager, Gail said. No solid answer that's going to meet

[3:30:37] the needs of individuals who are unhoused. As well as

[3:30:41] meet. The perceived concerns. Of businesses. I was asking for

[3:30:47] community members. We can potentially do. Some. Our report tonight

[3:30:55] is also not to actually action. Anything on that lot.

[3:31:00] It's to hold the lot at this point and to

[3:31:02] write letters. Of support. We can bring further information on

[3:31:06] that, but I do urge counsel to consider and adopt

[3:31:10] the distance guidelines and not to refer those back, nor

[3:31:14] refer back the areas for advocacy. Mr. Chair the question

[3:31:18] was how long? That was simply the question, how long

[3:31:21] for consultation? Okay. And how much consultation have we done

[3:31:25] with this site. Zero. Okay, well, city manager Gail will

[3:31:30] address that chair. I know what the question was, and

[3:31:34] we do, but we need to provide context when we

[3:31:36] give an answer. Simply providing a date is insufficient. For

[3:31:39] you to make an informed decision. And as a city

[3:31:41] manager, I do have the right to. Speak, and that

[3:31:43] right to speak is delegated, and we want to provide

[3:31:45] you that information to help you make good decisions. Did

[3:31:48] you want to add anything? About timeline. About timelines, yes.

[3:31:55] So through the chair in order for us to actually.

[3:31:59] Design public engagement in order. To set dates, invite participants.

[3:32:07] We would need several months to actually do all of

[3:32:08] that work and bring back. A robust report on what

[3:32:11] we heard. So this would push things back, at least

[3:32:15] until the end of August. If not September, for us

[3:32:19] to bring back enough information for council's consideration. I was

[3:32:23] just looking at consulting with the BIA, the immediate business

[3:32:27] people, to find out what their thoughts are than residents.

[3:32:29] I mean, I wasn't looking for. A complex consultation. We

[3:32:35] said we've done it before in a month, so I

[3:32:36] just don't understand. This. It certainly won't support this, and

[3:32:40] I think the public. Is. We deserve to the public.

[3:32:46] They're not. Fast track this based on administration's recommendation. Here.

[3:32:50] Councilor, are you? Consultation on the one lot and not

[3:32:54] the residential aspects. Is it the downtown lot that you're

[3:32:59] most concerned about? No one has been consulted on this

[3:33:03] lot. Everyone found out today, we found out Friday. How

[3:33:08] was that consultation? No, I'm just asking like you're okay

[3:33:11] with the setbacks. And the other aspects of the report.

[3:33:14] You just want consultation on the lot on Victoria at

[3:33:18] Simpson. Constellation that, and I would like to amend the

[3:33:22] setback for residential. But for now, yes. Yeah, well, so

[3:33:27] you want to refer the setbacks as well? No. I

[3:33:31] would like to amend the setbacks for residential to 50

[3:33:35] meters. But that's when that happens, okay? So. We have

[3:33:42] a motion to refer. City clerk power. I'm a little

[3:33:46] confused. Do we refer just one portion of this? And

[3:33:51] amend the other. So, through the chair, what I'm hearing

[3:33:55] from councilor Gretuga. Is specific consultation on the Vicount lot,

[3:34:00] including the FW, BIA and relevant business owners. Again, this

[3:34:04] recommendation simply holds that lot. It does not start the

[3:34:07] process. It does not start the work. This is still

[3:34:10] subject to ratification. In whatever decision you make as well.

[3:34:13] So it's important to consider that. That certainly could be

[3:34:16] done. As a referral on the vicount lot. On the

[3:34:20] other matter, chair I would ask to speak to that

[3:34:22] when you're closer to that, as we may need to

[3:34:24] bump into closed session, okay? It appears that we're speaking

[3:34:29] on a referral for the vicount lot. Consultation with businesses.

[3:34:35] Seconder councilor Agarwal will second. So that motion is on

[3:34:38] the floor. Referral for consultation there and I'll start a

[3:34:43] new list. I've got councilor. Hamilton. Councilor. Agarwal. Report back

[3:34:50] date. Did we settle on something? End of August council.

[3:34:56] July 22 I think whatever consultation we could talk to

[3:35:00] the BIA and the businesses in that time frame. It's

[3:35:02] not comprehensive. We're being told that's not achievable. But that

[3:35:07] was for a comprehensive consultation that included everything. In city

[3:35:11] or incoming city manager Colin Mr. Chair, forgive this interruption.

[3:35:15] I know I really don't. Have standing here until the

[3:35:17] bylaw passes later on this evening. But in the optimism

[3:35:20] that that will pass. I will inherit this come tomorrow

[3:35:23] morning. My concern with just focusing any further consultation should

[3:35:28] this council decide to do that, just forwarding it just

[3:35:31] doing that consultation with the BIA on the lot that

[3:35:35] is being suggested. Will result in us, obviously, providing. Feedback

[3:35:43] to you that they're not supportive of it. I mean,

[3:35:44] it's clear we heard from their chair this evening. So

[3:35:47] we'll come in on 22 July with that feedback. And

[3:35:50] we'll be no further ahead. We'll then be having to

[3:35:53] do additional consultation and. Additional reviews and analysis, I would

[3:35:58] suggest that if this council wishes us to consult more

[3:36:03] than we already have. That we be afforded the time

[3:36:06] to do so. Exhaustively and explore other options and possibilities

[3:36:12] within the city in the same breath. Because we're going

[3:36:15] there no matter what. Come 22 July would be my

[3:36:17] prediction. Okay, mr. Chair. My initial wish was to refer

[3:36:23] the entire thing for a consultation. We're just here and.

[3:36:26] Able to setbacks on Friday, the communities that you're able

[3:36:29] to setbacks today. So I was trying to refer the

[3:36:31] whole thing back for consultation, but it was administration's request.

[3:36:34] That we passed the setbacks tonight. But again, the residents

[3:36:39] just found out tonight what the setbacks are. I mean,

[3:36:42] what kind of consultation is that? We're pushing things down

[3:36:46] people's throats here. The people that are impacted, they want

[3:36:50] input. And who are we to deprive them of? That

[3:36:53] input, so I would refer. The entire package back for

[3:36:57] the complete consultation at the end of August or whatever

[3:37:00] administration says. Because to push this through, even the guidelines,

[3:37:05] when. No one's even seen what the guidelines are. It's

[3:37:08] just ridiculous. So if counter Aguilar would second that we

[3:37:14] referred the entire thing, then that would be. Fine. Okay,

[3:37:18] so we're referring the entire report back. Until the consultation

[3:37:23] on setbacks. On setbacks. And vi count? Yes, please. Okay.

[3:37:28] Is that still. Seconded. Okay, so it's on the floor.

[3:37:31] Seconded. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. We will go to

[3:37:36] speakers list. Councilor Hamilton, I had first. I've got lots

[3:37:41] of people here. All right. Well, chairs. So much to

[3:37:50] unpack here. I kind of wish you would have come

[3:37:53] to me. First. I probably had some useful information. On

[3:37:57] the role of the DSAB in the community, what we're

[3:38:00] doing, what's happening? What's not happening. I'm not going to

[3:38:06] support the referral. We literally just had the BIA, the

[3:38:11] chair do an hour long deputation, and we peppered them

[3:38:15] with questions for an hour. He went into great detail.

[3:38:20] The most comprehensive. Deputation of all time. No consultation required

[3:38:25] here. Talkable consultation. I'm the McKellar ward. City counselor. I

[3:38:31] visited the encampments. Today. I visited the businesses regularly. I've

[3:38:35] sat on the Fort William BIA. We are all elected

[3:38:38] people if you're not connected with the communities that you

[3:38:40] represent. Why are you here? We are the people. So

[3:38:47] I get that you want to kind of reach out

[3:38:48] to the BIA incoming city manager. Colin already reflected exactly

[3:38:54] what I said. We just had the chair of the

[3:38:56] BIA 20 minutes. Ago, sitting right in front of us

[3:38:58] here saying they don't agree with the law. I would

[3:39:02] much prefer. And I got a ton of different information

[3:39:06] on what the DSAB is doing that I would be

[3:39:09] happy to touch on if someone just asked the question.

[3:39:13] That is absolutely relevant and pertinent to this conversation. Why

[3:39:17] I can't support the referral is because I think that

[3:39:18] this is important to get these guidelines out the door.

[3:39:22] This is important to the community. There's great information there's.

[3:39:25] A very thoughtful approach here that we really need. To

[3:39:29] adopt. And address. And again, and I think it was

[3:39:34] already reflected by the clerk and the chair. Ratification isn't.

[3:39:37] Scheduled for a couple of weeks, and I don't think

[3:39:39] there's any really. Contentious issues. Councilor Gautuga is going to

[3:39:42] bring up distance guidelines. Let's debate that later. My move,

[3:39:47] which I would rather do, to be honest, is to

[3:39:50] just eliminate the whole notion of the pallet village because

[3:39:53] that was in there. We didn't ask for that. We

[3:39:54] asked. For designated sites. I'm fine that it's in there.

[3:39:57] It's exploratory, but the guidelines, I think, is really important

[3:40:01] because that has everything to do with the situation at

[3:40:04] the ground level. The pallet village is interesting. I think

[3:40:07] realty services put it up because it was zoned. Correctly,

[3:40:11] it met all the guidelines, and I think our staff

[3:40:13] and I would support them that I understand the rationale,

[3:40:16] why it's there. I'm not super supportive of the pallet

[3:40:19] village at this time, to be honest. So I don't

[3:40:21] want to really refer it back if we wanted to

[3:40:24] look for other places to do a potential. Pallet village

[3:40:26] or support one. I don't know if I'm interested in

[3:40:29] this. Location as clearly identified by the BAA as not

[3:40:31] being supportive. I don't like the location myself. To be

[3:40:34] honest, I think that there could be potential. I would

[3:40:37] rather referral go. Back to administration saying identify places throughout

[3:40:42] the city, not just focus on that lot. In coming,

[3:40:45] city manager Colin said, very rightly, we're going to be

[3:40:48] in no further. Ahead. If we're just focused on this

[3:40:50] lot that already has shown negative support in the community

[3:40:53] that could tell you it's not going to pass. The

[3:40:56] business community is not going to in any way that

[3:40:58] you package. That is not going to support it. I

[3:41:02] just really wanted to. Just mention one other thing too,

[3:41:05] because it has to be mentioned. The DSAB currently has

[3:41:08] an EOI process out right now and expressing of interest.

[3:41:12] The deadline is on Friday. Anybody, any organization out there

[3:41:16] could fill out the application, submit a proposal. It's not

[3:41:19] that hard. It's. A bunch of paragraphs. Submit your proposal.

[3:41:23] It'll be evaluated. In the coming weeks. And that could

[3:41:26] be a pallet shelter. It could be any kind of

[3:41:29] things, but it's evaluated against other proposals. With. A limited.

[3:41:36] Financial capacity available. There might only be $10 million in

[3:41:39] funding in this next allocation. The reason why I like

[3:41:42] that approach is because it's going to be weighed against

[3:41:45] the dollars and cents of a bunch of other proposals.

[3:41:48] Council Roberto or Council Roberto? Pardon me, deputy Roberto. Rightfully

[3:41:54] brought up the point that. Long term housing solutions are

[3:41:58] where we need to be going as a community. Let's

[3:42:01] just speak to the referral, but. There's a big reason

[3:42:05] why. I think it's a very bad idea to support

[3:42:08] the referral. I would rather edit. The draft resolution, and

[3:42:14] it's my hope that we don't send our staff off.

[3:42:16] On a wild goose chase. We are busy. Council knows

[3:42:20] that. We just heard the deputy. I don't need any

[3:42:23] more consultation. We just. Had it. Okay, so you don't

[3:42:26] support the referral? Of course they don't. Share. Thank you

[3:42:28] for your latitude, but there's rationale on why we need

[3:42:32] to make this decision here. Now, I'm happy to edit

[3:42:34] the resolution, but I don't think the referral is the

[3:42:37] way to go. Thank you. Okay, well, there's some. Procedural

[3:42:40] issues that we should all be aware of. This would

[3:42:42] not be ratified until the 15th unless. We have a

[3:42:45] super majority tonight, so there's some complications. The clerk has

[3:42:49] asked for a five minute recess. To consolidate some of

[3:42:54] the requests that are there and make sure that we

[3:42:57] are on a good path here. Things can get very

[3:43:00] complicated with complicated files like this, so I would recommend

[3:43:04] we recess. And so with that, we get some advice

[3:43:08] on how to move forward and. What's the most efficient

[3:43:12] way to move forward? We're currently discussing a referral to

[3:43:16] the 22nd. And we may or may not have any

[3:43:19] more information. We have to understand the intent of the

[3:43:23] referral. And. What we're actually trying to accomplish. So let's

[3:43:28] take a five minute recess. Do I need a mover.

[3:43:30] Seconder mover. Mayor Boschkoff will move. Councilor Trini will second.

[3:43:35] All in favor? Okay, that is carried. We'll come back

[3:43:39] in five. Minutes.

[3:52:39] We will reconvene. If all members could come back.

[3:52:50] To other desks.

[3:53:03] Online in postcard. Okay? So, clerk power, you have consulted

[3:53:12] with administration and. You have some advice for us? So,

[3:53:18] chair, I will start and then certainly ask to pass

[3:53:20] it. Over to my colleagues in administration. The recommendation from

[3:53:24] administration is with respect to the distance guidelines that they

[3:53:28] be adopted subject to ongoing review, and it's important to

[3:53:33] note this is something that is being done in other

[3:53:35] municipalities. Again. Director Olsen can speak to it. The second

[3:53:40] recommendation is that paragraph two be removed. So the VI

[3:53:44] count lot simply be removed at this time. And then

[3:53:49] again, we'll come back to you with potential options. The

[3:53:52] referral is duly. Moved and seconded. Therefore, it does have

[3:53:55] to be voted on in order to entertain those changes.

[3:53:59] But that's what administration recommends. Chair referral is still on

[3:54:02] the floor. Yeah, the referral is on the floor. So

[3:54:07] we will speak to the referral if. You like what

[3:54:10] you'd heard? About. I'm not sure what that was. I

[3:54:19] believe he turned his microphone off. So we'll speak to

[3:54:23] the referral with the idea that. If you like, passing

[3:54:27] what has been presented for setbacks with the understanding it'd

[3:54:31] be. Ongoing review to remove the vicount lot with the

[3:54:34] understanding that options would come forward at another time. Then,

[3:54:38] I guess. We shall defeat the referral. And. Pass this

[3:54:46] amendment. If you want to refer everything and come back

[3:54:50] in July or August on the bycount. Lot. Getting consultation,

[3:54:56] then you would pass the referral, okay? So, councilor Hamilton,

[3:55:01] you had spoken. First round, Mayor Boschkov's next. I only

[3:55:06] question. A way of trying to find. To make this

[3:55:10] more expeditious so we could move. On it quicker, it

[3:55:13] seems like. By the time. The reports come back. And

[3:55:20] the end of the fiscal encampment season. Will be coming.

[3:55:25] To. An end as opposed to right now. It's in

[3:55:30] its maximum growth period. So I was hoping that. We

[3:55:36] could do something now because it's affecting people. This is

[3:55:41] the most poignantly difficult time for the community as the

[3:55:46] influx starts to peak. So my conclusion may be that

[3:55:53] in listening to everyone. That. Will lose this year to.

[3:56:02] Another season. Of encamping. And that we'll be more prepared

[3:56:09] for the fall or the winter. But thank you, chair.

[3:56:15] Thank you, Councilor Aguilar. Thank you very much. Just to

[3:56:21] clarify, you're suggesting that we just removed the vicon lot

[3:56:25] so that we. Have proper consultation. And alternate sites that

[3:56:30] come up. So, chair. Procedurally, I can't recommend that to

[3:56:34] you because the referral is still. On the floor. What

[3:56:37] I'm providing you with is an alternate option should the

[3:56:40] referral. Not pass. The council could consider that has been

[3:56:43] recommended by administration. Okay, so that means once we adopt,

[3:56:48] should we accept this? Then we would accept all the

[3:56:53] other terms of the report. And the distancing would not

[3:56:58] have any further consultation. So chair through you what has

[3:57:03] been again suggested. We're not entertaining it at this moment.

[3:57:07] Is that there be subject to ongoing review. So you

[3:57:10] adopt again. There's been consultation, especially. With residents of encampments

[3:57:14] to say they're open to these guidelines and these distance

[3:57:18] requirements. Starting there and then looking again for there to

[3:57:23] be ongoing review to come back to you to say,

[3:57:24] how is it working? Okay. Can I have a question

[3:57:31] to administration? Pertaining to the referral. To the referral. Please.

[3:57:41] For the referral, for the distancing. Did we consult with.

[3:57:47] Anybody. Other than. The unhoused and the service providers to

[3:57:53] the unhoused through the chair. No, we did not. We

[3:57:57] did not have the time frame in order to do

[3:57:59] that. We were requested to bring options back to council

[3:58:03] within two months. Okay, I'm going to have a challenge

[3:58:08] supporting something that didn't have any other input. From other

[3:58:15] stakeholders that are in the neighborhood. Of the encampment. We've

[3:58:22] only consulted with one side. And we haven't heard from

[3:58:25] the other side. We need both sides to make a

[3:58:29] calculated educated decision. I know this is a good first

[3:58:33] step, what's being recommended, but I don't think. We've had

[3:58:38] the opportunity, not even the five days that we normally

[3:58:41] get for the public. To have their input. This is

[3:58:45] where the challenge comes. It's very difficult because I would

[3:58:49] love to take this report and say yes, except for

[3:58:51] Vy count. However, if Mrs. Jones calls and says she's

[3:58:58] disgruntled because she didn't, get to have a say because

[3:59:00] it wasn't fair for her. Then what? So the question

[3:59:05] is, will the public have a say? And we have

[3:59:14] until the 15th. Right. This is now going to be

[3:59:17] in the community. These setbacks. Until the 15th. They can

[3:59:21] have a say if on the 15th, any member around

[3:59:24] the table. Feels that hasn't been sufficient or you want

[3:59:28] further consultation? That can come up at ratification. Thank you.

[3:59:33] Okay, one last question, then. For administration, there was something.

[3:59:36] Mentioned about London changing their setbacks, and we didn't incorporate

[3:59:40] that because it was so new. Through the chair. Yes,

[3:59:44] that's correct. There are distance guidelines. They were not changed.

[3:59:48] They're new. They were released after our distance. Guidelines had

[3:59:52] been devised. Through the chair, if I may. This also

[3:59:55] gives us an opportunity to continue benchmarking against what other

[3:59:58] municipalities are doing. We didn't just blindly bring these recommendations

[4:00:08] forward. And these setbacks as council is describing them today.

[4:00:13] We did look at what other communities are doing? And

[4:00:16] this is based on the only type of evidence that's

[4:00:19] really out there. This is new grounds for municipalities to

[4:00:23] undertake, and we see this as an opportunity to actually

[4:00:27] be able to start to action with some clear guidelines.

[4:00:30] Continue the communication and we do commit to ongoing review.

[4:00:35] And bringing additional information back. Should multiple municipalities go with

[4:00:39] 100 meters distance guideline we would bring that forward to

[4:00:42] council for your consideration. Through the chair. I'd also just

[4:00:46] like to add that Hamilton's newly revised distances did not

[4:00:50] adjust the 10 meters away from a private property line,

[4:00:53] so that is still their current guideline. Thank you. At

[4:00:57] no point did I think this was not a robust

[4:01:00] report. I really do like the report. I did not

[4:01:03] like the fact that the BIA, the businesses, the immediately

[4:01:07] abutting neighbor, nor the fact there was no signage on

[4:01:10] that lot, there was no consultation on the lot that's.

[4:01:13] Where I had my biggest issue. The rest of it.

[4:01:17] There's a lot of work done there, and I appreciate

[4:01:19] that work. That's been done and brought forward to try

[4:01:22] to find a solution to a very challenging problem. There's

[4:01:28] one major piece I didn't like, but now I'm just

[4:01:31] questioning. The others. Because of what's been brought forward. That's

[4:01:35] all. I thank you for what you've done except that

[4:01:38] one piece. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Chung. Thank you

[4:01:43] very much. Chair. I'm not sure. I think we might

[4:01:48] be confusing consultation. With getting feedback from constituents after a

[4:01:54] report comes out. From my understanding, consultation was done with

[4:01:59] a number of people, not to the extent that maybe

[4:02:02] we would like it because we changed the timeline on

[4:02:05] that. I'm a little bit concerned about consulting on the

[4:02:10] property use, because we are not. Changing any zoning for

[4:02:13] it, which is why I think. In my recollection, why

[4:02:19] we would actually consult as if we're changing zoning and

[4:02:22] property use. But this wouldn't be changing property use, which

[4:02:25] is why it came forward. Having said that, somebody could

[4:02:29] actually purchase. This property or put an encampment, a private

[4:02:34] encampment on it, and we would have no say because

[4:02:37] that's what it's zoned for. I'm satisfied with. The work

[4:02:43] that administration has done in the time frame that we've

[4:02:46] given them. I live on McVicker Creek area and have

[4:02:50] spoken at length with my neighbors and other residents. I

[4:02:54] asked them to submit their questions. Which I've done. I

[4:02:58] have almost a dozen questions to bring up to administration.

[4:03:03] However, I don't think that's going to require. Referral back

[4:03:07] to administration when I could easily take these questions offline

[4:03:10] and get my answers. Between now and July. If this

[4:03:16] report passes tonight, when would it come back for ratification?

[4:03:20] For the referral that came? Forward from councilor Gautuga was

[4:03:22] July the 22nd. No, sorry. The original report. If we.

[4:03:25] Just passed the report tonight. It's the 15th. For ratification.

[4:03:29] Yes, ratification. Okay. That would give constituents a few weeks

[4:03:34] to. Three weeks to message, to talk. I could email.

[4:03:40] Manager Olsen, who have no problem working these things out

[4:03:44] with. So chair, I'm hesitant to support. Actually, I wouldn't

[4:03:49] even support this. But I do have a question. If

[4:03:55] we go an alternative route. Can we change the guidelines

[4:04:00] as we go, or do we need to notice a

[4:04:01] motion so it's more of a technical question. So chair

[4:04:07] through you. Based on the recommendation from administration, you wouldn't

[4:04:11] need a notice of. Motion to change the guidelines because

[4:04:13] they would be subject to ongoing review. So as information

[4:04:17] is collected again. We know that there is case law

[4:04:21] that is emerging. As those things change, administration would bring

[4:04:24] you that information. Okay. I'm very satisfied with the guidelines

[4:04:29] I've been brought forward. We won't get this perfect. It

[4:04:33] won't be perfect. And I'm quite happy to actually support

[4:04:38] the report tonight. But understand that there's some other things

[4:04:41] at place, so. I won't be supporting the referral. Thank

[4:04:45] you, chair. Thank you. We have Councilor Trini next. Thank

[4:04:50] you to the chair. Similar. I will not be supporting

[4:04:54] the deferral, the referral, the distance guidelines. I think is

[4:04:58] a good start. We needed something. And something's better than

[4:05:02] nothing. And as we've already been told, that we can

[4:05:05] modify this as we go along. I think administration did

[4:05:08] an excellent job of looking for best practice. There is

[4:05:11] very limited best practice, but they did go out there

[4:05:13] and look for that and produce. That for us, the

[4:05:16] July 15 date is our consultation from now till then

[4:05:20] and recognizing that we can change those and recognizing the

[4:05:23] communities are changing them as required by the community. So

[4:05:27] I am fine with that piece. The distance piece altogether.

[4:05:30] The property suggestion, I kind of a little bit more

[4:05:34] hesitant on, I think. We're giving a message to people

[4:05:37] in the Fort William area. That. This is more than

[4:05:42] just a potential that we're saying that this is it.

[4:05:46] And so I would like to see that off of

[4:05:47] the motion myself. I think we can deal. With that

[4:05:51] down the road, if a community partner comes forward and

[4:05:54] says, we're interested, but I think we're putting the cart

[4:05:56] before the horse until that actual time comes, so I

[4:05:59] will not be supporting this referral. Thank you. Councilor. Thank

[4:06:07] you. Through the chair. So, in regards to the distance

[4:06:10] guidelines, Just on the sheet that we have. Where would

[4:06:16] business be? Would that be within the 20 meters? As

[4:06:19] well, because there's no picture of a business or it

[4:06:20] doesn't state business. On here. So where would that be?

[4:06:26] Through the chair. I would put that under the entrances

[4:06:29] and exits cannot be within 5 meters of. An entrance

[4:06:32] nor an exit. And I also believe that a business

[4:06:35] is considered a private property. Well, then, is it 20

[4:06:40] or is it five? It would be the one that's

[4:06:44] sorry. Through the chair, it would be the one that's

[4:06:45] more. So 20 meters. Okay, so business. Would be considered

[4:06:48] a private property even though it's public business. Is for

[4:06:56] the public, is it not? Through the chair. Businesses are

[4:07:03] privately owned, so we would anticipate that it's also in

[4:07:06] that. Thank you for that clarification. And then just on

[4:07:09] page five of the report, it says the task force

[4:07:13] exemplifies a collaborative approach coordinated by the city and includes

[4:07:16] representation from. There's no indigenous agencies on this list. And

[4:07:24] I find that odd. Since. We talk about homelessness and

[4:07:29] stuff, I believe. It's. 70. Percent up. Or greater. Involve

[4:07:37] indigenous peoples. Is that something? Hopefully down the road. We

[4:07:44] can maybe visit. So through the chair, we would certainly

[4:07:48] welcome an indigenous organization who responds to homelessness. The task

[4:07:52] force isn't an advisory, so I will just caution. Committee

[4:07:57] that perhaps there might be some misperception as to what

[4:08:00] the task force is. It really is a coordinating body

[4:08:02] to better understand the response measures that are required and

[4:08:06] make assessments. On risk mitigation. And individual site needs. I

[4:08:13] will also share that. Many of the indigenous organizations in

[4:08:19] our community are tapped to attend multiple meetings and may

[4:08:23] not. Have the resources or the time to afford. And

[4:08:28] sit at biweekly meetings with us, but they are absolutely

[4:08:31] welcome and we will continue. To explore that. Okay, but

[4:08:35] the invitations go out, obviously inviting everyone, correct? Through the

[4:08:39] chair. The invitations go out to the members that have

[4:08:42] been listed on there. It is a very small task

[4:08:47] force. It requires. What we generally call our enforcement partners,

[4:08:52] and that's largely police, fire and the health unit. And

[4:08:57] the LRCa. And we did have membership with the CP

[4:09:01] police. However, the individual who was in that position in

[4:09:04] Thunder Bay did relocate, so we don't have a new

[4:09:07] member at this time, and then it's multiple organization representatives

[4:09:12] from within the city who are directly impacted. For example,

[4:09:16] parks, municipal licensing enforcement because. They field a number of

[4:09:20] calls. DSAB and the two partners that actually provide. Warming

[4:09:26] and cooling shelters in the community, as well as do

[4:09:29] some direct response in the encampments I appreciate that. Thank

[4:09:32] you. Next we have councilor Pascalino. Thank you very much

[4:09:40] for this report. And thank you. And through the chair.

[4:09:46] What I am concerned about is, first of all, The

[4:09:50] first inkling that I got as a city councilor, and

[4:09:53] I realized it was just elected. February, March of 2023.

[4:10:00] So shortly after I was elected, that's when we decided

[4:10:03] to go on this route. And then it got delayed.

[4:10:08] It was supposed to be in the first quarter of

[4:10:09] 2024. Now we got that report. In April. So that

[4:10:16] was past the first quarter. And now we got this

[4:10:20] one. And now we're talking about delaying it further. So

[4:10:23] my problem is I really don't want to. Delay it

[4:10:28] much further. I want some action taken on it, however.

[4:10:33] There are a lot of things on here I'd like

[4:10:34] to change. I'd like. To see maybe better enforcement on

[4:10:39] the distant guidelines that we hear. And I'd like to

[4:10:43] see more of them and see them also increase. But

[4:10:48] we are talking about that at a different time right

[4:10:51] now. We're not there, right? Now. Right now, we're only

[4:10:53] talking about. The depth. The change of the report back.

[4:10:59] So. I'm going to go ahead and say that. I

[4:11:03] will support. Not support. The thing to bring it back.

[4:11:09] Later on in July. And I'd like to work on

[4:11:12] this. The guidelines to make sure that they're stronger. And

[4:11:17] perhaps more enforcement. And then there's other things we can

[4:11:21] talk about. But my concern is that what happens? Because

[4:11:25] nobody said this yet. What happens if this whole thing

[4:11:28] gets rejected, then? Where are we? Are we back to

[4:11:32] square one that we were back in 2023? Well, if

[4:11:36] it gets rejected. Yeah, it gets rejected. But. I don't

[4:11:43] see that happening around the table. I mean, we're all

[4:11:44] wanting to. Get to a solution. Okay. So. My final

[4:11:50] thought on this is to bring it forward and hopefully.

[4:11:54] We can get something solid in the guidelines that are

[4:11:57] going to meet everybody's needs here. At the table today.

[4:12:02] Okay. And we have councilor Zizino. Okay, so we'll call

[4:12:07] the question on the referral with the knowledge that we

[4:12:11] have. An alternate, if that's your preference. So all in

[4:12:15] favor of the referral? Oh, Councilor GrT, did you wish

[4:12:19] to speak on the referral second round? Sorry. Just really

[4:12:24] quick, did I hear that correct, that we consulted with

[4:12:27] the people that are living with the encampments, and they're

[4:12:30] okay with the guidelines, the distance guidelines, but. We didn't

[4:12:34] consult with the surrounding residents. Did I hear that correctly?

[4:12:38] Yes, through the chair. That's actually. A significant tenant of

[4:12:43] a human rights based approach. Wow. I can't wait to

[4:12:47] tell residents that when constituents that would they call me

[4:12:49] tomorrow. Thank you. Okay. So. We are going back to

[4:12:56] the vote on the referral. All in favor of the

[4:13:00] referral? We have one. And any opposed? Okay, that did

[4:13:08] not carry so the referral. Is. Off. The floor, I

[4:13:15] guess we'd say. It would come down to somebody moving

[4:13:19] and seconding, I guess the alternate, if they're interested. Councilor

[4:13:23] Adriani. You are. Any seconders for Councilor Ayello? Let's read

[4:13:29] the alternative. It's on the floor. So the alternate option

[4:13:33] as provided. By administration. Is to again adopt the distance

[4:13:40] guideline as outlined in the report, subject to ongoing review.

[4:13:44] Understanding that administration will continue to report back to you

[4:13:47] as the landscape changes. Also to remove the reference. To

[4:13:51] the vicount lot from paragraph two. Or remove paragraph two

[4:13:56] completely. And the reference to the viacount law in paragraph

[4:13:59] three? So it removes the VI count lot again. Administration

[4:14:03] would report back on a future site and then those

[4:14:06] guidelines would be subject to review. All of this would

[4:14:08] be subject to ratification on the 15 July. The reports

[4:14:12] on the floor. Ask questions in its entirety. And of

[4:14:20] the deputations at this point in time. Did I? Counselor

[4:14:24] Trinity, did you have your hand up? I was just

[4:14:29] going to verify. Part of the initial resolution was to

[4:14:32] continue the advocacy. That's correct. So none of that would

[4:14:36] be removed. So again, you're talking about. City council advocating

[4:14:39] to the Government of Ontario of Canada, copy of this

[4:14:42] resolution, once ratified, being sent to all of the partners

[4:14:45] you see in the recommendation. Thank you. Councilor Johnson. Thank

[4:14:53] you. Chair through you. So we're back on the original.

[4:15:01] Yeah, but it is amended. Yes, right. But I mean,

[4:15:04] the contents of the report are all open for discussion.

[4:15:08] Just clarifying. The report. Mentions. The ongoing issue, if you

[4:15:15] will, asks for an additional supervisor and two outreach workers,

[4:15:20] as well as $450,000. In the next year's budget. Just

[4:15:27] wondering. Was there, thought or was. There. Ideas put forward

[4:15:35] to give that monies instead to stakeholders. Say like the

[4:15:40] DSAb being that they're the lead on this issue. Through

[4:15:45] the chair. Those funds represent. Administration's ability to actually direct

[4:15:53] administration work. So right now we work in good faith

[4:15:57] and in collaboration with community partners. But there are times

[4:16:02] where we are getting multiple report. Reports of encampments of

[4:16:06] concerns in the community, and we aren't adequately resourced. To

[4:16:11] effectively and immediately respond, go and do the engagement. Potentially

[4:16:17] support individuals with relocation. Our community partners have given a

[4:16:23] substantial amount of. In kind staffing support to. This and

[4:16:30] to other community safety and well being initiatives in our

[4:16:32] community. And in particular this response as a community collaborative.

[4:16:39] Our main community partner. This is a stretch of their

[4:16:42] mandate. It aligns with it, but it is a stretch

[4:16:45] and when we're talking about the ability to do community

[4:16:49] cleanups, to work with external partners. External vendors to do

[4:16:54] garbage collection, portable toilets. All of that costs additional funds

[4:16:58] and. That's part of this. So in previous reports, we

[4:17:02] did bring forward recommendation for budget in the range of

[4:17:06] $20,000. That's when we were working with about 30 people

[4:17:10] living in encampments. We are triple that. And in order

[4:17:14] to effectively respond and manage the amount of calls that

[4:17:18] we are getting, from the community. Should council wish us

[4:17:21] to implement. And while. These aren't legal guidelines. The enforceability

[4:17:29] would be the ability to develop and maintain relationships. With

[4:17:32] individuals to help support those voluntary relocations as outlined. In

[4:17:38] the relocation protocol. Okay, we have a lot of information

[4:17:43] here tonight, and certainly we have this platform. The video

[4:17:46] exists. Online for quite some time. But how is administration?

[4:17:53] 's rollout. For communicating what we're doing tonight and what

[4:17:56] their plan going forward. What does that look like? As

[4:18:00] you know, I'm big on how we communicate to residents.

[4:18:04] What's the plan going forward? To blast this out to

[4:18:08] those that are interested or not. Even interested, but just

[4:18:10] in general, to get to sell to everybody. So through

[4:18:14] the chair we've. Already amended the city's website so previously.

[4:18:19] On the report a problem page. Within the city's website

[4:18:22] that lists a whole bunch of different areas. Encampments was

[4:18:26] never listed there, so that already exists now. The number

[4:18:31] still goes to 24 hours. Dispatch, you can do an

[4:18:35] online reporting. We are also working behind the scenes to

[4:18:39] establish. A specific area within the city's website to clearly

[4:18:43] outline the response protocol update. The timelines, how city would

[4:18:50] effectively respond. We do plan to share this information further

[4:18:55] out on our social media channels, we can share it.

[4:18:59] Through our podcast. And we will continue to. Do. A

[4:19:05] media release post council decision as well. Additionally, I think

[4:19:10] the other component that is required is communication for individuals

[4:19:14] living in encampments. And that will come by word of

[4:19:18] mouth. That will be relationship dependent. Yeah. Very good. I

[4:19:22] would also like to acknowledge that there's a proposed 68

[4:19:25] people currently experiencing. Less. Currently experiencing homelessness that will be

[4:19:32] added to the advisory table. So I think that's a

[4:19:34] great idea as well. Share councilor Chung's enthusiasm for the

[4:19:39] work that the team has done, and I'm happy to

[4:19:41] support it. Mumbling my words. It is getting late. The

[4:19:44] 11:00 resolution. Soon to come, so thank you. Chair. Thank

[4:19:47] you to the team. Thank you. It's coming up. Next

[4:19:52] on the list I have councilor Hamilton. Yeah. Thank you,

[4:19:57] chair and. I'm glad. The almost former city manager Norm

[4:20:02] Gail used to talk about standing your lane, right. And

[4:20:05] it's important to recognize that we have a role. Where

[4:20:09] it put the DsAb hat on. These are DSAB clients,

[4:20:12] many of them, but these are city residents. Right? So

[4:20:16] that's the overlap. So we have a duty. To, I

[4:20:20] think, mitigate some of the concerns around. Our residents about.

[4:20:26] Litter disruption. In general. But, I mean, this is a

[4:20:31] DSAB issue, like the province has come to the table

[4:20:34] with. A generous portion of funding that is getting rolled

[4:20:38] out the door. We added 52 new transitional beds. Just

[4:20:41] in this last batch of homeless prevention funding, and presumably

[4:20:45] the same over the next two years. So I think

[4:20:48] it's important to actually just stay focused on the long

[4:20:50] term. That's. What we're at the DSAB doing and how

[4:20:53] we could support them is good. We don't need to

[4:20:55] be creating redundancies where. We are. Giving that organization dollars

[4:21:01] to do this work, and then we're just kind of

[4:21:03] getting, we're just kind of like, muddying the waters. That

[4:21:06] said, I do appreciate that. We do. Intersect. And have

[4:21:10] cooperative relationship with the DSAB. But anyway, that's all I'm

[4:21:15] going to say. I definitely support the resolution in this

[4:21:17] moving forward. Thank you, Councilor Oliver. Thank you. I hope

[4:21:23] you can hear me. We can. Okay, great. So just

[4:21:29] a couple of things, like, sort of building on both

[4:21:32] councilor Johnson and. Hamilton. We're just saying with regard to.

[4:21:36] The education piece. I think that there's some value and

[4:21:40] maybe even trying to explain to the community. What appellate

[4:21:43] village looks like. And just to give that overall view

[4:21:47] of what people could expect to see. With that type

[4:21:50] of service delivery and program delivery. Because I think that

[4:21:54] there's just this misconception of what it actually is. And

[4:21:58] I don't think that the community has a full time

[4:22:00] understanding of the benefit of that type of strategy in

[4:22:03] terms of helping people that are currently unhoused. So that's.

[4:22:06] Just one point that I wanted to make. And I

[4:22:07] think the other thing is, too, when we're having our

[4:22:10] conversations with the community and our constituents. I know that

[4:22:14] they're looking at comparing us with other communities. Who often

[4:22:18] have their own autonomy in terms of how their housing

[4:22:21] programs are rolled out. And so we don't have that

[4:22:24] same level autonomy here in Thunder Bay. Obviously, we're part

[4:22:27] of the district Social Services Administration board. Who has the

[4:22:31] mandate. To run and provide the leadership on this. But

[4:22:35] I do see that we have a value. We do

[4:22:38] bring value and opportunity to the table as well, too,

[4:22:41] to bring that local lens to those conversations. And I

[4:22:46] fully understand that we have six members of council who

[4:22:48] do sit on the DSAT. Board, but I think it's

[4:22:51] by extension that the community has. A lot to offer.

[4:22:55] And I mentioned this last time, my last word meaning.

[4:22:59] A fairly robust conversation and the encampments, and I would

[4:23:02] say that everyone that was approaching this conversation had compassion,

[4:23:07] empathy and certainly want to see. A better outcome for

[4:23:12] people that are living it rough. And also recognizing the

[4:23:17] comments made by one of our service delivery partners the

[4:23:21] other day. That we're at least a year out from

[4:23:23] seeing. Anything monumentous change in terms of having some transitional

[4:23:29] housing or some affordable housing in place for people that

[4:23:31] are currently experiencing a crisis. And I'm also cognizant of

[4:23:35] the fact that there's been three home last month that

[4:23:38] have passed away. So to me that seems like we

[4:23:40] should be moving fairly quickly because. Obviously, we know we

[4:23:45] have a huge issue here, but we don't want to

[4:23:47] see more. Deaths as a result of an action. So,

[4:23:51] taking that all into consideration, I do like this new

[4:23:54] proposal. I think that. It helps build that flexibility. Looking

[4:23:59] at what other communities are doing, how we can. Take

[4:24:03] that as best practices and roll something out. But better

[4:24:06] yet, I want to see us also. Implementing something where

[4:24:09] we're the ones that are instituting some best practices. And

[4:24:13] I am confident that administration does have their finger on

[4:24:15] the pulse on this, and. We'll continue to leverage every

[4:24:20] opportunity they can to build capacity and bring those recommendations

[4:24:23] to council. So. I just wanted to take a minute

[4:24:27] to express my appreciation for this new recommendation. Thank you.

[4:24:32] Thank you. It's that time again. Thank you, chair. With

[4:24:37] the hour being 11:00 that we continue with the business

[4:24:40] of Han. Mover. Councilor Chung. Councilor Hamilton will second. All

[4:24:46] in favor? Any opposed? Appears to be carried. So we'll

[4:24:52] go to the next speaker as Councilor Gurtuga. Thank you,

[4:24:57] Mr. Chair. So I guess now that what's left in

[4:25:04] this resolution is that we have distance guidelines. That we

[4:25:07] can enforce and that we're going to lobby. The other

[4:25:11] orders of government, right. Is that pretty much all that's

[4:25:13] left in this now? That we took out the vicount

[4:25:16] lot. Chair through you to clarify. What has been proposed,

[4:25:25] moved and seconded is adding to paragraph one subject. To

[4:25:30] ongoing review, which again would be the district distance guidelines

[4:25:34] outlined in the report, removing paragraph two the lands municipally

[4:25:38] known as the Vi count lots. And from paragraph three.

[4:25:44] The reference to the Vi count lot, so the advocacy.

[4:25:47] All of the other items remain. In the resolution. Okay.

[4:25:53] Yeah. So the lobby of the government and the district

[4:25:54] guidelines would be, can enforce. Okay, well, I will amend.

[4:25:59] The distant guidelines for the homes. But I'll wait until

[4:26:03] we ratify this because I want to hear from the

[4:26:05] community via my own consultation that I'll do. But. Mark

[4:26:11] my words. Next summer we'll be in the same position

[4:26:13] with nothing changed, and I. Said it last year. I

[4:26:16] tried to bring forward the notice of motion to reconsider

[4:26:20] our human rights approach and make it a capacitate approach

[4:26:22] back in January, but I was told I couldn't. As

[4:26:26] I wasn't present for the vote, and it needs to

[4:26:29] be someone who voted in. Favor of the human rights

[4:26:32] approach to bring forward that notice of motion to reconsider.

[4:26:36] So I guess. But I said last year we'll be

[4:26:39] in the same position this year. And next year I

[4:26:41] will be in the exact same position again. We have

[4:26:45] people. In the cabinet saying that they're okay with. These

[4:26:49] distance guidelines, but we haven't talked to the residents about

[4:26:53] them. And people could say whatever they want. They could

[4:26:58] go 10 meters, they can go 5 meters, and we

[4:27:00] can force it so it doesn't matter. I'm not going

[4:27:03] to support this. I'll try to change the distant guidelines

[4:27:07] when it comes to ratification, but. I think we're just

[4:27:10] spinning our wheels again. Once again, thank you. Okay. Thank

[4:27:14] you, councilor. We've got Councilor Chung next. Thank you. Chair.

[4:27:20] Chair. What I would like to know. Is that communication

[4:27:24] with the public can be quite difficult. Even if citizens

[4:27:28] do have access to the Internet and computers and houses.

[4:27:31] The unhoused population might not necessarily have access to the

[4:27:35] new guidelines. So what I'd like to know is how

[4:27:38] the city will successfully communicate with the unhoused population as

[4:27:41] to where they may be permitted to put up a

[4:27:43] shelter. And the guidelines and so forth. So through the

[4:27:47] chair. We would rely on our community partners at this

[4:27:52] point in time. We are not directly doing work in

[4:27:56] encampments. That being said, we have held focus groups and

[4:28:00] we have outlined that we are committed to establishing an

[4:28:03] advisory committee, and so we will work with the advisory

[4:28:06] committee of people with experience in encampments on how best

[4:28:10] to continue to communicate and. Share anything that's adopted this

[4:28:15] evening, as well as any additional changes that may be

[4:28:17] made. In the future. As far as guidelines go, thank

[4:28:20] you for that. Analysts will and has further to add.

[4:28:24] Yeah, thank you. Through the chair. I also just want

[4:28:26] to point out the infographic attachment a that can be

[4:28:29] distributed to people who are living in campbellments that's a

[4:28:31] bit more digestible than just a bunch of bullet points.

[4:28:35] Excellent. Thank you. My next question, chair, is that we

[4:28:39] have in the past spent a considerable amount of time

[4:28:41] and resource. Resources protecting McVicker Creek. And I understand, I

[4:28:45] think that's part of the environmental protection zone. I'm sorry.

[4:28:49] I can't find a map anywhere what this looks like.

[4:28:52] So can you tell me what rivers are in this

[4:28:56] environmental protection zone, and if there's going to be some

[4:29:00] sort of mapped out area where sites are permitted, or

[4:29:04] at least not permitted. So through the chair. There are

[4:29:08] parts of McVicker Creek that are within the environmental protection

[4:29:12] zone. There are other locations within the community that. Are

[4:29:18] also within that zone. And so we will work with

[4:29:21] the Lake Regional Conservation Authority, who provided that information and

[4:29:25] provides it. To our mapping. At this point in time,

[4:29:28] the mapping would be internal facing for us to really

[4:29:31] be able to do the nuances, especially if we continue

[4:29:34] to change and modify what the distance guidelines are. That

[4:29:38] would be a continuous amount of work for administration to

[4:29:41] continue. To update a public facing mapping that. Is better

[4:29:47] situated for internal use and response. Okay, so I take

[4:29:51] it that's going to come at some point? I would

[4:29:54] just assume. That we would need to know. If people

[4:29:57] are not allowed or permitted to set up an encampment

[4:30:00] within the environmental protection zone, but I don't even know

[4:30:03] where that is, to be totally honest. But you're? Saying

[4:30:05] that's to come at some point in the future. So

[4:30:08] through the chair, it is something that we can use

[4:30:10] internally. So if something was identified, we have a general

[4:30:13] sense of where those locations are right now based on

[4:30:16] some preliminary mapping. And using our gis system. I will

[4:30:20] share that. That's not my area of expertise, so. I'm

[4:30:24] not the most positioned to fully respond to that. Our

[4:30:27] intention was to actually use that internal facing. It's not

[4:30:31] required for public to understand where people can or cannot

[4:30:34] be. They can continue. To call in if they have

[4:30:36] any concerns. Administration and our community partners will investigate and

[4:30:41] make the determination if it falls within the guidelines that

[4:30:45] we've established or that should counsel adopt these guidelines or

[4:30:50] any future changes to guidelines, chair I guess. My concern

[4:30:55] is. With someone. Sets up an encampment, a tented area,

[4:31:00] and they're told it's an environmental protection area. They have

[4:31:02] to move somewhere else, so they pack up their stuff,

[4:31:05] often using just the tools of expediency around them. A

[4:31:09] shopping cart or what have you. I've seen all kinds

[4:31:12] of things. It's very difficult for people to move locations.

[4:31:17] Only to find themselves set up. Maybe. In another environmental

[4:31:21] protection, and then it goes on and on, causing more

[4:31:23] stress and harm. I'm hoping that maybe the LRCA can

[4:31:27] provide some guidance and some help. With tracking and all

[4:31:33] the mapping stuff that I also have no clue what

[4:31:35] that looks like. But I'm just concerned that we might

[4:31:38] be making things more difficult for people. Or I could

[4:31:41] also be misunderstanding this. I see a lot of chatter

[4:31:45] over there. Thank you, Councilor Chung. So individuals found to

[4:31:51] be in violation of the distance guidelines, should they be

[4:31:54] adopted, would be subject to a planned relocation unless there

[4:31:58] was imminent risk of injury, illness or death. And so

[4:32:01] part of those planned relocations involves working with the individual

[4:32:04] to identify a site that is compliant with those guidelines

[4:32:08] and helping them situate themselves. There. So it would not

[4:32:11] be a matter of grabbing a shopping cart and just

[4:32:14] moving their stuff. To wherever they think they might be

[4:32:16] compliant. They would be supported to find a location that

[4:32:19] is compliant. Okay, I guess we can't be a little

[4:32:21] more proactive on that front. Through the chair. That's part

[4:32:31] of the guidelines or the relocation protocol that was part

[4:32:34] of attachment b. I believe in your report, which really

[4:32:38] demonstrates. The value of. Connection and relationship development, better understanding,

[4:32:46] trust, and then you identify the locations and. We would

[4:32:50] actually support individuals to move. To a suitable compliant location

[4:32:55] that is within those guidelines. Should council adopt those this

[4:32:59] evening? Awesome. Thank you. All right. We're going to councilor

[4:33:06] Pascalino and then to councilor Agarwal. Thank you very much.

[4:33:12] And through the chair. I'd like to speak a few

[4:33:18] of my thoughts. On this report. I just want to

[4:33:23] say that most of my career as a union president,

[4:33:27] I've always tried to bring the two sides closer together,

[4:33:31] where we can actually discuss things and become productive. I'm

[4:33:37] finding that really difficult because. We have people that are

[4:33:41] in the public that basically want the people that are

[4:33:45] homeless kicked out. To the city limits. And they're quite

[4:33:53] happy. Don't care about the person's well being at all.

[4:33:57] And then there are other people that just care about

[4:34:01] homeless people and not anybody else's. View. And I'm trying

[4:34:05] to get something together. At least with a plant we

[4:34:08] understood. That we needed to have work. So that the

[4:34:11] plant can work, so we can make money. Because if

[4:34:14] the employee made money, the company made money. At least

[4:34:17] that was the goal. I don't know where we are

[4:34:21] with it because. Like I said earlier. That Susan Lester

[4:34:28] and her crew came on earlier. Last year when I

[4:34:32] was just starting as a city counselor. I don't know

[4:34:36] what we've done for her, really, up to this point.

[4:34:40] This works a bit. Because the guidelines are there. That's

[4:34:45] the first thing that I saw in this, and I

[4:34:48] really, really like the guidelines. I don't agree. That. They're

[4:34:54] far enough. I don't agree that there's nothing about being

[4:34:59] away from a river. And I don't agree that it

[4:35:03] doesn't say that you have to be away. From a

[4:35:05] railway. I believe those are two big hazards. For. The

[4:35:11] encampment people. And especially with our history of our city,

[4:35:16] with so many people drowning. In the river, so I

[4:35:20] really believe that that's an important thing. I was hoping

[4:35:23] for 100 meters away from residents. And probably in business.

[4:35:29] But maybe I'd be happy with 50. I don't know.

[4:35:33] But. I think also I'm happy with this report that.

[4:35:39] It doesn't agree because that was my initial thought when

[4:35:42] we were talking at the time. At Susan Lester's time

[4:35:46] is that. Well, we'll put up some sites and they

[4:35:48] can all go there. And have a washroom, a shower

[4:35:54] and a few other things. But. It's really not cost

[4:35:59] prohibitive. It is cost prohibitive. It's like you're talking $2

[4:36:04] million for the first year. It's almost $50,000 a person.

[4:36:10] It's better maybe to give them that much money and

[4:36:12] tell them to have a good time. Rather than to

[4:36:17] do this. And I believe that because you're going to

[4:36:19] have. Six or more sites. You're going to have a

[4:36:25] lot of trouble with that as well. And let's face

[4:36:31] it, I don't know whether that necessarily helps them with

[4:36:34] this. I don't know whether any of this stuff helps.

[4:36:40] People not to be in trouble. To the point of

[4:36:43] where. They don't need to have some assistance for a

[4:36:49] living. And I think it's really important that everybody understand

[4:36:54] that. Everybody that is in an encampment isn't there for

[4:36:59] the same reasons there are. Some people that are there

[4:37:01] for drug addiction. There's people that are there because they

[4:37:05] have mental health issues. There's some people that are under

[4:37:08] severe financial stuff. And quite frankly, there are some people

[4:37:12] that, and they say, well, why aren't they there? In

[4:37:15] the winter. Well, there just might be. A young woman

[4:37:19] who. Has been abused by somebody and says, I can

[4:37:23] handle being abused when it's 40 below. Because there's no

[4:37:27] other option, or that's their least damaging option. And then

[4:37:31] when the weather warms up. They're going to go and

[4:37:34] try and be in an encampment. I mean, all these

[4:37:37] things are terrible. Okay? Drug addiction is terrible. Being abused

[4:37:41] is terrible. Mental health is terrible. These are all the

[4:37:44] things that we have. So I'm trying to figure out

[4:37:46] to get to the two sides together. I really do

[4:37:51] believe that. It is not. We don't have the ability

[4:37:55] nor the responsibility to do it. As a city, this

[4:37:59] is a provincial and a federal thing more than anything

[4:38:01] else. And I believe that the advocacy part of this

[4:38:05] is probably the most important part of this because we

[4:38:08] need some action. It's up. To the well, I'll just

[4:38:12] use the province. For an example. The province. Does the

[4:38:20] health care. So when somebody goes to hospital, the province

[4:38:23] pays. When somebody goes and needs mental health. The province

[4:38:28] pays. The province is the one that deals with the

[4:38:31] housing and the province. Is also the one that deals.

[4:38:37] With the legal or the federal government probably does with

[4:38:39] that too, is talking about terms for people that have

[4:38:42] gone to prison and all of that. So I believe

[4:38:45] the advocacy part is very much important. But when it

[4:38:50] comes down to the city of Hamilton is the one

[4:38:53] that they use the example on this. I see that

[4:38:56] the city of Hamilton. I looked it up. Is less.

[4:39:01] Than well we are. Twice as. Let me rephrase that.

[4:39:05] The city of Hamilton is twice as dense. The population

[4:39:09] is thunder bay. Actually, more than that, and. I think

[4:39:14] that if we're using their guidelines, we should actually be

[4:39:17] increasing them to be able. To. Keep it away from.

[4:39:25] 5 meters away from a sidewalk or trail. I don't

[4:39:28] believe that. That's five. Steps. If somebody. Is going to

[4:39:34] walk to a trail. And I know that there are

[4:39:38] fact that there are people that are walking across the

[4:39:41] street, so. That they're not by homeless encampments. There are

[4:39:44] people that aren't walking. Away from. They're walking on those

[4:39:48] trails. They're walking away from being on those trails because

[4:39:51] of that. So I'm looking to increase these numbers. Of

[4:39:56] distances. I'm looking for them. To be somehow enforced. But

[4:40:03] I don't know whether we as a city have the

[4:40:05] ability to do that at this time. So these are

[4:40:08] my concerns with this. I really feel. Frustrated with this.

[4:40:16] I feel that the sides are getting further and further

[4:40:19] away. Quite frankly, if we don't. Deal with the drug

[4:40:25] problem that is happening. In the city and in fact,

[4:40:29] all over our nation. And the seeds of destruction are

[4:40:33] there already. I'm hearing just outside of city hall, people

[4:40:38] are being stabbed regularly with needles. Those aren't the cities

[4:40:43] that people want to live in, too. So I'm really.

[4:40:47] Hoping that. We can build on this. I don't want.

[4:40:53] To just pass something that has no teeth. I want

[4:40:58] to actually be able to measure our progress. And see

[4:41:03] that we are actually doing something better. And if it's

[4:41:08] not done by the province or by the federal government,

[4:41:12] and if we did do a great job of settling

[4:41:16] all the homeless people here. Well, really? Then they'll just

[4:41:21] buy the bus ticket that's under bay to take. Care

[4:41:24] of it so it may increase our homelessness. So those

[4:41:28] are my thoughts on this. I don't know really the

[4:41:32] best way of getting. To the goals of trying to

[4:41:36] clean things up. Here I am having. My ward meeting

[4:41:43] on Wednesday, so if somebody has some good ideas, this

[4:41:46] thing is not going to be passed. It'll be brought

[4:41:50] tonight, but it's going to be ratified at the next

[4:41:54] meeting, so it's really important to speak. To the counselors

[4:41:59] and come to ward meetings and try and give us

[4:42:03] some advice. And if you just want to complain and

[4:42:06] tell them all. You can be on both extremes. None

[4:42:10] of those are going to work. I'm hoping that we

[4:42:13] can get something in the middle and come up with

[4:42:15] some advice that actually would work that's workable. There's some

[4:42:20] solutions to. And so that. We can somehow be able

[4:42:26] to go forward with this, but I'm very frustrated because

[4:42:30] I believe that up until tonight. We've done nothing for

[4:42:35] the McVicker Creek encampments. And haven't done much for any

[4:42:40] of the other ones, and I really hope to. Prove,

[4:42:45] councilor. Gretuga wrong and that actually things are going to

[4:42:50] be better next year. But I don't understand the path

[4:42:55] or know the path of what that's going. To be.

[4:42:56] I'm hoping that this is going to be some of

[4:42:59] it. But I can see lots of problems. But clearly

[4:43:04] there's no simple solution to this problem. At all. So

[4:43:07] thank you for letting me speak on this for a

[4:43:10] while. But that's my thoughts on that. Thank you for

[4:43:14] that. We'll go to councilor. Agarwal. Thank you very much.

[4:43:19] There's one other issue in this report that I'm quite

[4:43:22] concerned and councilor. Brought it forward. That no one on

[4:43:26] the task force is indigenous. One of our top pillars

[4:43:29] in our strategic plan. Is diversity, equity and inclusion, reconciliation.

[4:43:36] And if we don't have an indigenous partner to speak

[4:43:38] with to be at the table. On the task force.

[4:43:43] It's challenging. We also heard today from administration that. The

[4:43:50] only reason. Maybe we could get a response. Like you're

[4:43:54] asking why there wasn't indigenous representation. I think it's been

[4:43:58] asked. But you asked it again, so I think maybe

[4:44:01] we will. Reiterate. So through the chair, I would caution

[4:44:05] against making sweeping generalizations that nobody that's a part of

[4:44:08] the task force is indigenous. And further to that, there

[4:44:12] is a representative on the task force who is also

[4:44:14] a part of the Outreach Workers Network and the Outreach

[4:44:17] Workers Network has representation from indigenous organizations and the information

[4:44:22] that's earned at that network is fed up through to

[4:44:25] the task course, so we are. Hearing from some indigenous

[4:44:29] organizations indirectly through the Outreach Workers Network. City manager Gill

[4:44:33] yes, chair and further to that. The task force is

[4:44:36] not a construct of the city of Thunder Bay. It

[4:44:38] is a volunteer group of like minded individuals from organizations

[4:44:43] that happens to be chaired by our own director, Cynthia

[4:44:45] Olsen because of her talent. They selected. Her to tear

[4:44:48] that task force. Thank you, chair. Councilor. Microphone, please. Thank

[4:44:57] you for that, too. I thank you for that. However,

[4:45:02] I think it's really important that we reach out even

[4:45:06] to fort Williams first nation. That is our immediate abutting

[4:45:09] neighbor. Ask them because we heard earlier today. That the

[4:45:15] information goes out to the members of the task force

[4:45:19] only. And then somehow, by default, it's going to reach

[4:45:23] through one or two of the representatives. Into the indigenous

[4:45:26] organizations. We need them at the same table, and we

[4:45:30] should have them. There. If we reach out. Counselor, the

[4:45:34] task force isn't our responsibility. It's a group. As city

[4:45:40] manager Gail said, like minded individuals. Which. City official Olsen

[4:45:46] house. I only believe like minded individuals. Would be our

[4:45:50] indigenous partners as well. Right. And I think that message

[4:45:53] has been delivered. We need to sit as a council

[4:45:56] and demonstrate clearly and show clearly that we're all together.

[4:46:02] No, we don't control the task force. City manager Gail

[4:46:05] chair. It's not council's. Call. It's not administration's call. It's

[4:46:09] not the city of Thunder Bay. But your point is

[4:46:13] well taken. You want indigenous representation on all sorts of

[4:46:16] committees, I think. That has been. Heard. I'm sorry. I

[4:46:22] just need one point of clarification. City manager Gill just.

[4:46:25] Mentioned that it's not counsel, not administration, not the city

[4:46:28] of Thunder Bay. Then why is there a task force?

[4:46:34] Responsibility. Chair. The task force arose from Covid-19 the vulnerable

[4:46:40] populations table it exists because it's a combination of efforts

[4:46:44] by agencies and like minded people to do some good

[4:46:47] work. This is not a construct of the city of

[4:46:49] Thunder Bay. No. I think it should be amended, but

[4:46:53] that's beyond the point. If we're not going to be

[4:46:58] able to change it. My voice has been heard. I

[4:47:01] think it's very important. And we've all talked about last

[4:47:05] week we heard that we haven't had a meeting with

[4:47:07] the indigenous relations in about a year. The committee hasn't

[4:47:11] sat together for about a year. It's very important we

[4:47:13] do this. I'm a bit challenged on this. But just

[4:47:19] to move it forward so we do something so we

[4:47:21] have something to work with. I'm going to support this

[4:47:25] very hesitant, with great reservations. There's a lot of empty

[4:47:31] housing that we have as well at DSAP. That we

[4:47:35] don't see what's happening with those empty units. It's concerning.

[4:47:41] Did you want information regarding that? Because I thought. That

[4:47:46] was suggested. We speak about that out here. Wasn't it?

[4:47:50] Yeah, because you asked the question in Canada. I did.

[4:47:53] There's like. 60 empty units sitting on Court street that

[4:47:57] are owned by DSAP that have been vacant. They were

[4:47:59] used during Covid-19 to house people, to separate them, and

[4:48:04] they've been vacant. For almost five years or four years

[4:48:08] now. We'll put that question. To councilor Hamilton, who chairs

[4:48:14] the DSAB. I think he's prepared to respond. Thank you

[4:48:17] chair for an opportunity to respond, and I'm not going

[4:48:19] to get into the details. This is DSAT business. Councilor

[4:48:22] Agarwal did pose that question to myself, to our CEO.

[4:48:27] She was provided a response, and if she's not satisfied

[4:48:30] with that response, I really don't know what to say,

[4:48:34] but we have plans for that particular site and. The

[4:48:38] details of which are not yet public. But. To kind

[4:48:43] of insinuate. That. Somehow the organization is sitting on how

[4:48:48] empty houses. Is wrong. But anyway, that question has been

[4:48:54] asked, and it's already been answered by our leadership. Thank

[4:48:57] you. I want to just comment on that. The question

[4:49:01] was asked. We're talking about the report. Right, the city

[4:49:06] council report. And I don't think we should be commenting

[4:49:09] on DSOP. I think that now is the time to

[4:49:13] question the report. And to give your opinions on the

[4:49:17] report. We're talking about housing. Housing that we say we

[4:49:20] don't have sufficient housing. Well, we're talking about a strategy.

[4:49:25] We talk about dsab running it? Dsab is at the

[4:49:28] table. We have the housing, and if we're not filling

[4:49:33] empty spots or bringing them forward, saying, we have to

[4:49:35] fix them or we're selling them or doing whatever. People

[4:49:38] out there know there's empty spots, and we have people

[4:49:41] living in substandard conditions right now in our community. That's

[4:49:45] the concern here at our table. You're basically suggesting that

[4:49:50] the d sub. No, I'm not suggesting. That's what I'm

[4:49:55] hearing. No, I'm not suggesting your question has been. Asked

[4:49:57] and answered. I think we should move off of the

[4:50:00] topic and get back to our report. And you can

[4:50:04] follow up with d sub tomorrow. I was given an

[4:50:06] answer. That wasn't. I'll share that answer. Yes, share it.

[4:50:12] But I don't think this is the forum to make

[4:50:14] those types of comments. Well, we just need to know

[4:50:21] what we have and what we're not using. Thank you,

[4:50:25] chair. On a point of order, yes. To make comments.

[4:50:33] That have just been. The facts have just been given.

[4:50:37] Is disingenuous to this community because. We have many, many

[4:50:41] organizations working to address this problem. And Councilor Aguwal, I

[4:50:45] think you do disservice to the DSOB by insinuating that

[4:50:49] they're not looking for the highest and best use of

[4:50:53] that property as soon as possible. So I think that

[4:50:57] would be a fair way to say that we're trying

[4:51:00] to do as much as we can. We have a

[4:51:02] task force. And in fact, this council and its administration

[4:51:07] have been working extraordinarily hard along with other organizations. I

[4:51:13] think perhaps you want to temper that. We'll move on

[4:51:18] to Councilor Zuzino. Thank you. Chair, just one quick question.

[4:51:24] With this distance guideline, what would happen with the encampment

[4:51:28] at Freedom park relative to Franco superior school. I went

[4:51:32] on Google Maps today, and I just kind of roughly

[4:51:35] as the crow flies. Would that have to be moved?

[4:51:40] Just curiosity. Through the chair at this time. I thought

[4:51:43] we weren't speaking of a very specific locations.

[4:51:55] It appears that there's consensus around the table. We not

[4:51:58] speak to specific areas due to. Potential risks. Of those

[4:52:04] types of conversations in public. And point of privilege here.

[4:52:09] Yes. Thank you for recognizing. It's 1130. And I'm not

[4:52:14] saying, hey, we can't do business. This is literally the

[4:52:16] first item. The first item in our agenda. We still

[4:52:20] have city council. Council? Point of privilege. Well, my point.

[4:52:22] Of privilege is. This is just getting. I'd like counselors

[4:52:25] to maybe be a little. More cognizant of time, myself

[4:52:28] included. Chair, that's not a point of privilege. Point of

[4:52:31] privilege is when you feel. Others have been offended by

[4:52:34] comments, and that is a point. What's that? I feel

[4:52:37] you haunt and bothered. Join the club. Okay. So not

[4:52:47] everyone has spoken. Are you wanting to call the question?

[4:52:50] Okay. Well, I haven't spoken all night, so I've got

[4:52:54] a couple of questions. If you'll allow me. Yeah, exactly.

[4:53:04] Okay, I'll make these quick. Given the governance realities, should

[4:53:12] Thunderbay be getting into pallet homes or is that DSAB?

[4:53:17] They have access to funding and lobbying efforts and partnerships.

[4:53:22] So through the chair, our recommendation was never for us

[4:53:24] to get into that business. That was very clear in

[4:53:27] the recommendation that it would be externally operated that we

[4:53:30] potentially could provide land. That would be suitable, that would

[4:53:35] meet planning and zoning requirements. And that external funding be

[4:53:41] sourced in order to implement a pilot project. I appreciate

[4:53:45] that, but our involvement was at arm's length. And what

[4:53:50] I'm suggesting. Should we leave it to the housing authority

[4:53:54] to create housing? Through the chair council directed us to

[4:53:59] bring back recommendations, including sanctioned sites, and so we felt.

[4:54:05] That a pilot of a pallet shelter was the better

[4:54:08] of the options since we are actually recommending against sanctioned

[4:54:12] sites in the general sense and way other communities have

[4:54:17] done them other than potential pilot. Of cabin like structures.

[4:54:24] That are well supported. Would have staffing requirements. And met

[4:54:28] some of the other. Questions that council wanted to see.

[4:54:35] Should sanction sites be approved? Things like power, water, access

[4:54:39] to laundry. Wifi, all of those types of things. Chair.

[4:54:45] May I add that we're here tonight because of a

[4:54:48] series of decisions by council. Those decisions made in good

[4:54:52] faith by council in an effort to make the situation

[4:54:55] better in an effort to make the community better. In

[4:54:57] fact, chair, you are one of the leaders that was

[4:55:00] pushing for this. And the direct answer, in my view,

[4:55:04] and my advice to you is that housing. Is absolutely

[4:55:07] the responsibility of the DSAB and the city should not

[4:55:10] venture into that to any degree. That's what I was

[4:55:13] leaning from the reports and commentary, although I appreciate that

[4:55:17] you are tasked with coming back with recommendations, and that's

[4:55:21] why we're seeing it and that's still to come. By

[4:55:24] the sounds of this amended recommendation, The human rights approach

[4:55:30] is coming up. And there's some claims that had we

[4:55:34] not gone with the human rights approach, we would have

[4:55:37] been able to enforce. Is that a correct assumption given.

[4:55:43] The laws that. Have been coming out of these judgments.

[4:55:49] In other communities. Through the chair would not make a

[4:55:53] difference. The laws in the communities as have been recently

[4:55:58] established. With other precedent court cases. Really dictate. No forced

[4:56:05] evictions. Just calling it a human rights based approach. Or

[4:56:11] not doesn't preclude us from not actually doing what is

[4:56:14] lawful in our community. So even if this council wished

[4:56:19] to direct you, To enforce evictions based on these new

[4:56:25] guidelines. You could not, given that it's contrary to law.

[4:56:29] Is that correct? Correct. Chair, we would view that as

[4:56:35] unlawful direction. We would not comply. That's a really important

[4:56:41] facet for the community to understand. I mean, we've got

[4:56:44] a report in front of us that is a step

[4:56:47] towards helping people in uncharted. Waters. The legal precedents are

[4:56:54] still being set. We don't know where it's going to

[4:56:57] end up, but we're taking the steps that we believe

[4:57:01] that will help people. And all our residents in the

[4:57:04] city. These setbacks. Are a way for us to communicate

[4:57:10] with people. About. What people in the community have agreed

[4:57:16] to. The people. In the encampments have agreed to these.

[4:57:22] Hopefully, it will also help business owners and residents. We

[4:57:27] can have constructive conversations. With people. That are in this

[4:57:33] predicament that none of us would want to be in.

[4:57:37] So. It's easy to. Not be empathetic because you're angry

[4:57:42] about something. But we have to be, empathetic. We have

[4:57:45] to work towards a solution. And I think the Waterloo

[4:57:48] decision. Was based. On. Look, Canada, you're a wealthy nation.

[4:57:57] Why don't you have enough supportive hosting? For people. And

[4:58:00] until you do, They're going to be able. To. Seek

[4:58:06] shelter. And it's protected by the charter. So this is

[4:58:11] a much more complicated issue than we all hoped it

[4:58:14] would be. It's due to legal precedents that are being

[4:58:18] set in Ontario we have to follow. Them. We're coming

[4:58:22] up with a plan that we feel. Is going to

[4:58:25] make things better, although. It's a work in progress. I

[4:58:29] think we can all agree to that, but for anyone.

[4:58:32] In the community that thinks that. These setback limits. Are

[4:58:40] the answer. We can't enforce them. They are a tool

[4:58:45] which we can use to help people get to the

[4:58:48] places that are good. For them and good for the

[4:58:51] community. But it's a collaborative effort. I know many of

[4:58:58] you out there would like enforcement. It's just not possible.

[4:59:03] With the framework that we are operating under. So with

[4:59:07] that, I will be supporting this, and thank you everyone,

[4:59:10] for your time. Any other speakers. Councilor Hamilton. I know

[4:59:15] after what I said, but I just wanted to just

[4:59:17] share. Hey, enough. Of that in the gallery. You said

[4:59:22] something that was important, and I think, if anything, I'd

[4:59:24] like to close with. This. You said something about empathy

[4:59:26] and compassion, and that's good that we have that and.

[4:59:29] I plead for a little bit of patience, and in

[4:59:31] the meantime, organizations are working tirelessly behind the scenes to

[4:59:35] build capacity in the system for housing. So even though

[4:59:37] it doesn't look like. We're that further ahead. We are.

[4:59:41] And capacity is building in the system to support these

[4:59:44] individuals. So the work is ongoing. Thank you. Okay. With

[4:59:47] that, we will call the question. Everyone understand? The amended

[4:59:51] motion. Can you have it read out again, please? Certainly.

[4:59:58] So chair through you. It is paragraph one, adding. The

[5:00:05] wording and subject to ongoing review. So that, again, that's

[5:00:08] adopting the distance guidelines. Subject to ongoing review. Removing paragraph

[5:00:14] two, the Lands municipally known as the vi count lot.

[5:00:18] And in paragraph three, removing the reference to the by

[5:00:21] count lot, everything else remains. That is the amendment that

[5:00:24] is on the floor. All good. Okay, we'll call the

[5:00:28] question. All in favor? Opposed. That is carried.

[5:00:38] Next item, please. So, chair. Yeah. That's an amendment. That's

[5:00:43] an amendment. Yes, on the amended motion. As amended, please.

[5:00:47] So the next item would be the motion, as amended.

[5:00:50] Is that correct? All those in favor. Any opposed? That

[5:00:58] too is carried. Mr. Chair recorders appoint. Okay. As opposed.

[5:01:11] Julie. Noted. Thank you, chair. So now, because it's late

[5:01:17] and I know you're all paying attention, we're. Going to

[5:01:19] go back in the agenda from where we started before

[5:01:22] we change the order of the agenda. To. Following the

[5:01:27] deputations, which was 5.1, we are going to item number

[5:01:30] six. Which is items rising from closed session. So, continuing

[5:01:35] on with our agenda. So the first item arising from

[5:01:38] closed session is committee and board. Appointments, Community Economic Development

[5:01:41] Commission. You received a memorandum from my office dated June

[5:01:45] 3 relative to the appointment of two individuals to the

[5:01:49] CEDC. That's Eric Tribe and David Bruno. Council requires a

[5:01:53] mover and a second. Or please. Councilor Hamilton will move.

[5:01:56] Councilor. Or Mayor Boschkoff will second. All in favor? Any

[5:02:01] opposed? That's carried. Thank you. I do want to note

[5:02:05] that there are two terms. Of four years and that

[5:02:08] this item is scheduled for ratification and will require two

[5:02:10] thirds vote, you do have a series of minutes. Accessibility,

[5:02:15] antiracism, clean, green, and beautiful. Coordinating committee, Heritage advisory, Intergov

[5:02:20] and Thunder Bay Police Services Board. All of those are

[5:02:23] provided for information. Chair questions on any of the minutes.

[5:02:28] Councilor Hamilton. Yeah. Just one on the IGA minutes. The

[5:02:31] items for advocacy, I believe at Amo. Is that the

[5:02:35] finalized list? And I believe it was from, like, may

[5:02:38] minutes, and I'm glad chair Oliver is here. It was

[5:02:42] in the minutes. Under the advocacy items. I think there

[5:02:46] were six or seven items in there. Yeah. Those were

[5:02:50] the items that were being brought forward to the Amel

[5:02:54] conference, recognizing that there was still an opportunity for a

[5:02:57] number of other discussions that we had at the Roma

[5:03:00] conference. This past January. So we tried to identify our

[5:03:04] best effort. To. Engage the ministers, knowing full well that

[5:03:10] we'll likely be able to get those meetings, so. Those

[5:03:14] are the items that were put forth for the August

[5:03:16] conference. Okay, excellent. Thank you. Further questions. I had one

[5:03:22] on the police services board. I was wondering if police

[5:03:25] services board members or maybe. The admin could update us

[5:03:29] on the police campus. In terms of timelines and or

[5:03:33] revised cost estimates. Chair. I have no update to give

[5:03:38] on either. I can tell you that work will proceed

[5:03:41] in earnest once there's an agreed two memorandum of understanding

[5:03:44] between the corporation, the city of Thunderbay. And the Thunderbay

[5:03:47] Police Services Board. And that memorandum understanding is being worked

[5:03:51] on. Now. Once that's finalized, then the next steps will

[5:03:53] be taken. We don't have any confirmation of costs or

[5:03:57] timelines at this time. Okay. Thank you. So we'll go

[5:04:01] on to the next item. Thank you, chair. The next

[5:04:04] item under reports. Of municipal officers is investment of municipal

[5:04:07] funds and investment policy statement. Update report number 149 2024.

[5:04:13] Office of City Treasurer provides a recommendation relative to the

[5:04:16] approval of investment policy statement as appended to this report

[5:04:19] for council's consideration. Council requires a mover in a second

[5:04:22] or, please. Move by Councilor Chung. Second by councilor Zazino

[5:04:28] on the floor. I believe that Treasurer grieves did want

[5:04:31] to provide some introductory comments. Chair. So through

[5:04:41] the chair. There are two reasons for this report. One,

[5:04:45] to present the results of the 2023 investment activities for

[5:04:49] the city, and two, to approve the amended investment policy

[5:04:53] statement. The investment policy statement. Review is a requirement, and

[5:04:57] it's through this policy that council exercises. Its fiduciary responsibilities

[5:05:02] over the city's investments. There are no significant changes being

[5:05:07] recommended in the investment policy statement. And as for the

[5:05:11] 2023 performance. The plan performed exceptionally well, with money not

[5:05:15] required immediately returning 10.9% in 2023. And money required immediately

[5:05:21] returning 5.2%. Good returns. Any questions? Okay, we'll go to

[5:05:30] the vote. All in favor? Any opposed? That is carried.

[5:05:40] Thank you, chair. The next item is 2025. Budget calendar

[5:05:43] report number two. Two seven. 2024. Corporate Services Office of

[5:05:46] City Treasurer recommends the proposed 2025 budget calendar and the

[5:05:50] associated timelines mover in a seconder is required. Move by

[5:05:57] councilor Trini, second by Mayor Boschkoff again. I believe that

[5:06:02] treasure agrees. Interested? In providing. Pardon me. The treasurer grieves

[5:06:07] is interested in some introductory comments here on the budget

[5:06:09] as well. So, again, thank you. Through the chair. Might

[5:06:16] be a few minutes longer than from this one, so.

[5:06:19] The bunch of calendar as presented is consistent with recent

[5:06:23] budget eras with the Committee of the whole debating the

[5:06:26] budget starting at the end of January. Four sessions, four

[5:06:29] plan sessions, with ratification scheduled before February 10. Administration has

[5:06:34] already started preliminary work on the 2025 budget and is

[5:06:37] working towards presenting. A report with budget directions in July.

[5:06:43] New in this year's process, we conducted a pre budget

[5:06:47] survey to gauge public opinion on the 2025 budget. The

[5:06:51] results are provided in the attachment. Unfortunately, we only received

[5:06:56] 219 returns, so we can't necessarily extrapolate. The results to

[5:07:02] the entire population without a significant margin of error. However,

[5:07:07] as city treasurer, the message I received is a the

[5:07:11] public engagement in the budget process is low and b

[5:07:14] for those that are engaged, the budget isn't necessarily easily

[5:07:17] digestible. While this isn't ideal, this information will help our

[5:07:22] team moving forward as we know we need to do

[5:07:24] a better job of educating and communicating with the public.

[5:07:29] Community. Engagement is a key component in accountability of public

[5:07:33] resources and is something we're committed to. Improving. Thank you.

[5:07:38] Thank you for that. Questions? On the budget calendar. Councilor

[5:07:43] Hamilton. Yeah, chair. There seemed to be a little bit

[5:07:46] of pushback on the pre budget consultation meeting the last

[5:07:50] time, but it came up really weak in the survey.

[5:07:54] As not very important to people. And just like, I

[5:07:56] mean, we heard from the chamber. Council. Or. People told

[5:08:01] us they want that back, but then it's not reflected

[5:08:03] in the survey. Could you just corroborate that evidence? Through

[5:08:08] the chair. It might be confusing the pre budget survey.

[5:08:15] With some of the other options that were in the

[5:08:17] survey. Ask policy analyst Vadode to comment on that question.

[5:08:23] Through the chair, we found that there was not a

[5:08:26] lot of appetite. In the respondents to the survey for

[5:08:33] public deputations. I'm assuming that's what we're discussing. With this

[5:08:39] question. Again. We also had such a small sample that

[5:08:44] it's really hard to extrapolate to the greater population. We

[5:08:49] did notice that the trends don't follow the city of

[5:08:52] Thunder Bay. Population. It's obviously people who are more engaged.

[5:08:57] In. City affairs and things like that. So we do

[5:09:02] have to. Take those results with a grain of salt.

[5:09:08] But it seems the people who are invested. In the

[5:09:13] budget process. Are more interested in in person Q and

[5:09:17] A's and surveys. Thank you. Councilor Hamilt or councilor Johnson.

[5:09:25] Thank you, Chad. Just on the final summary report. Presented

[5:09:30] at the February 10 meeting is that, if I understand

[5:09:34] that correctly, just to clarify that's? Taken everything. The process

[5:09:38] and what council has done. And just throwing it into

[5:09:43] a report. For residents to see. Is that essentially what

[5:09:46] that is? So. The February 10 would be the ratification

[5:09:50] vote, so. You would receive. The package, the binder. I

[5:09:57] debate it over four days, make amendments, approve those amendments,

[5:10:02] and then on February 10, you would. Receive the corporate

[5:10:06] report would be represented and voted. And approve that. Day

[5:10:14] on February 10, the 2025 budget would be approved. Okay.

[5:10:20] For some reason, I guess my mistake. I saw it

[5:10:22] as a report being broadcast to show. Residents, everything that

[5:10:26] we've done in my bet on that. Okay. Sorry. Through

[5:10:28] the chairs. That is another enhancement that we are suggesting

[5:10:33] for 2025 budget is. That last year. We ran. A

[5:10:41] budget survey at the same time as deliberations. And as

[5:10:45] results came in, those results, those surveys were actually forwarded

[5:10:49] to council members throughout the budget deliberations. What I were

[5:10:56] suggesting this year is that in addition to doing that,

[5:11:00] we would bring forward a report. On ratification that summarizes

[5:11:05] all the budget survey responses. Survey responses. Sorry. Very good.

[5:11:10] Thank you. Thank you, chair. Councilor gertuga. Thank you, Mr.

[5:11:19] Chair. And just looking here at the capital and budget

[5:11:22] package delivered to city council. January 10, 2025 and then

[5:11:26] the capital and the operating package. Posted the city website

[5:11:29] January 17 I thought we were trying to move. Our

[5:11:35] ratification. Closer to January. So that we're not voting on

[5:11:41] a budget that we were already two months into. So

[5:11:45] I was wondering, why could we not? Post the deliver

[5:11:51] the budget to council and post to the city website

[5:11:54] on the same time. Same date, January 10, and then

[5:11:58] move everything back one week, and then we would be

[5:12:01] ratifying. It February 3. Bring us closer to that January

[5:12:04] ratification date. That other community. Other communities ratify way before

[5:12:10] we do so through the chair. During last year's budget

[5:12:15] discussions with some of our Ontario. Regional and single tier

[5:12:20] community. Groups. We did do a survey. Of when municipalities

[5:12:26] were bringing forward their 2024 budget. 19 of them participated.

[5:12:33] Nine of them brought forward their budgets in the first

[5:12:36] quarter of the budget. Year, including Hamilton and Toronto and

[5:12:40] Hall. Amand all were. In February as well. The reason

[5:12:45] why we want to bring forward or give counsel. The

[5:12:50] budget ahead of time is so. You can read it,

[5:12:54] digest it, and when it becomes public, you have an

[5:12:57] opportunity to have a discussion with your constituents. If the

[5:13:03] city clerk has anything to add. Anything else to add

[5:13:05] on that schedule? So through the chair, I would just

[5:13:08] note that it is our practice that, again, council members

[5:13:11] receive. Information from a city administration prior to public release.

[5:13:14] So that that way you are fully informed and able

[5:13:17] to answer your constituents questions. Well, I would like to

[5:13:21] see us work towards getting into that January date. I

[5:13:24] know other communities. Isn't it, subbury? I believe that. One

[5:13:29] of the things that ratifies before December so that, you

[5:13:31] know, that's the way budgeting should happen before you get

[5:13:35] too much into the year when you've already spent the

[5:13:37] first two months of the proposed budget. So I would

[5:13:40] like to see. I'm not going to propose anything in

[5:13:43] the amendment tonight, but I like to see us continue

[5:13:45] to try to work. As was committed. By City manager

[5:13:49] Gail previously many years ago. Thank you. Okay, we have

[5:13:54] Councilor Agarwal next. I need to respond to that. The

[5:13:59] commitment I made many years ago was to move the

[5:14:01] budget. Process from March to earlier in the year to

[5:14:05] February. And that's what we achieved. I think we did

[5:14:07] that seven years ago or something like that. I don't

[5:14:09] remember exactly. And what we have here is what we

[5:14:14] think the sweet spot is for the right time to

[5:14:16] do the budget. Remember, the earlier you do the budget,

[5:14:19] the less certainty you have as to especially external factors,

[5:14:22] and that increases risk. And if we do it in

[5:14:25] January and February, it does not. Impact contracts. It does

[5:14:28] not impact capital projects adversely anyway. So my advice over

[5:14:34] the past few years has been where we need to

[5:14:36] be now. And my advice has been, it doesn't need

[5:14:40] to change. Thank you. Okay. Sorry. I know. What? I

[5:14:44] spoke to it years ago that we were trying to

[5:14:46] get towards closer to January, so. That was my recollection,

[5:14:49] so I guess we differ. Okay. I have counselor or,

[5:14:53] pardon me, Mayor Boschkoff, then councilor Agarwal. Thank you. And

[5:14:57] I appreciate the survey results because they're quite interesting in

[5:15:01] terms. Of the split. This survey is provided as a

[5:15:07] direction for council politically in terms of. Seeing. What

[5:15:15] preferred types of increases would be done to what extent?

[5:15:25] Does the administration take? These survey results in terms of

[5:15:30] constructing. Their mathematics. I'll ask policy analyst Lovato day to

[5:15:38] comment as well. But unfortunately, because these survey sample is

[5:15:44] so low, it's difficult. To use these results. It does

[5:15:50] give a glimpse of what the public is thinking, but

[5:15:53] only a small portion of the public. I think. The

[5:16:00] results are important. But. I think the biggest story for

[5:16:04] administration is how can we get more involvement with the

[5:16:07] community? How can we get? The survey numbers up so

[5:16:11] that we can use this as more of a barometer

[5:16:14] as to what the municipality as a whole. Mistaken. Policy

[5:16:19] analyst Lovato day has anything to add to that. Through

[5:16:23] the chair. I agree with city treasurer grieves when it

[5:16:28] comes to these results. We had such a small amount.

[5:16:32] Of the resident population. That responded that what we really

[5:16:37] need to do is try to increase our engagement more

[5:16:41] than apply. These specific answers to our budgeting process. So

[5:16:49] it would be really nice to see more public engagement,

[5:16:52] and maybe we need to do more. Advertising or come

[5:16:56] up with some more ways to reach out to more

[5:17:00] people, like more residents of the city so that we

[5:17:03] can get a better idea of what people are actually

[5:17:07] looking for. Thank you for that. Councilor Echo. Thank you

[5:17:14] very much. My question that I was going to have

[5:17:19] in regards to the survey has been answered. But one

[5:17:24] thing that we were tossing around before was a multi

[5:17:27] year budget. You had mentioned that you were maybe looking

[5:17:31] at it. Or are we looking at it? Yes. So

[5:17:35] through the chair, we do have council's endorsement to move

[5:17:39] forward. With a multi year budget in the 2024 capital

[5:17:45] budget. There was some money put aside. For software to

[5:17:50] facilitate that move. The plan right now is to go

[5:17:55] to RFP. In the next few weeks. Most likely, we're

[5:18:01] going to have to bring that to council to be

[5:18:04] approved just based on the dollar amount and. With that

[5:18:07] I intend on bringing forth. Some options for council. So

[5:18:13] once that you're budgeting is being done throughout other municipalities

[5:18:17] across Ontario, To vary. Varying extents. Some do a two

[5:18:24] year operating, two year capital, some do a four year

[5:18:27] operating. Four year capital. Recently I've seen one that one

[5:18:31] municipality that does a two year operating and a four.

[5:18:34] Year capital, which. Is intriguing. Basically. What we would want

[5:18:41] to do is, in the last year of a term

[5:18:44] of counsel, have that council approved at least a two

[5:18:47] year budget so that the first year of a new

[5:18:50] council. Aren't faced with having to learn. The entire municipality

[5:18:56] and. Approve a half billion dollar budget. So that's where

[5:19:01] I'm looking at bringing it. And you should be receiving

[5:19:06] more information. Most likely in August, September on that. Thank

[5:19:12] you very much. Further questions. I had a couple. Just

[5:19:21] to pick up on councilor Hamilton's comments. We did get

[5:19:24] feedback last year. The public deputations in advance of the

[5:19:29] budget. Were different than a Q and a session. In

[5:19:35] that people were in a public forum being heard by

[5:19:38] the public. Were they eliminated due to time constraints? Or

[5:19:47] just they weren't best practice. I think they were eliminated

[5:19:56] because, first of all, a general desire to shorten the

[5:20:00] budget process. And have fewer meetings, and that was probably

[5:20:04] the lowest hanging fruit in order to achieve that. And

[5:20:08] also a sense. Of fine to have deputies here and

[5:20:12] say their speak. But the deputies are also free to

[5:20:15] speak. To you and they're free to speak to administration,

[5:20:17] and that was the purpose of that. Consult that night.

[5:20:21] I recognize that some people wanted their public word and

[5:20:26] wanted to be seen publicly. Giving you their advice, but.

[5:20:31] They were not stopped, nor were they constrained from giving

[5:20:33] you their advice and their thoughts that's. The general feeling

[5:20:36] and approach to and you and I worked on this

[5:20:39] pretty well together for a long time trying to figure

[5:20:42] out how to improve the budget process. That's where we

[5:20:44] led it, okay? So. Are individuals allowed to give a

[5:20:49] deputation if they wish? At other committee meetings prior to

[5:20:54] budget or during budget sessions. So chair through you are.

[5:20:59] Procedural bylaw prohibits deputations that relate to the budget process.

[5:21:04] Because you have removed that. In the past again, we've

[5:21:08] created engagement opportunities that didn't have a barrier where someone

[5:21:12] needed to fill out a form and come and sit

[5:21:14] before council that people had the opportunity. To come in

[5:21:16] off the street, go to a board meeting, call a

[5:21:19] member of council, connect with administration. We were trying to

[5:21:22] be all encompassing. Okay? So in the Q and a

[5:21:25] session, Would allow them to interface with staff and or

[5:21:30] counsel. On that. You've included three options right now, none

[5:21:36] of them brought up as of yet. Or have they?

[5:21:39] So through the chair, option three is included in the

[5:21:43] recommendation. Okay. Option three is. Included. Okay, I must submit

[5:21:47] that. And let me just see what option three is.

[5:21:51] Or maybe you. Can through the chair. I can just

[5:21:54] maybe save a few seconds. The option three is really

[5:21:57] the status quo is to repeat. What we did last

[5:22:00] year with a few enhancements that I've mentioned earlier. All

[5:22:03] right? Lastly. Is the meeting times? Are we to assume

[5:22:07] they're 05:00 p.m. Or. Is there some movement on that?

[5:22:11] Since we're streamlining, I'm just thinking about. People that work

[5:22:15] and people at home that don't tune in at 05:00

[5:22:17] that maybe. Would if we started our meetings at 630.

[5:22:23] So through the chair. I don't believe we've set the

[5:22:26] time on the public. Council. Would like to entertain. But,

[5:22:34] Jerry, you're correct. The meeting start times where budgets are

[5:22:38] 05:00. P.m. And have been for years. And I think

[5:22:41] there's good reasons for that. And one of them is,

[5:22:43] sometimes these nights run long. Like we're doing tonight. So

[5:22:49] 05:00 p.m. Is a tool to get out of here

[5:22:52] earlier, okay? Yeah. There doesn't seem to be any real

[5:22:55] push to move to 630. Okay. Thank you for those

[5:23:00] answers. I guess it's time to call the question. Okay,

[5:23:05] all those in favor? Any opposed? That's carried. Thank you.

[5:23:12] Chair. The next item. Is. To 2029. Report number 231

[5:23:20] 2024. City Manager's Office of City clerk recommends the approval

[5:23:25] of the multi year accessibility plan. The recommendation as contained

[5:23:28] within this report requires a mover in a second or

[5:23:30] chair. Move by councilor training, signed by councilor Hamilton.

[5:23:40] Questions. Councilor Ayello. Thank you. And through the chair. In

[5:23:47] this report. Basically, the majority of what you do is

[5:23:54] legislated and there is no leeway on legislation. Is that

[5:23:59] correct? So chair through you. That's our municipal accessibility specialist,

[5:24:05] Scott Garner, who has been here since. 630. So I

[5:24:09] appreciate him being here. He can certainly come to the

[5:24:11] podium to answer your question. And yes, you are correct.

[5:24:14] It is significantly regulated. Yeah. So it is regulated. So

[5:24:21] in putting. This report together is just a matter of

[5:24:29] updating. The report with new legislation. And the new guidelines.

[5:24:37] So through the chair. So, Scott, if you do want

[5:24:39] to jump in, you're welcome to turn on your microphone.

[5:24:41] It's important to note that there are requirements for the

[5:24:44] multi year accessibility plan, which certainly Scott can speak to

[5:24:46] further, if that is your question, please. Through the chair,

[5:24:53] too, if you don't mind me jumping in. Thank you.

[5:24:56] Just to add. On to what clerk power has mentioned.

[5:24:58] There were some updates that we did provide in the

[5:25:01] multi year plan for. 2024 to 2029, including things like.

[5:25:09] Emergency maintenance of accessible features which are required to be

[5:25:14] included. That has been an updated. Piece of information. That's

[5:25:20] required under the Accessibility Frontarians with Disabilities act to be

[5:25:23] included in the multi year plan. So that is the

[5:25:27] piece that has been included? Yes. That would also be

[5:25:30] included in our asset management plan, I'm assuming as well.

[5:25:35] These considered capital type of assets. This equipment. Chair through

[5:25:43] you. Yes, the city would consider all of its infrastructure

[5:25:46] assets. Certainly smaller assets would be pooled, but there is

[5:25:49] a capital threshold, generally above $10,000 per item to be

[5:25:53] included. Thank you. Any further questions? Mayor Boschko. Is

[5:26:03] there a final process involved in terms of ensuring that

[5:26:09] our materials are made accessible, like in terms of. Braille

[5:26:16] or fonts, that type of thing. Is there a standard

[5:26:20] procedure? That. Happens throughout the organization uniformly.

[5:26:35] Well through the chair. Our communications policies. All of. Our

[5:26:42] materials. That are put out are put out in an

[5:26:46] accessible format. Our website. Is the city of Thunderbase website

[5:26:50] has gone through. Extensive. Rectification. It's almost midnight.

[5:27:00] So my words. Are. Remediation. Thank you, clerk power. Our

[5:27:08] print materials. I know that. Our office. City clerk's office.

[5:27:16] Reviews many reports weekly to ensure accessibility. For example, the

[5:27:21] multi year accessibility plan, which is being produced. Will be

[5:27:26] produced after tonight. We'll ensure that. It is fully accessible

[5:27:30] too. If anything is required in an accessible format by

[5:27:35] a member of the public or by staff member. We

[5:27:39] can certainly look at doing that. And typically it would

[5:27:41] be myself that we're our office. That the person would

[5:27:47] contact. To receive something in an accessible format. The legislation

[5:27:52] says timely and reasonable. Manner to receive that and no

[5:27:57] cost. Or no more than what the cost of the

[5:28:02] document would typically be. So if it's a free document

[5:28:06] that's posted online. There would be no cost to make.

[5:28:10] It accessible for that person requesting it in an accessible

[5:28:14] format. So as things move through, The system. Does everything

[5:28:18] have to go through your office to ensure that it's

[5:28:21] compatible? Through the chair. I'm a resource. To all city

[5:28:28] departments, so we have a number of resources online. Through

[5:28:33] our intranet to ensure that. Staff know how to create

[5:28:38] accessible documents. I'm there as a resource. If staff have

[5:28:41] questions, all staff across the corporation have received. Training on

[5:28:46] what's required. On accessibility. Through. All the integrated accessibility standards,

[5:28:53] regulations. Of the Accessibility Frontarians with Disabilities Act. So that

[5:28:59] includes accessible customer service. That includes information and communication. There's

[5:29:05] general requirements under training. There's all sorts of different just

[5:29:08] to finish that. Train of thought. There's transportation, employment, design

[5:29:12] and public spaces standards. So under information and communication and

[5:29:17] general requirements. And accessible customer service. Our staff. Would know

[5:29:24] and have received training. How to create accessible documents. And

[5:29:29] if they don't, they certainly know where. To find the

[5:29:34] information they can always contact myself to. Thank you very

[5:29:38] much. Good explanation. No further questions. We'll call the question.

[5:29:44] All in favor? Any opposed? That is carried. Thank you,

[5:29:51] chair. With the time being twelve 06:00 a.m. Would ask

[5:29:56] for a mover. And a second or please to continue

[5:29:59] with the business at hand. Any takers? Councilor Oliver. Councilor

[5:30:05] Oliver. And councilor Gurtiga. Thank you. Moved and second all.

[5:30:09] In favor. 123-4567. Any opposed?

[5:30:20] Okay, that's carried. Welcome to Tuesday. I will say, just

[5:30:27] for fun, folks around the table and anyone still with

[5:30:29] us watching at home. When we wrote the bylaw for

[5:30:33] the new city manager. It's one of the for the

[5:30:35] 800 and 01:00 a.m. Because we wondered whether or not

[5:30:38] midnight we would be pushing it. You'd have a change

[5:30:40] of guard at a meeting. So continuing on chair, Norm

[5:30:46] could have been leaving. Next, we do have the accessibility

[5:30:50] advisory committee. Terms of reference, report number 231 2024. This

[5:30:54] is the city manager's office recommending the amended terms of

[5:30:57] references appended to the report. A mover and a seconder

[5:30:59] from council. Please move by councilor. I also seconded. By

[5:31:02] councilor Zazino. Any questions? Comments? Councilor Trini, thank you. Through

[5:31:08] the chair. Reading this terms a reference, am I understanding

[5:31:11] there's 16 people on this? Or am I just reading

[5:31:14] it incorrectly? Chair through you. I believe that there are

[5:31:20] 16 people. Yes. And most of the folks on the

[5:31:23] accessibility advisory committee are all folks have lived experience. So

[5:31:26] again, people living with disabilities in our community. So the

[5:31:29] change that we brought forward was to change some of

[5:31:32] those members. Currently allocated to specific sectors, to being three

[5:31:38] citizens at large. Again, individuals that represent those living with

[5:31:41] a disability or having lived experience. Thank you for that

[5:31:44] clarification. Seeing. No other questions. Yes, Councilor Aguilar, thank you.

[5:31:50] Just an elaboration. Some of the people that may have

[5:31:54] disabilities. Would their parent or guardian or somebody who's your

[5:32:00] support worker be able to be on the committee representing

[5:32:03] because they personally may not have the disability, but they

[5:32:06] take we do have a spot chair through you. For

[5:32:09] a parent or a caregiver of someone with a disability,

[5:32:12] we also have a service representative as well, someone from

[5:32:15] a service organization. Who works with individuals with disabilities. The

[5:32:20] other thing I will note is we do have individuals

[5:32:22] on our accessibility advisory committee with developmental disabilities, who often

[5:32:27] have a support worker with them or those with a

[5:32:29] mobility disability who require some assistance with transport, and again,

[5:32:33] their support worker would attend with them. But they would

[5:32:36] be the voting member. With a disability would be the

[5:32:39] voting member. And in the off chance that that person

[5:32:46] with a disability wasn't able to fully comprehend. Would their

[5:32:51] guardian. Or their parent be able to be the voting

[5:32:55] member through the chair. We don't transfer voting membership. What

[5:32:59] we do is we work with our members. So again,

[5:33:01] the individuals on that committee we take extra time to

[5:33:04] work with them on the items on the agenda, we

[5:33:07] have a vice chair who has a developmental disability, and

[5:33:10] she's doing an absolutely amazing job because we. Take the

[5:33:13] time to work with her to ensure that she can

[5:33:15] bring things forward to the committee. And present them in

[5:33:18] ways that are of her understanding and her level of

[5:33:20] comprehension. That's great to hear. Thank you. No further questions.

[5:33:25] All those in favor? Any opposed? That is carried. Next

[5:33:32] item, please. Next chair. We have landscape architectural services award,

[5:33:36] prime consultant for City of Thunder Bay Waterfront Festival Area

[5:33:39] renewal report number 235 2024. Infrastructure development and operations recommends

[5:33:45] a request for proposal for prime consultant for this work

[5:33:48] be awarded. This was distributed on Thursday, June the 20th.

[5:33:52] It is scheduled for ratification. Tonight. It would require a

[5:33:56] two thirds vote. The recommendation as contained within the report

[5:34:00] does require a mover and a seconder and general Marshall,

[5:34:03] general manager Marshall would like to provide some opening. Comments,

[5:34:06] please. Thank you. Chair, actually. I'd like to invite Director

[5:34:11] Dixon to make those remarks. I know it's late. It's

[5:34:15] okay. Thank you. So this report recommends the award of

[5:34:18] prime consulting work to be completed for the detailed design,

[5:34:22] preparation of tender packages and construction administration of three phases

[5:34:27] of work planned to update the festival. Area at Prince

[5:34:30] Arthur's Landing. This work is funded 73% through the. Isop

[5:34:37] investing in canada infrastructure program. This large three year project

[5:34:41] will reorient the festival site to relocate the stage area

[5:34:46] to the north end of the field and enhance back

[5:34:50] of house and stage support, including servicing that will benefit

[5:34:53] all events hosted in the festival area. Awarding the design

[5:34:57] of the full renewal project, rather than individual phases will

[5:35:01] result in efficiencies as well as a site with a

[5:35:04] unified field and integrated servicing. Tenders will be designed and

[5:35:08] issued by the consultant each year for three years to

[5:35:12] complete the full project that will improve audience experience and

[5:35:15] allow for more efficient events set up for. Organizers and

[5:35:20] support higher level events and concerts. Happy. To have any

[5:35:26] questions. Thank you for the overview, Councilor Ellen. Thank you.

[5:35:31] And through the chair. Oh, hang on. Procedures. Councilor Hamilton

[5:35:35] moved. Who's our second? Councilor trainee will second. Thank you.

[5:35:40] We're good to go. Thank you. For the next three

[5:35:44] years. Will there be? Large periods of time. Where the

[5:35:53] park will not. Be functional, be used. Through the chair.

[5:35:59] I believe that. Landscape architect Guy Walter is available for

[5:36:04] answering questions. And if not? Then, yes.

[5:36:14] Manager Halberson may be able to add to this, but

[5:36:19] yes, we are looking to work. Around events that are

[5:36:22] scheduled in the park to make sure that we're impacting

[5:36:26] those as little as possible during construction over the next

[5:36:28] three years. That's good. Thank you. Councilor Agarwal. Thank you

[5:36:35] very much. Through the chair. The preliminary funding is asking

[5:36:41] for $741,000. Can we have a breakdown of all the

[5:36:46] costs that we're anticipating over the next three years as

[5:36:50] it's a three year project. So through. The chair. The

[5:36:59] project right now is budgeted for $5 million. Of which

[5:37:04] I believe it's $1.3 million that will be funded by

[5:37:07] the city. That's for the entire project. That was the

[5:37:15] original budget for the project. In the application for the

[5:37:19] ISA program? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Councilor. I'm sorry. I

[5:37:26] forgot to ask one question. So on that budget, The

[5:37:30] HST rebate. I believe it was $73,000. An HST rebate.

[5:37:36] Does that go back into the next, like the following

[5:37:40] year? Where does that money go? Because it shows that.

[5:37:44] It's there, it's spent. But then we're getting it back.

[5:37:46] So where? Does it go? So through the chair. When

[5:37:52] we budget and when we compare actuals to budget, it's

[5:37:55] net of the HST. Rebates, so it's already factored in.

[5:38:00] How would you show that? On. I want to ask

[5:38:04] that question. In the corporate report, page 19.

[5:38:14] Where we deduct the HST rebate of 73,000. So the

[5:38:18] total cost. To the city for this project would be

[5:38:22] $667,000. If the budget. Was $700,000. So the total gross

[5:38:29] cost with HSD is 741. But because we get? A

[5:38:35] portion of the hse back. We are able to, I

[5:38:39] guess, technically invest that money. In capital projects, rather projects.

[5:38:44] So it goes back into capital? Well, that's through the

[5:38:47] chair. I should have specified. It's not just capital where

[5:38:50] we get the HST rebate. We get the HST rebate.

[5:38:53] Being a municipality, we get. The full federal portion of

[5:38:57] the HST back and 78% of the provincial portion. So

[5:39:02] it's on all operating, all. Shouldn't say all because. Hscs

[5:39:06] are complicated. Tax. But generally. We get most feedback. Okay,

[5:39:13] appreciate. Thank you. I don't see any further questions, so

[5:39:18] call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? That is

[5:39:23] carried. Next item. Thank you, chair. The next item on

[5:39:26] the agenda was withdrawn. That was the city of Thunder

[5:39:29] Bay. Energy conservation, demand management. Report. This item was noted

[5:39:34] earlier today that it would be withdrawn from tonight's agenda.

[5:39:39] Following that item. You will skip past our unsheltered homelessness

[5:39:45] report and move to petitions and communications. Which we have

[5:39:50] an appointment of city manager chair. Memorandum from Kerry Orki's

[5:39:53] director of human resources and corporate safety, also scheduled for

[5:39:56] ratification. Again, effective at 08:00 a.m. Tomorrow morning I'm over

[5:40:00] in a second, please move by councilor ellow. Seconded by

[5:40:04] Mayor Ballchoff. Any questions? All those in favor? Any opposed?

[5:40:13] None. Good news. Okay. Chair. I do want to note

[5:40:22] that this item is scheduled for ratification as the bylaw.

[5:40:24] Will be presented at city council immediately following this meeting.

[5:40:29] Now that we've appointed a city manager. Also to appoint

[5:40:32] a fire chief. A memorandum from Carrie Marshall, general manager

[5:40:35] of infrastructure development and operations, also scheduled for ratification. The

[5:40:39] appointment of David Paxton mover in a second, or please

[5:40:43] move by councilor Chung. Second by councilor Pascalino. Any questions?

[5:40:48] All in. Favor. Any opposed? That is carried. Next item,

[5:40:55] please. Next, we have transit and municipal fleet zero emissions

[5:40:59] transition plan. Memorandum from Kelvin Jankowski. Manager of capital facilities

[5:41:03] construction. This was dated June 14, providing a revised presentation

[5:41:08] date for this report for council's consideration. And moving it

[5:41:12] from July 15 to July 22. Mover in a second,

[5:41:15] or please move by councilor Agowal. Second by councilor Zazino.

[5:41:20] Questions? Councilor Ayello? Thank you. Through the chair. So when

[5:41:26] reading the report, it talks about. Savings and potential savings

[5:41:31] or realized savings. There's not really actually a dollar amount.

[5:41:40] To that, so. Basically, what can we expect in the

[5:41:44] way of savings? Yes, we will reduce carbon emissions, for

[5:41:49] example. Greenhouse gases. But considering the amount of money we're

[5:41:55] putting into a lot of these projects, because not everything

[5:41:58] is 100% funded. What sort of really? The return on

[5:42:03] investment for us. If it's going to cost us. A

[5:42:06] million dollars. This is basically just a rescheduling, is it

[5:42:10] not? We should probably wait until it comes forward. Save

[5:42:16] that one. Okay? It's a question you can ask in

[5:42:22] July. Okay. So any other questions? Comments? All those in

[5:42:29] favor? Any opposed? Carried. Chair through you. The outstanding list

[5:42:36] is provided for information. Following that, we have the establishment

[5:42:42] of closed session on Monday, July 15, at 05:00 p.m..

[5:42:47] Mover in a second, or pleased to establish that meeting,

[5:42:50] councilor Pascalino. And councilor Johnson. All in favor? Any opposed?

[5:42:59] That's carried. Next item. Motion to adjourn would be an

[5:43:01] order. Motion to adjourn. Council. Johnson. Seconded by councilor Pascalino.

[5:43:06] All in favor? Excellent. Don't get up and move. For

[5:43:12] those watching still at home, if you're still with us.

[5:43:15] Congratulations that you're still with us. We are going to

[5:43:18] move to city council. Which is going to follow, so

[5:43:21] please refresh your screens should you want to stay with

[5:43:23] us. At home. Congratulations. Let me say congratulations.

[5:43:34] No. I know.

Committee of the Whole

Agenda

Transcript