6 Oct 2025 Council meeting Safety

Housing Agreement Application No. HA14 - 224 White Court Way

Motions decided by one vote
That “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” (to secure the terms and conditions of occupancy for a residential shelter at 224 White Court Way) pass first reading.
Minutes, page 10
That “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” pass second reading.
Minutes, page 10
That “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” pass third reading and that Council direct Staff to register a Land Title Act Section 219 covenant to reinforce the terms of the Housing Agreement, following adoption of the bylaw.
Minutes, page 10
The City’s vote record words it differently
That Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426 (to secure the terms and conditions of occupancy for a residential shelter at 224 White Court Way) pass first reading. That Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426 pass second reading. That Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426 pass third reading. That Council direct Staff to register a Land Title Act Section 219 covenant to reinforce the terms of the Housing Agreement, following adoption of the bylaw.
Sources
Agenda itemCity agenda, whole meeting
Staff reportPage 1
Purpose
To present for Council’s consideration a Housing Agreement Bylaw to secure the terms and conditions of occupancy for a residential shelter at 224 White Court Way.
Staff report, page 1
Staff recommendation
That: 1. “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” (to secure the terms and conditions of occupancy for a residential shelter at 224 White Court Way) pass first reading; 2. “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” pass second reading 3. “Housing Agreement Bylaw 2025 No. 7426” pass third reading; and, 4. Council direct Staff to register a Land Title Act Section 219 covenant to reinforce the terms of the Housing Agreement, following adoption of the bylaw.
Staff report, page 1
DocumentsStaff report about Community Health & Wellbeing, Housing

Sheryl Armstrong Yes

The city that people don't even know about. We just approved one. I believe it was. A year ago for up to nine people. They don't have the problems that people are thinking they're going to have because I think some of. People are picturing their supportive housing units when they're not. As was stated, most of these people have been through three foot and they want to stay clean, they want to stay healthy. And at the spot to get them to learn a place where they can get to full time. Housing. So for these reasons, I'm supportive. Thank you.

Paul Manly Yes

A residential home. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Manley. Thank you. Just a question for you to staff. If there were challenges. With the operation of these facilities. This could be withdrawn. The sheltering of up to ten people. Right now, they can have five people there without having to go through. This process with the bylaw. If there was problems with either of these facilities, could that be rescinded?
Brown. I'm going to support it as well. We have been asking for these kind of facilities. In the city. I think that it would be good to get more support. From the province. So it's not all just privately funded, so that people that don't. Have the means can also. Access these kind of services because I've seen people coming out of treatment and having to go back into actual homeless shelters, which is not the place that they should be after when they're trying to. Make those changes in their lives. So I'm very supportive of facilities like this in the community. And I trust that. If there are any issues. That bylaw will hear about it. And that the operators will deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Janice Perrino No

Any discussion, Councilor Prinu? Thank you. Thank you, worship. Just to say I am in favor of this. I think this is an important goal for people who are struggling. But I would prefer to keep it to five people, and that's my only reason for voting against it. I agree with it. I think it's. An important facility, and I think you should continue going. In this direction. I just can't support more than five people in the house.

Leonard Krog Yes

But on the other hand, given the history, the lack of complaints and concerns that have been raised, The necessity for this very kind of facility that we are begging on one level of ruincible. Government to provide. When it comes to subsidized facilities, et cetera, it behooves us now to turn down this opportunity. If it doesn't work out, it can be shut down. That's pretty clear.