Latest news with #LakeheadRegionConservationAuthority
CBC
15-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Thunder Bay City Council reconsidering temporary shelter village site
Council asks for report on previously considered locations on city's south side Thunder Bay City Council is again reconsidering its choice for the location of a proposed temporary shelter village. At its April 7 meeting, Thunder Bay City Council selected a site on Cumberland Street North as the location for the village, which would support the city's unhoused population. However, when it came time to ratify that decision at its April 14 meeting, council instead directed administration to examine Kam River Heritage Park, and a parcel of land on Fort William Road that's owned by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA), as potential locations for the village. Both sites have been previously considered by city council. A report is due back on April 28. "It's got to work and it's got to be set up for success," Current River Coun. Andrew Foulds said on CBC's Superior Morning on Tuesday. "I think that there are a number of pieces to that." "For me, the biggest thing is making sure that there are services close to some of our most-vulnerable citizens," he said. "And services aren't just social services, although those are really, really important. It's proximity to other services that everyday people engage [with]." Foulds explained city administration will create a report over the next two weeks, and will make another recommendation to council. Councillors were considering the Kam River Heritage Park site last fall. At the time, city administration recommended a location on Miles Street East over the Kam River park site; council voted against that recommendation in the fall. That led to administration coming back with a recommendation for the Fort William Road site, which is located across from the CLE grounds. Given the land is owned by the LRCA, the city would need to sign a lease. A report to council presented in early April noted a number of advantages to the location: The size; proximity to support services; readiness for construction (the land is flat and clear, and close to existing services like power and water); emergency access, and safety considerations (the village would be fenced in, and security and support services on-site 24/7). The Fort William Road site was up for an approval vote on April 7. However, council instead approved the Cumberland Street North site at that meeting. That brings everything back to Monday, April 14, when instead of ratifying the Cumberland Street North decision — which would have allowed the project to move forward at that location — councillors instead went back to the Kam River and Fort William Road properties as possible locations.
CBC
03-04-2025
- Politics
- CBC
City of Thunder Bay proposes new site for temporary shelter village
Thunder Bay city administration is proposing a new site for a temporary shelter village, which would provide stability and support for the city's unhoused population. The new site is located at 1111 Fort William Road, across from the CLE grounds, on a parcel of land owned by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA). "There's two main factors that went into recommending this site," said Rilee Willianen, encampment response lead with the city. "First being that we did an assessment of municipally-owned options, or reassessment, and it failed to really yield any strong options," she said. "And it was also mentioned a couple of times in the public engagement survey." "So those two reasons got us to talk about the property internally, and it aligns really well with our site selection criteria and it represents the most viable move forward." City council has not yet made a final decision on the site; a report recommending council approve it as the location for the temporary shelter village will go to council on Monday. The report to council lists a number of advantages to building the village at the Fort William Road site. They include: its proximity to support services; available space; readiness for construction (the property is flat and clear, and close to existing services like power, water, and sewer); emergency access, and safety considerations (a fence would be built to limit access to the Neebing-McIntyre floodway, and create a barrier between the village and a residential property just south of it). In addition, Willianen said the site is within view of one of the city's Eye on the Street cameras, and staff and security would be on-site 24/7. However, even if councillors vote in favour of the new spot, there would still be work required before the initiative can move forward. Since the site is owned by the Lakehead Region Conservation Authority (LRCA), a lease agreement between the LRCA and city would need to be in place. In addition, the project may require the approval of the Minister of the Environment, Conservation, and Parks, the report to council states. At its March 26 meeting, the LRCA board approved the city's request in principle, subject to a lease agreement, ministerial approval, and a final approval by the LRCA board, said board chair Donna Blunt. "The Lakehead Region Conservation Authority recognizes that collaboration and cooperation are required to effectively address the needs and concerns of the community, unhoused members of the community, and those experiencing housing insecurity," Blunt said. " As such, the LRCA is prepared to assist the City of Thunder Bay should it be determined that we are able to do so." "So we will make those considerations as we move forward, and we've just approved in principle going forward and gathering more information." The report states the city has budgeted $5 million for the project — that would include any lease payments and the possible construction of a pedestrian crosswalk on Fort William Road — and the city has been approved for about $2.8 million in external funding if certain milestones are hit. Those include completing "at least 80 units and ancillary structures by December 31, 2025," the report states. Willianen said the site is large enough to hold up to 100 mini-cabin units, and the process by which residents would be allowed to move in to the village is still to be determined. If council approves the site on Monday, "our next steps will be some collaborative public engagement with the LRCA and then also our own engagement with service providers and community partners," she said. As long as the city starts construction by July, Willianen said, they'll be in a good position to meet the Dec. 31 deadline and receive the extra funding. "We need to support our citizens," Willianen said. "We've seen year-over-year increases in people experiencing homelessness, increases in encampments in public spaces. We have a duty to care for all of our citizens and to manage public health and public safety risks." The city had previously recommended a site on Miles Street East, but councillors voted that suggestion down in the fall, instead directing city administration to look at other potential locations for the village. "I'm in favour of this particular site that administration is putting forward," Westfort Coun. Kristen Oliver said. "I think that it provides an opportunity to support people living in crisis, to create a space where we can phase in some temporary village housing to get people into more-secure housing with a roof over their head." McKellar Ward Coun. Brian Hamilton — the proposed new site is in the McKellar Ward — said the village is intended to provide people with more than simply shelter. "This is to provide people with the sanctity and the dignity of actually having a home, actually having an address, actually having a place to put their things and to not be uprooted every single night and cast out into the street," he said. "This is much more than what the current capacity provides." Hamilton said he wasn't opposed to the Miles Street location. "I still think, actually, the Miles Street may be the better of the two sites," he said. "It's just, for that scale, I think this site could probably work a little bit better." "I have yet to reach out to partners to find out that their thoughts on the site," Hamilton said. "The fact is though, too, there is not going to be a perfect site." "There's going to be green flags and red flags on just about any site that we choose. I think this site and the Miles Street are both good, but I think maybe our work is to explain to the public exactly what we're doing here, that this is going to be a secured site and it's going to be done in partnership and coordination with a number of external organizations that will be assisting us in providing these very, very critical stabilization services."
