Open Council

3rd Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

Open Council

3rd Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee

December 6, 2022, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:01 PM; it being noted that the following Members were in remote attendance: Mayor J. Morgan, Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That items 2.1 to 2.6 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.1   London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022) – Update

2022-12-06 Staff Report - London Community Grants Program

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Neighbourhood and Community-Wide Services, the report dated December 6, 2022, titled “London Community Grants Program Innovation and Capital Funding Allocations (2022) - Update”, BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.2   Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS) – London Transit Commission Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild – Project 1

2022-12-06 Staff Report - Investing in Canada Infrastructure

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure with the concurrence of the General Manager, London Transit Commission, the following actions be taken: 

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to submit London Transit Commission (LTC) Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild – Project 1 to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream (ICIP-PTS);

b)    the budget for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022, as Appendix “A”; and,

c)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to carry out all budget adjustments required to establish the budget for the LTC Highbury Avenue Facility Demolition and Rebuild.

Motion Passed

2.3   Confirmation of Appointment to the Argyle Business Improvement Area

2022-12-06 Submission - Arygle

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Rob Graham, Chair, Jiffy Lube

Carol Taylor-Wilks, Vice Chair, Carol Wilks Consultants

Frank Boutzis, Treasurer, Easy Financial

Chris Metron, Warehouse Guys

Rob Aiken, Music Central

Deborah Haroun, Children’s Place

Donna Moerenhout, Razor’s Barber Shop

Lina Marie Phillips, Craklins Fish and Chips

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 25, 2022 from B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.4   Confirmation of Appointment to Downtown London

2022-12-06 Submission - Downtown London

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Argyle Business Improvement Area Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Asaad Naeeli, Dos Tacos

Bonnie Wludyka, Citi Plaza

Carolyn Conron, Conron Law Professional Corp

Keith Brett, ANNDining

Kristin Neilson, Glen CORR Management Inc

Marcello Vecchio, Farhi Holdings Corporation

Michelle Giroux, Fanshawe College Downtown Campus

Mike Pottruff, London Police Service

Michaelanne Hathaway, Stache Fabric & Notions

Nick Vander Gulik, Shoppers Drug Mart – Vander Guli Pharmacy Inc

Scott Collyer, Empyrean Communications Resources LLC

Steve Pellarin, London Small Business Centre

David Ferreira, City of London Councillor 

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated November 23, 2022 from B. Maly, Executive Director, London Downtown with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.5   Confirmation of Appointment to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association

2022-12-06 Submission - Hyde Park

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following individuals BE APPOINTED to the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association Board of Management for the term ending November 14, 2026:

Nancy Moffatt Quinn, Moffatt & Powell Rona 

Vickie Balazs, Jaydancin  

Terryanne Daniel, Synergy Centre 

Lorean Pritchard, ReDECOR Consignment 

Tom Delaney, Oxford Dodge 

Kelsey Watkinson, Curley Brewing Company 

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication from the Hyde Park Business Improvement Association with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed

2.6   8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2022-12-06 DIACAC Report

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the 8th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on November 10, 2022 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Tabling of the 2023 Annual Budget Update

2022-12-06 Staff Report - Budget

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the Draft 2023-Tax-Supported Annual Update and the Draft Water and Wastewater Treatment Budgets Annual Update:

a)     the Draft Budget documents BE REFERRED to the 2020-2023 Multi-Year annual budget update process; and,

b)     the overview presentation, as appended to the added agenda, by the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports with respect to the 2023 Budget Update BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the following documents were provided to the Members, and are available on the City website: Draft Property Tax Supported Budget, 2023 Annual Update and Draft Water and Wastewater & Treatment, 2023 Annual Update.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Request for Delegation Status - Valerie Terejko - Bill 5 - Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act, 2022

2022-12-06 Submission - Delegation Request - Bill 5

2022-12-06 Submission - Delegation Request - Presentation

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor BE DIRECTED to write to local MPPs, Premier Doug Ford and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, on behalf of the municipal council, in support of the proposed Bill 5; it being noted that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will also be copied on this letter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation request from Valerie Terejko BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.2   City of London Corporate Growth Projections 2021-2051

2022-12-06 Staff Report - City of London Growth Projections Study

2022-12-06 Staff Report - City of London Growth Projections Study-Appendix B-REVISED

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by J. Morgan

That, on the recommendation of the Acting Director, Planning and Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the City of London corporate growth forecast:

a)    the staff report BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the revised final report by Watson and Associates Economists entitled “Population, Housing and Employment Growth Projection Study, 2021-2051”, as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE RECEIVED for information;

c)    the Reference Scenario outlined in the final report prepared by Watson and Associates Economists entitled “Population, Housing and Employment Growth Projection Study, 2021-2051”, as appended to the staff report dated December 12, 2022 as Appendix “B”, BE ENDORSED for use as the City of London corporate growth forecast, including but not limited to use in forthcoming Planning Act and Development Charges Act initiatives; and,

d)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to Council, through the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, in advance of the Ontario Government’s deadline, on options, approaches, and necessary investments required to achieve the City of London’s assigned housing target of 47,000 new homes;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee heard a delegation from C. Mettler and S. Levin, Urban League of London (attached), M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute and A. Valastro, with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional votes:

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the delegation requests BE APPROVED to be heard at this meeting.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Application of Equity Lens for Citizen Appointment Process

2022-12-06 Submission - Equity Lens Citizen Appointments

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the Equity Tool, under the Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression Framework, as it relates to appointments to Advisory Committee, Boards and Commissions:

a)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps to ensure the application of the above-noted tool to recruitment and public engagement endeavours related to appointments; and,

b)  a staff report BE SUBMITTED to the Governance Working Group for consideration, related to the incorporation of the Equity Tool to the appointment process.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 7:00 PM.

Full Transcript

Transcript provided by Lillian Skinner’s London Council Archive. Note: This is an automated speech-to-text transcript and may contain errors. Speaker names are not identified.

View full transcript (3 hours, 16 minutes)

[1:03] Sound check from chambers. Can you hear me okay? Loud and clear, thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon colleagues.

[17:54] I’m gonna call the third meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. And I will begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabic, the Haudenosaunee and the Lenny Peiwok and Adawanda and peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and cultures of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit people today. And as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

[18:30] For those watching at home, the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489, extension 2425. Colleagues, before we proceed with the agenda, I am just going to take a moment to acknowledge that today, December 6th, is the anniversary of the senseless murder of 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique School in Montreal.

[19:18] 14 women lost their lives, 10 more were injured, and four men were also injured. And so as we reflect on this terrible moment in our history, I would just ask everybody to stand and observe a moment of silence. Thank you everyone, please be seated.

[20:20] One other housekeeping note, colleagues, this evening is the tabling of the annual budget update. When we get to item three, scheduled items, I will be turning the chair over to our budget chair, Councillor Ploza, and she will chair that portion of the meeting. I do want to remind everybody that tonight is the tabling of the budget. This is a time for technical questions, process questions of our staff. We are not debating or amending or moving anything on the budget this evening. That will proceed through the public participation process and future meetings of this committee and council.

[20:55] And I know Councillor Ploza will go over that with you when she takes the chair. So we will start with item one, disclosures of pecuniary interest, and I will look to see if colleagues have any disclosures to make. Seeing none, and I will note that Mayor Morgan and Councillor Van Mirbergen are joining us via Zoom today. Councillor Hillyer is currently not with us, although he did let us know that he anticipated he may arrive late. That moves us on to item two, the consent agenda. We do have six items on the consent agenda.

[21:31] I have not been made aware of anyone wishing to have anything pulled to be debated or dealt with separately. I will look to colleagues now to see if anyone wants any items pulled for separate vote and debate. Seeing none in chambers and none on Zoom. So I look to see if we have a mover and a seconder for the consent agenda. We move by Councillor Layman and seconded by Councillor Cuddy. And we’ll look for any questions or comments on the consent agenda. And we’ll go to Councillor Hopkins first. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[22:03] And I do have a quick question on consent item 2.2. I understand that we are, have already moved a motion to bring forward the London Transit Commission Highbury Avenue Facility, the Demodulation and the Rebuild Project One. That’s what the item is about. And I do want to, through you, ask staff, given for those of you who may not know, the challenges of moving around in the West are great.

[22:37] And I understand that this is a prudent use of the funding opportunity. But I would like to ask, through you to staff, opportunities on the mobility plan where it’s at and what we can expect going forward in terms of public participation in the process. And I think we will start with Ms. Sheer on this one. And I will note for colleagues that Ms. Palashni from London Transit is here. Ms. Barbona is also here if there are questions on this item. Ms. Sheer.

[23:10] Thank you, Mr. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. The mobility master plan is expected to be concluded fully in the first quarter of 2024. But we will be bringing substantial touch points through committee and council throughout 2023. The intent is to have a fully financed plan. So we’ll lay out what the costs are and be able to take advantage of other opportunities for higher level of government participation as those come forward. Certainly, we view this as a complementary project to the mobility master plan because we anticipate it will identify the need for expanded transit service throughout the community.

[23:42] And that’s going to require that LTC has the facility to support their growth in the years to come. So in terms of public participation, we have done a, what I think is a bit of a different approach so far in terms of really starting with why do people travel in our city and what their preferences are and specifically trying to reach out to communities that sometimes don’t participate in these conversations. We intend to follow that practice through the rest of the year. We have a number of different ways that we’re consulting with people at events through get involved, through some public information centers. You should see an update on our communication strategy as part of the civic works package.

[24:18] That’ll be at council next week. Thank you, Ms. Chair, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you, staff, for the work that you’re doing on this one. I think it is going to be an important conversation, especially out in my part of town and really look forward to that public engagement as well. I think it’s really important that we hear from the public on how we move around the city. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. I will note that Councillor Hillyer has joined the meeting now and is with us and we’ll go to Mayor Morgan next. Just ask everybody to stand by for a moment while we deal with a technical issue, okay?

[25:12] We should be good now, Mayor Morgan. If you can hear us, Councillor Hillyer, you can hear us, Mayor Morgan, you’re next on the speakers list. Thank you, can you hear me, Chair? Loud and clear, your worship. Excellent. So on this item, and I’m joining you from Ottawa today for meetings with the big city mayors across the country. We’ve met with Prime Minister Trudeau, Minister LeBlanc, Minister Hussein on a number of matters. But I will say one of the items we’ve discussed, I believe is related to this particular project.

[25:46] As you know, this project is the final submission for London’s already allocated transit funds. And it is a phased project because the amount of the overall project is more than the funding that we’ve spent at this time, as well as obviously the project is phased for strategic reasons as well. Through discussions that we’ve had, there may be an opportunity for us to submit additional transit projects in the window between the ending of the existing funding that the federal government has put out before they established a permanent transit fund, which is expected in 2026.

[26:21] Through discussions we’ve had as well on the permanent transit fund, 2026 is likely when they will start flowing the money, but there will be a process to open and submit applications likely leading into that, allowing for some design work and other considerations so that it would actually be 2026 when you get the check, not 2026 when the project starts. These two things together, I think, align well with our transit strategy and our transit priorities. First off, gives us an opportunity based on the timing of this particular project to go after funds for the subsequent phases.

[26:55] And as well, it seems like the timing of the permanent transit fund will align well with our master mobility plan process. So I wanted to add that comment for Councillor Hopkins and also other colleagues there that the work we’re doing in Ottawa today is very relevant to this particular item and the long-term funding of important transit projects, including this, which will ultimately support the electrification of the fleet, which is something that the federal government is very interested in supporting as well. So I just wanted to add that context, fully supportive of this submission and if colleagues have any questions, I’ll be able to provide a full report on my time here in Ottawa when I return.

[27:34] Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Looking for any other speakers on the consent agenda items. Seeing none, I will ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Oh, sorry, Councillor van Mirbergen. Thank you, Chair. I had a question with regard to the reconstruction and rebuild of the transit terminal, but specifically with regard to wonderland.

[28:08] With this rebuild and reconstruction, how does the wonderland facility fit in? How is it seen, what is the interplay between the hybrid facility and the wonderland facility as we go forward with new construction and rebuild and so on? Well, let’s ask Ms. Polashny if she can answer that for you, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor, through the chair. So the wonderland facility operates as our satellite facility. Currently, we operate about 55 buses out of that facility daily.

[28:43] That facility currently has the capacity for 90 buses, but it can be expanded. We can add storage capacity for an additional 10. So that facility maxes out at 100 buses. The current hybrid facility will hold 185 buses, but this redesign will expand that up to 252. So the combination of the two provides us with the ability to expand our fleet up to 350 buses, which will take us right out to our needs projected out to 2050 if we look at consistent growth with what we’ve been experiencing in the past.

[29:20] So we do need both of those facilities. The other piece that I’ll comment on is the wonderland facility is where the initial electric buses will be housed and operated out of because it makes sense to put the infrastructure in that facility noting that that facility is relatively new, where it doesn’t make as much sense, obviously, to put that infrastructure dollars into the hybrid facility when we know it needs to be demolished and retrofitted. So the first 100 electric buses in the fleet will operate out of the wonderland facility. Thank you, Ms. Polashny, Councillor Van Murebergen.

[29:57] And so will the wonderland facility, as you mentioned, it’s quite a bit newer, will the wonderland facility be getting any kind of upgrade through this current project? Ms. Polashny. Through the chair, this project that we’re talking about here tonight, there’s no dollars allocated for the wonderland facility. However, the zero emission bus pilot project that we’ve put forward for funding through the zero emission transit fund includes dollars associated with the facility retrofits that will be required for the wonderland facility.

[30:33] So that’s a different pot of funding, but it’s a different project and that has been identified. Thank you for that, Councillor Van Murebergen. I just want one extra question here and that is in regard to the obvious cost overrun. In a nutshell, perhaps staff can tell us what is causing such a massive cost overrun? Well, let’s maybe start with Ms. Share or perhaps Ms. Barbone, or did Ms. Polashny, did you have some comment on that?

[31:10] If we’re referring to the overrun as being the difference between what the estimate was in 2019 and the 2019 study that we did as compared to this one, I think there’s a few things that perhaps weren’t set out very clearly in the report, but the 2019 study was not a class D costing estimate. It was just a very high level estimate to determine what the most appropriate path forward with respect to the hybrid facility was. This estimate is obviously much more detailed. It also includes all of the impacts associated with breaking it into two projects, the time period in between and some additional work that would be required in order to break it into those two projects.

[31:52] So by way of example, there’s $62 million in the total of things that weren’t included in that 2019 project associated with splitting the projects, moving the projects out over an extended period of time and then estimating those costs in today’s dollars. All of that is over and above what was included in 2019. So it’s really not an apples to apples comparison. You wanna look at just the construction. The 2019 estimate was 164 million and the new estimate is 265.

[32:31] Thank you for that, Councilor Van Wiebergen does that answer your question? Well, perhaps I could also ask to what extent does the current inflationary spiral affect this, if at all? Ms. Polashny. Through the chair, so the current inflation is certainly impacting it. We did follow up with the costing consultants that completed this costing and they’re essentially using the estimates that they’re using for any project that they’re doing right now. And obviously that’s based on today’s climate.

[33:04] That obviously could be subject to change, but they were adamant that the numbers that they’re utilizing for these estimates are what needs to go forward. And we also have confirmed with a number of other transit properties that are in similar situations that these are the same kind of estimates that are being included in all major infrastructure projects of this nature. Thank you for that. Councilor Van Wiebergen, do you have any additional questions? That’s right, thank you very much. Great, thank you. And we will look once more to see if colleagues have any other questions or comments on the consent agenda.

[33:44] Seeing none, I will get the clerk to open the vote now. Councilor Van Wiebergen?

[34:36] No, yes. Housing the vote, emotions passed 15 to zero. That moves us on to item three scheduled items, the tabling of the 2023 annual budget update. So I will ask Councilor Palosa to take the chair. Thank you, Mr. Presenting Officer. This is the tabling the 2023 annual budget update. Staff have circulated and advanced their budget information for you in an overview of their slide deck. This evening staff will do their presentation for you. It will exceed five minutes.

[35:09] And then your questions this evening, I will facilitate that portion, is for technical questions, process questions. Following this meeting, staff are available for a budget type drop-in for questions, available one-on-one for questions. There’s an opportunity for community consultation in your words, if you choose to take that route, which staff can walk you through those opportunities. Anything getting into polling items, redirecting staff or debating items is not happening this evening. This will happen after a public participation meeting, when we have a full day, maybe just one, potentially two together, and we will go through our priorities and do things differently.

[35:49] So at this time, I would like to call on our city’s finance staff to bring us through their presentation. We’ve discussed it beforehand and have asked them to go slower as they go, recognizing half the council is new, and this is a new opportunity for a budget process for you to make sure that everything’s laid out with clarity of why we’ve done something, the impacts and opportunities. We have a long way to ask questions and enforce change if we want to. Ms. Barbone, when you’re ready. Thank you, and through your worship, I am sorry through the chair, Deputy Mayor.

[36:33] I’m very excited to actually be able to present and walk through for your consideration the 2023, annual budget update. I want to start out first to express my sincere appreciation and thanks to the leadership of Cal Murray, the entire finance team, as well as the senior leadership team and all of the staff in their areas that have worked hard to present and pull together the information that we are presenting to you for your consideration today. So as the budget chair had mentioned, we are tabling today.

[37:07] This is the first start of the process. So this kicks it off and is only the beginning of the budget process. So as we move forward, and today’s meeting is your opportunity to ask questions about the process. If there’s anything that’s unclear, but there’ll be plenty of time and opportunity over the next month as you go through the documents to ask detailed questions of staff or the various service areas so that you’ll be ready to go for the budget deliberations, which will begin in January. So you will have received a copy of the budget document.

[37:41] So there are three budgets, the property tax, the water and waste water and treatment budgets. They are all contained within the CIRLOC, so it’s one document. They are available electronically and have been posted on our website at four o’clock today on the London.ca/budget, as well as on the Get Involved site and the engagement portal so that you people can provide comments as they go through the documents from the public. So this is the draft agenda that we’re gonna walk you through today. So I’m gonna walk you through a bit of an overview and refresher of the multi-year budget process and provide you through, Kyle Murray will take over and walk you through the 2023 specific budget update, as well as the next steps for the timelines.

[38:25] So this slide is a really critical slide and we like to include it because it’s a very good visual representation of the city’s multi-year budget process. So the 2023 annual budget update represents our third and final annual update to the 2020 to 2023 multi-year budget that was approved. So this is council’s opportunity on an annual basis to make any required adjustments within the multi-year budget cycle. So the annual budget update is an important component and you’ll see it circled in the red dotted line to ensure that we have opportunities to adjust for any unplanned or unforeseen circumstances.

[39:04] So the annual budget update has actually shown a great deal of flexibility throughout the multi-year budget process by allowing us to make changes as necessary and specifically to address the financial impacts of COVID-19 over the past couple years in particular. So just as a reminder, there are generally three budget amendments that you see through the annual budget process. Typically they fall into the categories of newer changed regulations, new council direction that may come up or an unanticipated cost driver or revenue driver that has basically materialized since the approval of the multi-year budget.

[39:41] So reporting of the environmental, social and governance considerations has continued also to gain prominence, both in evaluating specific business decisions as well as evaluating organizations in their entirety. Our credit rating agencies, including ours, which is Moody’s, are moving forward to separately assess and report out on ESG factors and their impact on the credit worthiness of borrowers. So the emphasis on ESG factors aligns very well with the work that’s already underway at the City of London with respect to climate change as well as the anti-oppression and anti-racism efforts.

[40:16] The 2022 budget update was the first budget that included a separate ESG section in each budget amendment. So this section remains for 2023 and outlines the relevant impacts both positive and negative of the budget amendment on greenhouse gas emissions, climate change, impacts on equity-deserving groups and any relevant governance considerations, such as risks of approving or not approving a particular amendment. So learning from last year’s experience, greater flexibility has been added into this section of the budget.

[40:48] And while ensuring that the relevant factors are also considered. So new for this year, you’ll see up on the slide is the ESG profile box, which has been included in every single budget amendment. So this provides a snapshot of the relevant weights of the E, the S, as well as the G factors for that particular amendment. In the example on this slide, you can see that this particular amendment was assessed as most impacting the S element, which you’ll see, which is the larger section on the box, then E and then the G.

[41:20] We will also continue to further embed the ESG considerations, including the equity lens, in our budget processes as we move and towards the next multi-year budget update. So before we get into the details of the 2023 annual update, I wanted to take the opportunity to recap where the tax levy increase stands after the approval of the 2022 annual budget last year. The black dotted line on this slide represents the tax levy increases that have been approved through the 2020, through the 2023 MYB, with a four year average of 3.9, which is the gray dashed line that you see there.

[41:58] The solid orange line represents the amended increases based on the approval of the 2021 and the 2022 annual budget updates. So through the last two budget updates, a number of amendments were approved that did reduce the tax levy, but did increase quite significantly for 2021 and 2022, which did result in deferring those initiatives and investments to 2023. So this is why you see the orange line jump higher in 2023 because those items have been deferred into that year. So after the approval of the 2022 budget update, the four year average tax levy increase stands at 3.6%.

[42:36] So this represents an annual property owner impact of $109 per year based on average residential property with an assessed value of 241,000 in 2019. So to provide some further context and property taxes in London, this slide shows the average residential property taxes for Ontario municipalities with populations that are greater than 100,000. I will caution that this is the 2021 data that was obtained from the 2021 BMA Municipal Study. Although the 2022 BMA 2022 BMA Municipal Study has not yet been finalized, the numbers from year to year don’t materially very significantly.

[43:21] So this chart does provide some context as to how London compares to other large Ontario municipalities. London in this case is the green bar and is third lowest at $3,359 per year. The average is the red bar that you see in the middle there at 4,385 per year. Similarly, this provides a relative property tax comparison for commercial space, specifically the prime location commercial office space. So in this case, London and green as before is second lowest at $2.86 per square feet compared to the average of $3.51 per square foot in red.

[44:03] Similarly, here’s the comparison for the industrial property taxes for what BMA calls the standard industrial property newer build under 125,000 square feet. London is the fourth lowest at $1.36 a square foot versus the average of $1.96 square foot, which is shown in red. So as part of this presentation, we always like to provide and a bit of a similar mention on how tax policy works. And it’s an area that we find to have a common misconception among Londoners that we talk to throughout the budget deliberations and throughout the year.

[44:40] There are a number of factors that actually go into determining what the tax levy increase is for any given property. And only two of these factors are within the control of the city. Specifically, the city council approved budget increase, as well as the council approved tax policy. So tax policy is dealt with specifically and separately after the approval of the budget, typically in April when we receive the regulations from the province. Variables outside of the control of the city include the education tax policy, which is a provincial mandate, changes in assessed values of the properties, which is the responsibility of MPAC that occurs regularly throughout the year, and any other new or emerging provincial legislation that may impact property taxes.

[45:25] So in particular, we often hear that increases in assessed value will automatically mean someone’s property taxes will be going up. This is actually not the case. Only if the assessed value of the property increases more than the class average will the reassessment result in a greater tax levy increase. Conversely, an increase lower than the average for a particular class would result in a reduction. So in relation to the two specific elements within the city’s control, budget and tax policy, this slide is a good visual representation of the relationship between the budget and the tax policy, and helps show the difference between the two.

[46:07] So approving the budget is the equivalent of deciding how big of a pie you’re going to make, or in other words, how much funding is required to deliver the city services throughout each and every year. Tax policy is the process which determines how that pie will be sliced among the various classes, and ultimately sets out what class pays for how much of the total. So I’ve also included, as part of the presentation, a reference of some of our key financial principles. As we head into a new budget year and recognizing that many of you may not have seen these before, we think this is a really important reference document.

[46:45] So I’m not gonna go through these in detail as part of the presentation, but they are included here for you as well as the public’s reference, and you can refer back to them at your convenience. I would also like to mention that we are bringing forward to council in 2023 in advance of the 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget, the city’s strategic financial framework. This is a piece of work that will elaborate on these and other key financial principles in more detail and set the stage for how we will begin to table the multi-year budget.

[47:21] So, and this is just the remainder of the key financial principles. So I’m now gonna turn it over to Mr. Kalmeri, who will walk you through the specific proposed 2023 budget update. Excellent, so thank you, Annalisa, for that introduction. And I will walk you briefly through the details of the 2023 budget update. I will caution that we’re gonna cover a lot of ground in the next few minutes.

[47:55] So, there’ll be a lot of information coming your way, but it is all contained in your budget document. And certainly we are available as well over the next few weeks to answer any questions that you may have that may come up as you’re reviewing the budget document in preparation for budget deliberations in January. So in this year’s budget, there are 18 property tax budget amendments, 15 of them are operating budget amendments, and three of them are capital budget amendments. And of the 15 operating budget amendments, five of them result in a budget increase, three of them have no tax levy impact, and seven result in budget reductions.

[48:39] And these have largely been brought forward in recognition of our starting point this year, which you can see on screen, 3.9%, and our desire to bring that number down. Of the three capital budget amendments, none of them have a tax levy impact in this multi-year budget period. If all of the amendments are approved, the 2023 tax levy increase will drop to 2.9%, and the four-year average will be reduced from 3.6% to 3.4%. And as you can see on this slide, the four-year average annual property owner impact would be reduced from $109 to $101, once again using the same average property that Annalisa previously alluded to.

[49:25] For 2023 specifically, the impact to the average residential property owner would be reduced again if all amendments are approved from $122 to $92. So for this year’s budget process, we’ve suggested a five-step process to work through all of the budget amendments. And very similar to the process, we utilized last year for those who were involved in the process then. So for the 15 operating budget amendments, we are recommending seven of them, and we would suggest that we work through those first as part of step one.

[49:59] And then step two would be two capital budget amendments that we are recommending. Step three would move us on to the remaining eight operating budget amendments that we’ve put forward for council’s consideration. And then step four would deal with the final remaining capital budget amendments. And then last but not least, step five would be to review the water and wastewater budget amendments for this year. There are two water budget amendments, one wastewater budget amendment. None of the water or wastewater budget amendments have an impact on the previously approved water or wastewater rate increases for 2023.

[50:40] So let’s get into a few more details. And again, I’m going to move quite quickly. So apologies, but property tax budget amendment number one relates to reductions that we’ve identified through zero based reviews and other budget right sizing that we’ve conducted this year. And as we’ve done in previous years, we continue to regularly review our budgets to ensure that they align the required resources with the services that we need to deliver that Londoners rely on. So this amendment number one, reflects $6.6 million of reductions in 2023, of which $5 million are permanent ongoing reductions.

[51:19] And it’s important to note with this budget amendment that these reductions do not have an impact on services or service levels. Budget amendment number two is a one time budget reduction of approximately $1 million in 2023. Through the multi year budget, council approved additional investments in Ontario works and childcare. And since then service demands and cost sharing requirements have changed largely as a function of COVID such that the previously approved funding we don’t anticipate will be required in 2023.

[51:54] So again, this amendment is not anticipated to have service or service level impacts. And it’s important to note that the funding will remain in the budget for 2024 as it is anticipated to be required at that point. Budget amendment number three is a budget increase to fund the operating budget resources associated with the roadmap to 3,000 affordable housing units. So the capital budget amendments or, excuse me, components of the roadmap were approved and funded by council back in December of 2021. And at that time, civic administration was directed to bring forward a budget amendment to this year’s budget process to secure the permanent operating budget funding for the portable housing benefit program as well as the staff resources that are required to support the implementation of the roadmap.

[52:44] Budget amendment number four is a budget increase related to project clean slate. And this program, which is delivered in partnership with youth opportunities unlimited, helps to address the issue of loose trash and garbage on private property in the core area, will also providing employment and development opportunities for youth involved in the program. So the program was funded temporarily in 2021 and 2022 using one time funding. This budget amendment is to secure permanent funding for the program starting in 2023.

[53:18] Budget amendment number five is a budget increase and represents an increased investment in the city’s cybersecurity infrastructure in the amount of a $1 million operating budget amendment. I’ll also note that there is a small capital budget component to this amendment as well of approximately 140,000, but that piece does not have a tax levy impact. Budget amendment number six is in response to the recommendations of a London for everyone, an action plan to disrupt Islamophobia. And one of the recommendations in that plan is to explore the possibility of bringing the 1001 inventions exhibit to London next year.

[54:00] So this amendment is for one time funding of $125,000 and does not have a tax levy impact as we are recommending that it be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. Budget amendment number seven relates to the land ambulance service, which is delivered by Middlesex London Paramedic Service under the authority and governance of the County of Middlesex as the designated service manager. It’s really important to note that the city does not have direct decision-making authority over the delivery of the ambulance service.

[54:35] And so the city has been advised that our share of the 2023 ambulance budget exceeds what was included in our previously approved budget by about 1.7 million for 2023. However, given that the drivers of the increase are largely related to growth impacts, we are proposing that this amendment be funded through assessment growth revenues in accordance with our approved council approved assessment growth policy. And if that does in fact occur, this would not therefore have a tax levy impact.

[55:10] So step number two is the recommended capital budget amendments. And budget amendment number eight relates to adjustments to a handful of transportation growth capital projects for which we now have better information regarding the timing and cost of those projects, which have been obtained through additional information as those projects have progressed through the planning and environmental assessment processes. So this budget amendment does not have a tax levy impact as it can be accommodated with an available capital budget funding sources.

[55:47] Budget amendment number nine reflects a change to the timing of funding that was approved by the previous council in the 2020 multi-year budget, additional investment business case 21, which is related to London Middlesex community housing’s regeneration strategy. So this amendment results in $21 million of funding recommended to be accelerated to 2023 that will allow LMCH to proceed with construction of phase one of their reimagine project at their Southdale site.

[56:21] This amendment also does not have a tax levy impact in this multi-year budget period. So moving on to step three, this is the four consideration operating budget amendments. And once again, you’ll see that a number of these amendments are reductions that we have put forward as reduction ideas in recognition of our starting point. And these are opportunities to bring that tax levy increase for 2023 in lower. So budget amendment number 10 is comprised of three parts and again is a budget reduction idea.

[56:56] This amendment, if approved, will adjust the funding approach for the previously approved additional investment in streetlight local improvements. It will reduce annual walkway maintenance during the summer and reduce the previously approved additional investment in winter maintenance for sidewalks. So collectively, if approved, these adjustments will result in a budget reduction of about $936,000. Budget amendment number 11 is another budget reduction opportunity for council’s consideration. This amendment would result in annual savings of $200,000 and could result in changes such as the reduction or elimination of the hanging basket program, potentially winter horticultural displays in the core and/or other horticultural beds that could be grasped in.

[57:44] Budget amendment number 12 is yet another budget reduction idea for council’s consideration and represents a reduction to the neighborhood playground program. This would see the program reduced from 22 full day sites to 10 full day sites and would result in savings of $250,000 if approved. And budget amendment number 13 is another reduction opportunity related to the elimination of printed council agenda materials. And admittedly, the savings are quite modest in 2023. However, they do increase in future years upon the expiry of the associated contracts for this service.

[58:24] Budget amendment number 14 has been referred to the 2023 budget process from the London Community Grants Program Community Review Panel. So it is a $3 million one-time request from the Humane Society of London and Middlesex to support the construction of their new animal campus. If council wishes to approve this amendment, we are recommending that it be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, resulting in no tax levy impact. Budget amendment number 15 is a referral from the August 2nd council meeting of this year.

[59:00] At that meeting, council directed staff to prepare a budget amendment for this year’s budget process to double the tax levy funding for the neighborhood decision-making process from $250,000 per year to $500,000 per year. Budget amendment 16 is in relation to a previous budget request from the Hamilton Road BIA back in October 2021 that was subsequently deferred to be brought forward as an amendment in this year’s budget. This amendment is a $100,000 a year permanent request for grant funding from the Hamilton Road BIA.

[59:36] And budget amendment 17 is another potential budget savings opportunity for council’s consideration. As part of the multi-year budget, council approved additional funding to address the city’s infrastructure gap. This amendment presents council with the option to reduce by half the contribution to the infrastructure gap reserve fund that was approved in the multi-year budget that was business case 4B that would be reduced from $1.8 million to $950,000. And finally, the last property tax supported budget amendment is number 18, which is a one-time $150,000 amount to develop a streetscape master plan for Dundas Street in the Argyle BIA area.

[1:00:22] This was based on previous council direction from August 2nd. So this amendment is proposed also to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, resulting in no tax levy impact. So now we come to step five, which is the Water and Waste Water Budget Amendments. There are two water budget amendments, both capital budget amendments this year. Budget Amendment W1 is a one-year schedule change for the spring bank number two reservoir replacement project. That is to avoid conflicting work that is ongoing in 2023 at reservoir as number one and three.

[1:01:00] Budget Amendment W2 is a temporary deferral of a handful of water growth projects that are currently under review through a servicing study to determine their need, scope, and timing. Neither of these two amendments have an impact on previously approved water rates for 2023, which are increasing for 2 and 1/2% by 2 and 1/2% as previously approved by council. There is one capital budget amendment for wastewater this year. So Amendment WWT1 is an $11 and 1/2 million increase to the Mud Creek Branch Phase II project as a result of the finalization of detailed design for that project, as well as completion of Phase I of the project.

[1:01:46] That resulted in higher than anticipated costs. So we need to bring this amendment forward at this time to secure the necessary funding for Phase II. To partially offset the impact of this increase in 2023, this amendment also includes two other capital projects recommended for deferral to offset the impact of the increase. The changes outlined in this amendment similar to the water amendments. The changes in the wastewater amendment can be accommodated within existing capital budget funding sources and do not in our mid-year monitoring report in September.

[1:02:55] We’re expecting lost revenues and additional costs for this year to be in the order of probably offset some of those impacts. And we do anticipate monitoring reports to reserve inflation in this presentation certainly.

[1:03:49] And it’s definitely a challenge that’s facing all of us. The city is no different. Certainly what we buy through our budget is going to be very different than what you or I purchase as consumers may continue, although we have seen some slight moderation, I think, in inflationary trends in the past couple of months.

[1:04:29] And we may also experience additional pressures going forward as well. We purchase many things through fixed price contracts. And as those contracts come up, we could see suppliers passing increased costs along to us. So as it relates to specifically the 2023 budget process, there are no operating budget amendments exclusively related to inflation. However, it is a contributing factor in the land ambulance budget amendment you will see. So as I mentioned, we have over the past couple of years strategically set aside funds in our contingency reserves.

[1:05:04] These savings remain available to mitigate inflationary pressures through 2023. And until we can get into the development and approval of the next multi-year budget. On the capital budget side of things, it’s definitely been more pronounced. The inflation has been. Obviously, supply change disruptions, increased demand for raw materials. I think that has all contributed to the inflation that we’ve seen impacting our capital plans. And we did include, just to be very clear, we did include inflation in our capital plans in our multi-year budget.

[1:05:37] However, the level of inflation, I think, is far greater than we anticipated at that time. So as I alluded to already, we have included some budget amendments in this year’s budget to secure additional funding for a number of capital projects that are being impacted by inflation and that need to move forward immediately in 2023. By addressing those projects in this budget update, we also buy ourselves some time to see how things play out as far as inflationary pressures are concerned over the coming months. We’re hoping that they continue to moderate based on easing supply chain pressures and potentially further interest rate increases by central banks as well.

[1:06:18] So depending on how inflation progresses, the multi-year budget will really be our best opportunity to make more significant changes to our capital budget and 10-year capital plan. Finally, a brief note about Bill 23 as well, which is the More Homes Build Faster Act. So as committee heard, the November 22nd SPPC meeting, there are a number of legislative changes through Bill 23 that could have significant financial impacts to the city. To be clear, given the timing and the uncertainty of this legislation, there is nothing in the 2023 budget update related to Bill 23.

[1:06:59] If necessary, we may need to incorporate changes in the multi-year budget once those impacts are better known. In terms of the key dates upcoming in the budget process, so the next committee meeting will be the public participation meeting on January the 17th. We will then get into budget deliberations on January 26th. Then we also have January 27th set aside as well if we need it. And we’re working towards final approval of the budget at council on February the 14th.

[1:07:37] Finally, after we’ve been very much limited in our public engagement activities over the past couple of years, we now are able, once again, to offer in-person public engagement opportunities on the budget. So that’s fantastic. We have, however, though learned that online engagement channels are very much valued and important to many monitors, so we will continue to offer those as options as well. And as was mentioned earlier on today, we remain available to support your engagement activities as counselors as well as you request.

[1:08:15] So that’s all I have in terms of slides. Thanks again for this chance to walk you through the budget update, and we’re happy to take any technical questions on the budget process. And I’ll pass it back to the budget chair. Thank you, Mr. Murray. And Ms. Barbona to your teams in the senior leadership for such a comprehensive report. As always, to council colleagues, this is how the update goes and basically how the amount to your budget goes. So this is how we spend our time together for anyone who prefers for this process a bound copy of the budget.

[1:08:52] Everything’s in one booklet. Just let Mr. Murray know and want to be provided. If you find that easier to work through, as it is a lot moving parts at the same time. For colleagues, as you look through and consider considerations that you might want to discuss in January, every $750,000 is a 0.1% impact the budget, just to give you an idea of when you go through your numbers. The public participation meeting that will receive in January 17th, any residents who you come across who would like to participate.

[1:09:25] It can be virtual or in person here at City Hall. And for colleagues that will be a longer evening for us, potentially, we’ll be provided at the appropriate time to keep us fueled as we go as well, our budget deliberations are on the 26th and 27th, as those would be. Do reserve them as a full day right now in your calendars. My speaker’s list, I’m not sure how long it’s going to be, but please be concise and recognize these are technical and procedural questions only at this time. If you’re having trouble finding something of where it might be buried in the budget, absolutely ask that now.

[1:10:03] And if you have questions about the process, please, I will start my counselor’s speaking list with Councillor Trosov, followed by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you very much, and through the chair, just a couple of very brief questions. The first one really is, I really like the way you presented this. Is this gonna be available in all of the branch libraries and maybe at the desk of rec centers so people can use this format instead of having to go online?

[1:10:45] Thank you, through the chair. Yes, the budget document is available at all branches of the public library, so absolutely if Londoners prefer that format, they can access it at their nearest library branch. That’s great, second question to the chair is, how does a measure get onto this list? What are the various different processes through which we end up with a P1, P2, P2 through 18? How does that happen? Thank you, through the chair.

[1:11:17] So essentially the guide for the starting point would be the multi-year budget that was initially approved in 2020 to govern all the years from 2020 to 2024. So as the budget updates are presented, that is the opportunity to bring forward changes where we might have the cost pressures or new directions from Council that would come forward and would fit into those categories that you had. So essentially through the update process, as we’ve made changes to reflect either service level impacts because of COVID where things could not be done and had to be deferred, that was an opportunity for some changes from 2021 and 22 to be brought forward.

[1:12:02] The second piece is that noting that the starting point after the 2022 budget was 3.9%, that was certainly something that civic administration felt would be too high to present as is towards Council. So a number of these changes are cost pressures that came forward. The land ambulance is a perfect example. That was something that came forward that we needed to put forward. We have to pay the bill. That doesn’t give us a lot of discretion. So knowing some of the challenges, civic administration has a very key purpose. And one of the things the multi-year budget has allowed us to do is to do service reviews and look at opportunities for cost-effectiveness and efficiencies that we can reflect in the budget.

[1:12:46] So that’s something which is the very first budget amendment. The remainder are really trying to reflect a large number of them cost pressures that have come to our attention since the last approval. Civic administration’s attempt to provide options for Council to bring in and approve a much lower tax levy, noting that 3.9% in today’s inflationary environment may be a little bit challenging for the taxpayers. Thank you very much. Next question. I don’t see anything on here about the increase in police personnel.

[1:13:21] Should I assume that’s because it’s not in this budget and it’s going into 2024? Through the Chair. So the police increase has come forward through an assessment growth business case. So their ask has been brought forward to civic administration over a three-year period that was approved by the Board. So when the assessment growth business cases come forward, I believe it’s the first meeting in March for the allocation of the assessment growth.

[1:13:54] Given the majority of those positions are related to growth, that business case has come forward to civic administration and will be included as part of those allocations. So those potential increases, which would happen if at all over the next year, are not reflected in this budget, nor are they reflected in the per-per-per property assessment. So assessment growth, we have an assessment growth policy, so that is the new growth and we have an allocation.

[1:14:28] So that is separate and apart from the budget process. So business cases come forward that reflect the operating costs of a growing city and police have put forward their assessment growth business case to go towards the assessment growth allocation. So that is the revenue that has been generated from new subdivisions that have come forward. So it will not impact the tax levy through the budget process and will be recognized through the March report. Thank you.

[1:15:01] And finally, my last one is on slide 32, the financial impacts of bill 23, preliminary projections indicate financial impacts over a five year period. When does that five year period begin to run? So the development charge study runs and starts in 2025. So we’re working on the next background study right now. So one of the things that we’re looking at assessing the impacts, and if there are things that we need to do, we have the multi-year budget to approve, but 2024 is when our current development charge by-law is scheduled to be ended and then we would begin the 2025 with a new one.

[1:15:44] So even if there’s a, even if bill 23 becomes into effect and there’s no offset which is being discussed, there’ll be no effect on this 2023 document. Through the chair. So if there is a 2023 impact, that is something that we have a growth management strategy that does allow us if there is insufficient revenue to make adjustments in year if that is required. So at this point, we do have some processes to deal with that if there are short-term implications, but we believe the majority of the year we will not have to make any adjustments.

[1:16:27] And we’re still trying to assess exactly what the cost impacts are and how much will potentially come forward. So we have a few avenues if there is something that needs to be addressed that we can do throughout 2023. Thank you. Just a reminder, please go through the chair. I realize I’m not in the center seat and my microphone is first come first served. Next on my speaker’s list is Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, I’ll just be very brief. One of the things that I found helpful in the beginning was actually a YouTube video that was created by our finance department.

[1:17:06] So it’s through you to our staff. I would just like to ask if they can please circulate a link to that to all members of council. I think it’d be very helpful for all of us just as a refresher for those of us who have been here a while and for those who are new, a good starting point for a budget 101 on how impact changes in our property tax rate are not actually tied as Ms. Burban related in her comments earlier. Thank you for that. And that was certainly something that we heard, or I heard throughout the election too of MPAC and what happens when it catches up.

[1:17:39] We’d never be able to afford our houses. It’s more the issue of how much money we need to deliver services versus the percentage that we need to deliver to do it. Councillor Hopkins, do we need next? Yes. And just as a follow up through the chair, maybe this is to staff. As we know, MPAC is uncontrollable. We can’t, we’re not part of that determination of the value of that home. I wonder if you can assist through the chair how we can do a better job explaining to the public the numbers that we use.

[1:18:18] We heard in the presentation. And by the way, thank you very much for the presentations. Always good to have this tabling and to get us focused and how we move forward. But the question was around the increase as we look at 2023 going from up to about $109 based on a value of 241,000 based on 2019 numbers. How can we explain that to the public sort of, so they can understand exactly what amounts we’re using and the reasons why we are using these numbers.

[1:18:57] If I could just through the chair, have an explanation. Thank you. Thank you through the chair. So we do send out with the tax bills, there is a brochure that I think does provide a little bit of an explanation. So that’s certainly one avenue to assist when you do have questions. Certainly, we also have, we can provide the link as well. There has been recently done an MPAC video that they put out that actually does that very thing to talk about assessment and how that ties into the valuation and how you pay taxes and how that works.

[1:19:33] It’s just recently something that they’ve done and updated is similar to the one of the ones that we have on our finance books as well. But I think might be helpful if you’re looking to provide education to help the taxpayers and your constituents understand how that works together. And certainly, if there’s questions or if they need additional assistance, we’re willing the tax office can support you in having those conversations, particularly where you have questions that are specifically to a specific property, ‘cause sometimes there could be other things going on and that’s certainly something we can provide assistance with.

[1:20:13] Pastor Hopkins. And a quick follow up to that. The 2019 value of the home that we’re using for the 2023 budget, is that an, was that the last time MPAC made their assessments and just want a better understanding for the chair? The last time MPAC actually did a reassessment was in 2016. So those values are phased in over a four year period. We chose 2019 as the year because that was the last average taxation assessment that we had on that role when we presented the multi-year budget in 2020.

[1:20:53] So we keep that year consistent so that you can compare the numbers from year to year. If we were to update that and use it as a 2022 or 2021 average assessment, it would skew the numbers and we’d have to go back and restate all of the previous numbers that we had. So that’s the reason that we used 2019. So if we were to update it, we would retroactively update all the rest so that you have an apples to apples comparison throughout. So right now the values are still based on the original MPAC reassessment.

[1:21:27] We are still waiting to find out when that next reassessment is going to occur. That was deferred because of COVID. So we’re hopeful that in the next year we will get more definitive details of when that is and there’ll be a great deal of communication that will come from MPAC directly but also which we will supplement to support the council and the public through that change. Councillor. Thank you. I’ll request of staff then since you’re saying as an email anyways to send the video link to what Councillor Lewis had asked or Deputy Mayor Lewis had asked for and the wonderful one you just recommended from MPAC just to help Councillors find them easily for resident engagement, Councillor McAllister.

[1:22:16] Thank you and through the chair, I had a question regarding the public engagement component of this process and I was wondering in terms of the feedback that’s received from the public, how it’s presented to council and also adding to that, in terms of meetings with community groups, I see that it’s listed as requested but is there a timeline in terms of when we request from city staff and how quickly can we get one of those organized, thank you. Thank you through the chair.

[1:22:51] Absolutely, the community group meetings can be requested at any time. I’m happy to circulate contact information about who they can get in touch with if they’re looking to schedule that involvement and we’re very happy to do that and very happy to support and certainly enjoy doing that as well, getting out there and engaging with Londoners as well. In terms of your first question, in terms of how is this information fed back into council, our perspective is really to encourage your constituents to provide feedback directly to you.

[1:23:33] Our public engagement sessions are really about informing and educating and encouraging your constituents to provide that feedback directly to yourselves as the decision makers in the process. So that is the lens that we approach our engagement activities through. Certainly if constituents wish to connect directly with all of council, they can attend the public participation meeting on January 17th and that is their opportunity to speak to SPPC as a whole. Thank you.

[1:24:07] Councillor McMaster, follow up? Councillor Pribble. Through the chair to the staff, two questions. If we did and during the last quarter, if we did a year-end forecast for 2022 and when do we get the actual year-end for 2022? Through the chair. So our year-end monitoring report will be brought forward to committee in April in all likelihood. So we will not be finalizing our numbers for 2022 until February likely.

[1:24:43] So typically that report then follows approximately a couple months later once we have final numbers and can summarize that for council. So approximately the April timeframe. Want to follow up through the chair in terms of the forecast, do we do them periodically throughout the year and which month and do we have projections for the year-end 2022? Absolutely, through the chair. So we constantly monitor our budgets monthly. Our budget monitoring process is very much an ongoing process. In terms of the four-and-all reporting to committee and council, that happens twice per year through our mid-year monitoring report that typically comes forward in September and then our year-end monitoring report that comes forward as I mentioned in April.

[1:25:31] So the formal reporting is twice per year, but we are doing it on a regular ongoing basis. In terms of our forecast for 2022, based on what we reported at our mid-year monitoring report, that was approximately an $8 million surplus, a little bit more, a little bit more than $8 million that we’re anticipating for 2022. So that’s our best ask to me at least at this point in time. Thanks. Thank you, looking forward. Any other colleagues who have questions or comments that are technical or procedural in nature in regards to the 2023 budget update?

[1:26:09] Okay, seeing none, I will look for a mover of the recommendation that’s on our screen that the draft budget documents be referred to the 2020-2023 multi-year annual budget update process. And a part B, that the overview presentation has appended to the added agenda by the deputy state manager of finance supports, respect to the 2023 budget, update be received, looking for a mover, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Cuddy, calling the question.

[1:27:11] Councillor B but Mayor Bergen. Vote yes. Those in the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Please reach out, ideally sooner than later to finance staff. If you know you’re gonna have questions and need some extra support or engagement with your residents, I’m around as well, happy to assist. And we have now concluded with our schedule items of 3.1, and I return control to the chair.

[1:27:53] Thank you, Budget Chair Palosa. That concludes scheduled items. We will move on to section four of our agenda items for direction. The first item is 4.1. We have a request for delegation status from Valerie Terrejaco regarding bill five, stopping harassment and abuse by local leaders act 2022. I will look to see if there is a member who wishes to move receipt of the delegation or if there’s any questions or comments. Councillor Frank, moving and seconded by Councillor Hopkins.

[1:28:29] I’ll ask the clerk to open the vote on that. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

[1:29:08] Mr. Terrejaco, are you with us in person? You are at the mic already, great. I will just advise you you have five minutes. At 30 seconds, I will just interject and say 30 seconds. Please don’t let that throw you, continue on with your comments if you’re still commenting at that time. And then I’ll let you know when your time is up. So if you would just give us your name and address officially for the record to start and then we can begin. It’s Valerie Terrejaco, 338 William Street, Cambridge, Ontario and 383W3. Good evening, Mayor Morgan, Deputy Mayor Lewis and Council.

[1:29:47] My name is Valerie Terrejaco and I’m here representing the women of Ontario, say no, a growing collaborative of men, women, people, organizations, groups that care deeply about basic human rights in the workplace. In this case, protection of the right not to be harassed by an elected member of council. In March 2021, Orleans member of Provincial Parliament, Stephen Blase, put forward a bill, the Stopping Harassment and Abuse by Local Leaders Act. The bill was brought forward to introduce legislation that would deter municipal counselors and board members from engaging in harassment by holding them to account for their actions, including creating a process to remove them from office.

[1:30:22] The bill requires that codes of conduct for municipal counselors and members of local boards include requirements for those counselors and members to comply with workplace violence and harassment policies and creates an integrity commissioner and judicial process to remove them from office for egregious acts of sexual, emotional, and psychological misconduct. The bill was reintroduced in October of last year as Bill 10. In his address to the House, Mr. Blase conveyed the urgency to prioritize and pass this legislation before the most recent Provincial election to ensure it was in full effect prior to upcoming municipal elections. The legislation died on the floor when the Provincial election was called and has since been reintroduced as Bill 5 in August.

[1:31:00] It is nonpartisan and had all party support. If the legislation had passed, it may have affected who was able to run in this most recent election, a change that would have supported candidates that had baseline personal conduct of not perpetuating egregious acts of harassment to municipal staff or fellow colleagues. In slide two, there are so many good people that serve the people as elected representatives. However, like every sector, there are people who are guilty of perpetuating harassment in the workplace. One doesn’t have to look far to find examples such as Barry, Ottawa, Mississauga, Brampton that were cited by MPP Blase as to why this legislation is so necessary.

[1:31:36] In fact, the number of examples have only increased since the bill was last on the floor. In every other workplace in Ontario, employers are held to violence and harassment in the workplace policies. Currently, there is no legislation that provides an appropriate mechanism for accountability for municipally elected representatives when it comes to perpetuating harassment. In any other job, if egregious acts of harassment are substantiated, the person is fired. In the President, not only can an elected representative perpetuate harassment, no matter how egregious, they can retain their position and seek re-election. This is not acceptable.

[1:32:08] Slide three, the bill is simple. It has two primary components. One, hold municipally elected officials to violence and harassment policies of the municipality they serve. And two, create a process by which the integrity commissioner can apply to the courts to vacate a position for substantiated acts of egregious harassment. All claims need to be substantiated, like in any other workplace HR department. And only in those instances where harassment was deemed egregious would an application to the courts be made for removal. If removed, the person would not be eligible to pursue subsequent re-election or be appointed to the Council or local board.

[1:32:42] This is the same consequence applied to candidates who failed to file a financial statement for their election campaign. It’s hard to stand here and try to rationalize how a lack of financial disclosure warrants penalty while Councillor’s guilty of egregious harassment can pursue re-election carte blanche. Something’s wrong with this picture. In slide four, today we are here to advocate for your support of your workplace safety. And elected leaders, as elected leaders of your community, you are responsible for ensuring basic human rights are respected and protected. This bill is the foundation. We’re asking Council to pass a motion to endorse bill five and to write a letter of support circulated to your local MPP, Premier Doug Ford, the Minister of Municipal Football Affairs and Housing Steve Clark, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the MPP for early in Stephen Blase.

[1:33:27] I’m happy to report that Council choose to pass this motion. They’ll be joining the ranks of 17 other municipalities, including Barry Ottawa, Woodstock, Collingwood, to name a few, with Deputations planned to every single municipality in the province. You’ll also be joining me and every other victim of harassment and violence in the province. I’m a Londoner born and raised and I love this city. For most who know me, I moved from this city. In early 2012, for a job opportunity in Toronto, but I have another truth. I also moved out because of crippling fear. I was a victim of ongoing harassment and stalking at my home and workplace.

[1:34:02] And like the vast majority of victim, I did not report it until it was too late. I was violently assaulted by my perpetrator one long traumatic night in 2011. I pressed charges for the victims who are currently suffering in silence and heaven forbid for those who may fall victim in the future.

[1:34:40] And I hope that all these victims will have a voice and we can shine on a light on the vulnerability of every person who does not have protection. Every voice matters. We look to you elected leaders of your communities to do just that in lead and to this province. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rico. And I’m sorry about mispronouncing your name so badly at the beginning. But thank you for your presentation. Yes, thank you, Chair.

[1:35:36] So I wanna mention a couple of things to colleagues. First off, what is being requested here is not out of alignment with previous requests that the Municipal Council has made the provincial government to strengthen the penalties. Associated with holding counselors to account for not only situations of workplace violence or harassment but of various province previously did a review asking for suggested changes.

[1:36:41] The situation it makes a recommendation and can even assessment and violence policy that we would be holding ourselves to account for which is an exceptionally reasonable position to have. I would be very pleased to move a motion to support an adder name to the list of those municipalities who support Thank you, Mayor.

[1:37:32] Sorry, thank you, Mayor Morgan. The clerks are just typing that up in eScribe so that everybody can see them. What is important is that this bill keeps going.

[1:38:17] You mentioned that it stopped. I don’t know why I’m feeling so emotional but I think, Emil, the Mayor mentioned how we can look at giving more strength to the integrity commissioner.

[1:39:02] There’s really no teeth in that. And I think there was a consensus at Emil’s the decision-making equity commissioner may not want that but I think it’s really important that we as municipalities push for that. The other thing I just wanted to mention as well is I really appreciate what you said about basic human rights in the workplace.

[1:39:36] This is just not about women, it is about men as well. So thank you for being here. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, any other speakers. Closing the vote, the motion is passed, 15 to zero.

[1:40:29] Moving on, item 4.2 on our agenda is the city of London Corporate Growth Projections for 2021 to 2051. We have the report and we also have a presentation from staff and so we will turn it over to staff now to make their presentation. Through the chair, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak today to this very important work. It does impact a lot of the different projects that we work on as far as our organization and a lot of time has gone into being able to prepare this work for you.

[1:41:04] So today Travis McBath will be here to provide a brief presentation, he’ll provide some background in the development of the growth projections and how they were established, the role of growth projections. Thank you, to the chair. I hope are you able to hear me there? Yes.

[1:41:36] Loud and clear. - Okay. So before we do this evening’s a report regarding the growth projections 2021 to 2051. These are coordinated projections to be used in various city initiatives by different service areas. You’ll see on slide two the growth projections are prepared for future employment, population housing units and floor space for non-residential uses. So industrial, commercial and institutional uses. The growth projections are for a 30 year time horizon for instance scenario.

[1:42:19] It is the baseline and it is recommended for land use planning and financial economic demographic and construction trends. The assumptions are based on research, technical knowledge and established projection methods, including the provincial projection methodology guidelines, development and for a number of reasons.

[1:43:33] They’re listed in appendix A, some of them, it’s not exhaustive. As well as capital planning for transportation and mobility master planning, community facilities such as parks and recreation and budgeting for resources like water and wastewater, as well as other uses. If we look to slide five, it’s important to note the difference between growth projections and growth forecasts.

[1:44:09] So as noted before, projections are informed estimates of growth based on macroeconomic outlooks and demographics and other aspects of the guidelines. It’s a defensible methodology and it’s updated approximately every five years to course correct based on emerging trends that might happen in the economy or demographics. Whereas targets are an aspirational goal with a desired rate of growth. Recent changes to legislation including Bill 23 as well as many others are intended by the province to enable that desired growth. The targets are also set to encourage actions that can influence growth.

[1:44:45] You’ll note that one of the recommendations of the report is to have staff report back with an approach to facilitating that target including the strategies and initiatives that might provide the ability to respond next on slide seven. There are implications of selecting the high scenario.

[1:45:45] They include financial implications such as increase to spending on infrastructure and higher than necessary requirements, inflated city debt levels, higher than necessary development charges, insufficient revenue collected if the high growth scenario does not materialize and then challenges for municipal financial planning. For land use planning implications of the high scenario, it creates expectations about when lands might become available for development. There’s the potential for an excessive expansion to the urban area and a related loss of prime agricultural land. And there’s also if the high scenario is challenged at the Ontario lands tribunal, it may be less defensible.

[1:46:24] In some slide eight includes the recommendations which are that the staff report and Watson reports be received for information that the reference scenario be endorsed for city of London corporate, as city of London corporate growth forecasts, including but not limited to those planning act and development charges act initiatives and that administration be directed to report back to the planning and environment committee outlining that approach to the provincial housing target, which is separate from the forecast. Thank you.

[1:46:58] Thank you, Mr. Macbeth. And we also have a presentation from Watson and Associates. And so I’ll ask them to come forward now to make that presentation. Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and city staff. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak to you with regard to the key findings of our report of the city of London growth projections update for 2022. I’m gonna provide about a 10 minute presentation to walk through these key findings. On slide two, one to start off with just a summary of the key findings that have emerged from this work.

[1:47:37] The first is that the city of London’s base population as of 2021 is expected to grow significantly faster than what was currently identified in the 2018 study and as well as the city of London plan. The previous study that we completed in 2018 forecast at an annual growth rate of about 0.8% to a population of about 504,000 by 2044. This forecast identifies the annual growth rate between 1.1% under the low scenario to 1.5% under the high scenario reaching a total population of just over 101, sorry, 601,000 by 2051 under the low scenario to just over 692,000 under the high scenario.

[1:48:26] The higher rate of population growth that we’ve identified is anticipated to be driven by increases in both international and domestic net migration within the city of London and the surrounding area. On slide three, one is to speak to the economic model that ultimately we use to project population and employment growth. And what this schematic essentially identifies is that there’s really two broad factors that we look at when we’re projecting population and employment growth. We first look at macroeconomics and then we ultimately determine the and review the interconnectedness between the broader economic outlook for the province and the region.

[1:49:10] In this case, typically the commuter shed and then ultimately what impacts that has on population growth. Through that process, we’ve looked at various economic drivers and destructors of economic growth within the broader provincial context and community shed context such as things like COVID impacts and outward growth pressure from larger urban centers in Ontario. From there, we’ve developed a detailed employment forecast by sector. That then helps support our anticipated demand for net migration by various types of net migration based on the various components being international, inter-provincial, so migration from other parts of the country and inter-provincial.

[1:49:54] So people coming to London and the broader region from other parts of the province. From there, we’ve developed a detailed analysis of net migration by age, which then helps to develop the population forecast by age. Those trends in population by age then help determine the city’s needs for households. So it’s the overall household formation rate over the 2021-51 period. We then look in detail at the need for housing by structure type, so typically low density, medium density, high density housing.

[1:50:29] And then we’ve allocated that growth under three scenarios between the built area boundary and the green field area as well as the remaining rural area. So I wanted to speak to a few of the key factors that are influencing how the city of London, the broader areas growing over the last 20 years or so, briefly, and then we’ll get into ultimately how this influences the forecast. So if I could turn your attention to slide five, this is a summary of historical labor force activity over the last 20 years and looking annually in dark blue.

[1:51:09] And then in the light blue, we’ve looked at quarterly labor force activity since 2020. And what we’re trying to do here is provide a bit of a better understanding of what’s been happening over the past several decades, but also what’s recently been happening with the broader regional labor force within the London CMA since the beginning of COVID. A couple of things I wanted to point out is that you can see from this analysis, we’re really trying to take a longer-term view of labor force trends and economic growth trends within the city, not just focusing on what’s been happening over the last few years as a result of COVID, but understanding how that fits within the broader context.

[1:51:49] So if you look at the graph, you’re starting around 2015 or so, you can see that this was a time period when the CMA and the city started to see a rebound in economic growth emerging from the economic downturn in 2008, 2009, from the global financial crisis. At the same time, we saw changes in federal immigration policy, higher rates of overall immigration and immigration coming to Canada and ultimately a greater share of that migration coming to the province of Ontario.

[1:52:27] At that same time, you can see the unemployment rate was continuing to come down due to that economic recovery from COVID from the global economic downturn in 2008 and ‘09. So we started to see that upward trend quite a while ago about, it’s been happening for about seven years or so. And you can see as of 2020, then COVID hit and we saw a sharp decline in economic activity. At that time, we saw also a steep increase in the unemployment rate, but we’ve been gradually seeing or actually fairly steadily seeing improvements to both labor force conditions in terms of number of employed labor force through the last two years, as well as declining unemployment.

[1:53:16] When you look at the rate of labor force growth over the last two years, we’ve been actually growing at a pace of about three times the average over the last 20 year period since about the period of January, 2020. Now that rate has slowed down moderately, as you can see, in the last quarter of the graph here that’s been provided, largely as a result of monetary tightening, so essentially rising interest rates and slowing economic growth, both regionally, provincially and on a more global level. So this is something that we’re obviously factoring in considering how we’re looking at the longer range projections for the city.

[1:53:58] On the next slide on page slide six, this just provides a summary of the share of historical population within the city of London relative to the London mental sex area. So this is essentially the city versus the county. And you can see historically, since 2001, the city is represented about 84% of population within the broader London mental sex area. So it’s essentially telling us that the city’s been growing at a fairly consistent pace to the county as a whole, and we would expect that that rate is going to maintain relatively consistent over the forecast period at about 84%.

[1:54:38] Next slide. So on slide seven, this provides an overview of broader regional trends for population growth based on ministry of finance projections that were prepared as of the summer of 2022 by sub-region within the province. So the dark blue, the top graph you can see there is the long, the top line is the greater Toronto area in Hamilton and dark blue. In red is the greater golden horseshoe outer ring.

[1:55:12] So it’s the central Ontario area outside of the GTHA. And then in the light blue, that’s southwestern Ontario, which would include London mental sex area. And then yellow is eastern Ontario. So this is the composite of together of southern Ontario. The first thing I want to mention is that when we look at the ministry of finance forecasts, these forecasts have been increased annually in some cases quite significantly over the past five years, largely as a result of higher immigration targets for the nation and ultimately what the share of the Ontario is accommodating.

[1:55:50] I also wanted to show how these shares of population are anticipated to shift and ultimately change over the next 25 years. It’s important to note that when we’re looking at the GTHA, there is potential outward growth pressure that’s been driving more inter-provincial migration to areas like London and the broader commuter shed. But it’s important to note that the GTA is still anticipated to increase in terms of its share population over the long term. From about 2000, from the 2021 period, from about 48% to about 49% by 2046.

[1:56:28] So that share is declining in terms of the rate of that increase because of that outward growth pressure, but there’s still significant immigration that’s being targeted for this area, which is a primary driver of growth for the GTA. You can see within the outer ring, the share of population is anticipated to increase slightly, again, largely due to increased outward growth pressure from the GTA into the outer ring area. Similarly, we’re anticipating relatively stable trends for the eastern area and a slight decline in the share of population growth that’s been identified for Southwest relative to the other regions of the province.

[1:57:15] So again, important note that the overall rate of growth has been increasing for the entire province, but it’s also important to understand how that shares is anticipated to change over the long term period. So this is something that we have had consideration given to in preparing these forecasts that you see today. The next slide on slide eight, wanted to talk a little bit about the components of population growth and components of net migration, ultimately within the London Middlesex area.

[1:57:53] So as I mentioned, there’s really three types of net migrations. There’s international migrations, so immigration and immigration. There is inter-proventional migration, which is identified here in the orange. And in this case, it’s been negative in most periods across the London Middlesex area and showed a slight positive share in 2000, between 2016 and 21. And then lastly, you have intra-proventional migration, which is identified here in the dark blue. So it’s important to recognize that over the last 20 years, immigration has represented the largest share of population growth within, or net migration, which is obviously forming population growth, influencing growth within the London Middlesex area.

[1:58:42] It’s made up about 75% of the net migration over that time period, while intra-proventional migration. So migration from other parts of the province, while it is growing and while it’s a critical component, it makes up of one third of the population growth and ultimately that net migration share. So important to understand those components and how we look at the drivers of population growth in terms of net migration. Next, the next slide is slide 10, which provides that I want to go to, which is a summary of the three long-term population forecast for the city of London.

[1:59:26] So as Travis mentioned, we’ve conducted three scenarios. We looked at a low, medium, and high scenario of growth. And when we look at the overall share of growth, as I mentioned, we’re projecting the city’s population to increase to a total population by 2051 raging from about just over 601,000 to just over 692,000 based on the range between the low and the high scenario. This represents an annual growth rate ranging from 1.1% under the low scenario to 1.5% under the high scenario.

[2:00:03] To put that in a bit of context, the long-term population forecast for the province as a whole is about 1.3%. So under the reference scenario, which is, as Travis mentioned, the most likely and recommended scenario, the long-term forecast for the city of London would be growing at a comparable rate to the provincial average. So it was mentioned that the medium scenario has been identified as the reference scenario. We do feel this is the most likely long-term outcome for the city of London.

[2:00:38] For a few reasons, one is that we feel this forecast represents a reasonable reflection of historical development trends over the last 20 years and changes to those trends during that period. We feel it embraces a number of the identified growth drivers that have been mentioned in detail in the report, such as the outward growth pressure that I mentioned, stronger regional economic trends, demand from non-permanent residents, as well as other factors such as quality of life attributes. We also feel that it appropriately contextualizes London’s growth potential within the broader regional market area. So the commuter shed is typically one of the key areas that we look at, but also the sub-region that I mentioned in southwestern Ontario.

[2:01:16] We do a number of long-term growth projections across Ontario and southwestern Ontario. And essentially, we feel this forecast fits within that overall range of growth that’s been identified. It’s also relatively consistent, as Mr. McBeth mentioned, regarding the, compared to the Ministry of Finance forecast that was prepared for the London Middlesex area. And we also feel that it represents a reasonable projection of potential net migration over the long-term forecast period. Next slide is on slide 11.

[2:01:53] And that slide provides a little more detail on the net migration forecast. So this is looking at net migration, as well as natural increase, to be clear. And so these are the really the two key components that drive population growth within an area. Natural increase essentially represents births, less deaths. And you can see here that over the long-term period, that population growth associated with natural increases is anticipated to become less and ultimately negative over the long-term period. And that’s really a result of the aging of the population.

[2:02:28] So that puts more pressure on the forecast population to be driven by growth, to be driven by net migration. So you can see here that when we compare the historical trends from 2001 to ‘21 relative to the ‘21 to ‘51 forecast, we’re projecting about a 60% increase in the relative amount of population growth levels related to relative to historical trends. But when we actually look at the net migration levels because the city is more reliant on that migration as the results of declining natural increase, the level of migration is anticipated to double on average over the next 30 years relative to the past 20 years.

[2:03:10] One of the reasons, again, why this is anticipated to happen is that the city’s population is aging. And so when we look at the growth rate of the 65+ age group, it’s anticipated to grow at about a 50% higher rate of growth relative to the rest of the other age groups than the population. And this is largely as a result of the aging of the existing baby boom population and those that are the 65+ category over the long-term 30-year forecast horizon. So essentially, even without significant levels of migration, the level of growth anticipated in the 65+ category will occur just simply by the aging of that population into older age groups.

[2:03:56] So that’s important to keep in mind in terms of the impacts that has on housing needs as well as municipal services and also the overall pace of growth. So over the long term, we do anticipate that the annual pace of population growth will slow over time as a result of that aging population as well as aging of the labor force. On slide 12, we provide a summary of the city’s housing forecast by type of dwelling. And in this case, we’ve summarized the scenario which is the scenario two under the report which is the 45% intensification scenario.

[2:04:34] This is essentially a scenario that would see the rate of growth from the built up area consistent with the current London plan. Under this forecast, we’ve identified in this scenario, we’ve identified a overall average rate of housing growth of just under 3300 units a year. That’s about a 37% increase relative to housing growth growth over the past 15 years. And as you can see here, we’ve identified the growth by structure type. So in dark blue as low density, these are typically single and semi detached dwellings.

[2:05:08] Medium density is typically town homes, other forms of town home dwellings like stacked town homes, for example, duplex is also a form part of this category. And then in the orange, we have high density. And you can see that all over the long term forecast period are anticipating a gradual decline in the share of low density housing and an increase in the share of medium density housing and a relatively steady amount of growth in the high density category. It drops slightly over the 2026 to 30 period, but ultimately then starts to increase as the share over the long term period.

[2:05:46] We’ve also compared that to this forecast relative to the work that was prepared of the 2018 forecast. And we would note that the city is tracking higher relative to both medium and high density households. As a share and tracking lower with respect to low density households. So over the long term period, we are anticipating a fairly steady shift towards more medium and high density housing. The overall share of housing growth over that 30 year time horizon is 27% low density, 28% medium density and 45% high density.

[2:06:24] Lastly, on slide 13, I wanted to provide a brief overview of the employment forecast. So similar to the population and housing scenarios, we’ve provided three long term employment forecasts or long term scenarios for the city going out to 2051. As you can see here, the overall level of growth is again significantly higher than what was identified in the 2018 forecast. We did come a little bit lower in 2021 as a base relative to that previous work, but a lot of that lower growth that was identified in 2021 was the results of near-term impacts of COVID.

[2:07:09] We estimated about 11,000 jobs were lost, largely in the retail and accommodation food sector during that COVID period. Most of those jobs have been recovered, if not all, not necessarily in the exact same nature of those that were lost, but we have as I’ve showed in the previous slide, we have had a very steady recovery in labor force activity since 2021. Over the long term period, we’re anticipating an increase of about 120,000 additional jobs. That represents a growth rate under the reference scenario of about 1.6% annually.

[2:07:45] Few key reasons why we’re projecting more employment growth relative to the previous sales in 18 study. The first is that we have higher population growth, so that drives increased demand for population-related services in sectors such as retail, accommodation and food, personal services, and other institutional services as well. But we’ve also, as I mentioned, seen a steady recovery in the export-based sectors and regional economy within the broader CMA meter shed.

[2:08:20] Again, since about that 2015 period, and over the long-term forecast period, we do anticipate that that trend will remain relatively stronger supporting stronger growth in some of the key export-based sectors, like transportation and warehousing, logistics, construction, utilities, as well as moderate growth as well in manufacturing, particularly in advanced manufacturing sectors. So that concludes my presentation. I’m happy to take any questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Cook.

[2:08:52] And we will ask you to stay around for questions, but before we move questions from Council, we do have three delegation requests that were submitted for this item on the agenda. We can deal with those separately or together, but we do have to look for a motion to receive the delegations. Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. And Councillor Frank, I just wanna make sure you’re moving all three. Councillor Hopkins, you’re okay with that. Seeing nods, I will ask the clerk to open the vote to receive the delegations.

[2:09:49] Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. First delegation is from the Urban League of London, and we have Christine Metler and Sandy Levin. If you’d like to come forward, make your delegation. You do have five minutes, I will give you the 32nd warning. Please keep talking over me at that point, and I’ll let you know when your five minutes is finished. Sure, great, thank you. So I’m Christine Metler. Do I need to give my address? If you’re comfortable doing so, you can. All right, 174 Mount Pleasant Avenue in London.

[2:10:23] And I’m on the board of directors of the Urban League of London. The Urban League is a nonprofit organization that’s been active in London for over 50 years. And we have over 40 member organizations that include neighborhood associations and community groups. And what we do is work to bolster civic participation in urban affairs in London and also connect Londoners. So we really believe that engaged and informed Londoners are the building blocks of a vital and successful and sustainable city. And that’s why we’ve been doing what we’ve been doing for the past 50 years. Yeah, so we wanted to just quickly give a delegation on the urban growth projection because we think it’s gonna be a pretty big deal of what Council ultimately decides on and that it’ll have some big implications.

[2:11:09] It’ll inform some major undertakings and plans, including setting the development charge, the London plans comprehensive reviews, different servicing studies, and community facility master planning studies, different development applications. And so we just wanted to talk through why we’ll be recommending what we recommend. And so Sandy and myself have been sitting on the development charges subcommittee over the past several months. And I’ll just invite Sandy to come up and speak to you quickly. Thank you.

[2:11:41] As I’ve been pointed out already, a number of times Bill 23 has significant impacts on development charges. And this growth forecast really drives that. And it’s talking about $97 million potentially that the city will permanently lose in development charge revenue and growth will no longer pay for growth. I’ve moved on to our slide four development charges in city finance. As you know, the city pays for new infrastructure first, particularly the pipes in the ground, with revenue from development charges coming later.

[2:12:17] Any shortfalls or loss of DC revenue only can come from property taxes or other levels of government. And regardless, if it comes from another level of government, it’s going to affect city cash flows. Therefore, a higher growth forecast is a riskier strategy. And it reinforces the need to adopt a fiscally conservative growth forecast. And the growth forecast does recognize already unprecedented growth over the last two years in development applications and building permits in the city.

[2:12:56] And I’m on slide five, which shows the population growth forecast. And that forecast shows the growth and the activity continuing at really an unprecedented rate. A lot of that has been mentioned driven by immigration policies which change when governments change in Ottawa. The housing growth forecast is also predicated on how council adopts its intensification target going forward. As the report in Watson points out, the city has done a great job.

[2:13:32] And the development industry too, in increasing intensification within the urban growth boundary and increasing the number of medium and high density. But frankly, when demand drops, so does building activity, there are intelligent business people in this town in that industry. If people aren’t buying or renting, there’s no new supply. You as a council facilitate the industry builds. So before I pass this back to Christine, adopting a high growth scenario is not necessary.

[2:14:09] That’s our slide that I’m on. And as I mentioned, the previous forecast you may hear was a little under, but frankly, your housing numbers achieved were pretty much spot on as page 383 of your agenda points out. We think it’s been an anomalous period since COVID. We’re potentially coming into a recession. And the concern is if population growth and housing demand is much higher than the reference forecast, council can rely on the growth management implementation strategy, GMIS, to accelerate projects to meet that demand.

[2:14:54] You can go up, but pulling back is gonna be really hard. And staff has pointed out there’s at least three places, 324, 328, and 330 that argue against going beyond the reference. And Christine will conclude with an idea for you. Great, thanks, Andy. Yeah, so in conclusion, we just wanted to basically recommend that the city adopt the lower growth scenario because there are other tools that if it does come to higher projections or rather if it materializes to be higher than that, we can address it through the growth management implementation strategy or other tools.

[2:15:37] And this avoids locking us into scenarios with potentially big, both financial and ecological implications, cutting into vital farmland, vital grain infrastructure that provides a lot of services to our community that we rely on for free. And I’d just like to state that the Urban League, we’re all volunteers. All of the board of directors are volunteers. We’re here because we care about the public good, we care about the city and we care about the people living in it. We’re not paid lobbyists and we have no special interests. Our interest is just making sure that our city is as vital and is connected and informed and the people living in it are living as good of a life as possible.

[2:16:14] So I hope you do consider adopting a lower growth scenario. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Beller, and thank you, Mr. Levin. Our next delegation is Mike Wallace, the Executive Director for the London Development Institute. Mr. Wallace, I know you’ve done this before. Yes, sir, thank you very much. And what is Mike Wallace and our office is at 562 Wallace and Street, just up the street here at suite 203. Come see me anytime. Look at, you will be receiving as a council a letter from me in detail on what we think some of the issues are with this growth projections.

[2:16:57] An actual fact, we appreciate the work that Watson has done. We did a peer review. We had the Smart Prosperity Institute do a peer review of the Watson report at our expense. And it came back saying that the Watson report is relatively accurate for the first 10 years of this 30-year forecast. If you look at the numbers, it shows about a 2% increase over that time. And if you look at what’s happened recently over the last five years, there’s charts that were presented today, I’ll point them out to you when I do it in writing.

[2:17:37] It’s much easier. The historic average throws things off. It looks at what London looked like 20 years ago. But if you look at what has happened in terms of growth in the last five years, it is exponentially different than what the historical 20-year average is. We end, in our view, the Watson report shows that that growth level that has been happening over the last five years is likely going to continue in some form over the next 10. And we agree with that.

[2:18:09] Where we’re making a recommendation that you look at moving that reference point up, or you want to go to the higher level, whichever, that there’s not a good enough argument that that is going to change in 10 years. That growth is still going to happen in London. That migration from the GTA here, which I am one of them, it’s going to continue happening at a greater pace. The house I sold in Burlington three years ago, $900,000, $2 million across the street right now in my street, $2 million.

[2:18:51] The migration of— and if you look at my neighborhood, the migration is happening, it’s going to continue happening. There’s no— we don’t see what the economics are that’s going to change that. In the meantime, this was done earlier in the summer. I know I appreciate Watson looking at some of the recommendations that we had, and have made some changes to this report that. So we appreciate the back and forth and the consultation that happened with the city and with Watson. But we still came to the disagreement about where it’s going to happen from migration within the province, and look at what has changed in terms of the numbers of immigrants that the federal government has offered.

[2:19:32] Now, as a former federal member of parliament, I can tell you, it was mentioned earlier that things could change with the governments. I think it will be very difficult for any federal government to reduce the levels of immigration in my lifetime. That is a political suicide that isn’t going to happen. So we think that there’s— London is poised for a tremendous opportunity for growth because of its location, because of its cost, because of the quality of life we have here, and that planning for it in the long run, whether it’s your mobility study, whether it’s your— your conference review, you need to be prepared for that growth to happen.

[2:20:19] And the same mechanisms that we were mentioned earlier about, well, what if growth does higher than what’s projected? Well, we have those mechanisms to accelerate that development. Well, those same mechanisms can do that. If that growth does not come, for some reason, can make those adjustments. The city is not going to put, through GMS, pipes in the ground with water and sewer to areas that are never going to develop. Our developers won’t do that. The city won’t do that.

[2:20:52] That’s not going to— you, through the GMS program, have that ability to adjust either way, whether we’re behind or we’re ahead. Just look at what has happened in London over the last number of years. Do you want to repeat that? What happens in reality at our sites, or new home willers, their new sites, there’s been lineups of people that we’re satisfying with the building permit. But we’re turning away 10 out of every— so there’s one new buyer returning away 10.

[2:21:29] That’s what has happened. It has slowed down, but we believe once the interest rates readjust again, that could happen again, it may not be at the same pace, but it will be at an accelerated pace. We’re in a good position. You’re looking at this now. This is long-term thinking about where the city is going to go, what the potential is. We need to be looking at this. This study itself doesn’t— you can’t ignore it. It doesn’t meet what the province wants you to do as a city at 47,000 units in 10 years. And this one is only averaging about 32.

[2:22:04] So thank you for your time. You will be receiving a letter from me with a little more detail on it, and pointing you to different parts of this study that you can decide. We are looking for you to think about changing the vision of how much growth the city will have. Thank you. Thank you. And our last delegation is Annamarie Velastro. Ms. Velastro, I know you’ve done this before as well. If you can just give us your name and address to start, and then you’ll have five minutes. I’ll give you my name. You just told everybody what it was, but I’ll say it again. It’s Annamarie Velastro.

[2:22:39] So over 10 years ago, people in the city of Toronto were leaving the city looking for more affordable real estate, and that migration went to Hamilton. Once that city became expensive, that migration went to Guelph and went to Kitchener. And when that became more expensive, the migration went farther out to Prince Edward County, St. Catherine’s in London. If you look at the rental market now, in places like Strathroy, Elsa Craig, and St. Thomas, those rents are creeping up or comparable to the rents you get in the city of Toronto.

[2:23:13] And the trend in the city of Toronto right now is that homeowners have discovered that it’s more affordable to demolish the house they’re living in at the moment and build a new upgraded house than it is to sell their house and purchase one somewhere else. So I’m just raising this. It’s because to illustrate, there’s really no place to go. Every place is expensive now. And the trend is that people aren’t moving around. They’re just staying put unless they have to move. And I recognize the value of looking at population trends in a broad way over like a generation.

[2:23:53] But I don’t think it’s necessarily applicable to what we’re seeing right now. There’s just a lot of stresses. Even supplies like timber companies aren’t logging. They’re suspending logging operations. Development— there’s development suspensions in the city of Toronto. And I just— I’m just raising this is because it’s important to look at a series of models. Models are only as good as the data that goes into them. And if you’re just looking at generic trends, it doesn’t really give you an insight into what might be coming, what the current trends are, and what might be happening in the future.

[2:24:34] And this is basically a crystal ball exercise. But you’re basing— you’re allocating funds. It’s— you know, you’re deciding property tax levels, all based on something that’s very generic. And I just want to encourage you to really take a look at other models that are out there, like financial planners and insurance companies. They do the same sort of exercise. They look at a series of models to inform them on going forward. And I just— even though I appreciate all the work that’s gone into this report, I just don’t feel this one report alone should be influencing how this equals forward.

[2:25:15] The other thing I wanted to say is that I’m just concerned that ignoring issues that are very pressing, like poverty issues and climate change issues and resource issues, there just isn’t enough resource to support like rapid development. There just isn’t enough trees in the forest. There just isn’t enough aggregate in the negative escarpment unless, you know, there’s more innovation. I think that without looking at these problems that are apparent, if you’re looking at them, is that we’re just going to dig ourselves into a bigger hole.

[2:25:52] And we won’t be able to manage these problems that are very real. So depending on what you look at, some people don’t even think about where aggregate comes from or where framing for houses comes from. But if you do care about that, you can see that there’s warning signs everywhere. And so I’m just encouraging counsel to look at other models. There’s many out there. And other companies and industries look, that’s the way they do it. Thank you.

[2:26:23] Thank you, Ms. Velastro. Colleagues, that concludes our delegations, so we can now have some questions, comments, discussion on the item that’s before us. Councillor McAllister, you’re up first. Thank you. And through the chair, with regards to this study, as we were going through the presentation, the thing that crossed my mind was, in terms of the affordability of housing, I noticed we talked about the employment.

[2:26:55] But one of the things that crosses my mind is the salary growth that goes along with this employment. And I know during the presentation, we mentioned in terms of the service sector growing. And I just don’t see the service sector can only support so much growth on its own in terms of the type of housing it supports. I noticed, obviously, that the high density apartments, that that is slated to grow. But in terms of the affordability metric, I wonder if, speaking more to what was looked at in terms of the job prospects and salary growth, whether that was factored into the study.

[2:27:34] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. We’ll go to Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I will be forwarding that to Mr. Cook. But I do just wanted to speak, maybe just broadly to it, that you’re absolutely right, that the jobs are what drive these projections. Because if the jobs aren’t coming here, then people don’t come here. So that is very much of a driver of projection. But as far as the actual specifics of your question, I’ll get Jamie to answer that. Yes, thank you, and through you, Mr. Chair.

[2:28:10] So as I mentioned in the presentation, we do have an economic model that we’ve developed, and that model looks at that connection between macroeconomic trends, labor force, the labor force growth outlook, and the long-term employment growth outlook. So we’ve looked at that connection between population structure, labor force participation. And then, ultimately, we look at the broader economic outlook for employment growth, largely focusing on the city of London. We start by looking at historical trends, and then we’ve looked at anticipated growth by specific industry clusters within both export-based sectors.

[2:28:49] So sectors that are largely tied to the industrial sector and commercial office sector and other sectors that generate economic growth beyond basically the local population base. And then we’ve also looked at growth trends with respect to population-related employment sectors, largely in retail, institutional sectors, and other population-serving sectors. So through that analysis, we’ve been conducted our net migration forecasts and population of housing.

[2:29:25] When we get to the housing forecast, we haven’t prepared a specific forecast of housing affordability. That’s something ultimately that this report will form a background to for further analysis on affordable housing needs, and that is a requirement under the PPS to look at that and set targets. So this forecast essentially sets that stage for total housing growth and housing growth by structure type. But we did spend a lot of time looking at housing demand by structure type and what sometimes refer to as propensity. And in that work, we have looked at housing needs by tenure as well.

[2:30:02] So we’ve looked at broadly looked at historical trends and anticipated patterns on the outlook for housing by tenure, so looking at rental needs and ownership needs. And that ultimately does provide direction into the forecast by structure type. But specifics on affordability have not been prepared for this report. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Councillor McAllister, did you have any follow-up? Thank you, and through the chair, just to flesh this out a bit more, in terms of the employment, like was it an aggregate?

[2:30:41] Or are you looking at middle-class jobs? Or could you speak a bit more to the growth in terms of the types of jobs? Thank you, Mr. Cook. Yes, through you, Mr. Chair. So we’ve essentially aggregated our forecast by for employment to a major employment sector level. So we’ve identified essentially industrial, commercial, institutional sectors as a broad aggregate. We look at more detailed data, looking at historical trends from Statistics Canada.

[2:31:19] There’s about 16 sectors overall that we look at. And then we aggregate those sectors into three broad sectors that are essentially sectors that are by usual place of work. Then we’ve also added two additional categories for work at home employment and employment that has no fixed place of work. So those would be those that don’t travel to the same place work at the beginning of each shift. An example would be truck drivers or landscape contractions, for example. We have it look specifically at the income levels that those particular jobs and those sectors provide.

[2:31:54] We typically would note that sectors related to export-based development in the industrial sector, typically would provide higher wages relative to sectors in retail, for example, that’s probably no surprise. We also see more opportunities from full-time employment relative to population-serving sectors and more potential for economic spin-off associated with those export-based sectors. So those sectors are very critical to ultimately driving economic growth and ultimately attracting migration to the city.

[2:32:31] But that’s what as far as I can really go with that at this time. Councillor McAllister, is that good? Okay, Councillor Pervall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Urban League, for your views. And I do see your points. And it does make, on one hand, it does make sense. On the other hand, one thing is I don’t want us to lose this. If you look at the investment and if you look at the multinational and national organizations, corporations, they do look at these numbers a lot and the opportunities. And they look at the population growth.

[2:33:06] And the other second and third factor, I don’t want to lose out the focus of provincial and federal interests in our community. And potentially, if we are modest and compared to other municipalities in Ontario, are we going to lose the attention and the funds and interest focus is going to become on other municipalities? So those are the three things I wanted to mention to keep in mind as well, because we do want to grow, we do want to make sure that we have investment, national foreign investment in London.

[2:33:42] And yes, it is associated with the housing, with the housing aspects as well. No doubt, but please keep these in mind as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Councillor Frank. To the Chair, can I make a motion now? I’m still going through the procedures, but am I able to or is it still comment and discussion time? We don’t have a motion on the floor right now. So you, it’s certainly, I’m in your hands, if you wish to make a motion now, then you are absolutely able to do so. Awesome, thank you.

[2:34:16] So I’d like to make the motion to support the motion that’s already drafted, that’s on our screens. I’ll be supporting Watson’s and the staff recommendation to go with a medium forecast, as well as direct civic administration to go to planning an environment with a report regarding the housing target. And I think that’s really important because as highlighted in both of the presentations, the forecast and the projections that we’re doing, these are decoupled from targets. And so we are able to still increase our housing supply and meet the provincial housing targets that we’ve been directed to try and achieve, while still going with the medium forecast for population.

[2:34:57] And I think that’s really important because that number is based in science and it clearly demonstrates many reasons why it makes the most sense. Using the best information and calculations available. And the medium forecast as described by both the presentations is fiscally responsible. And I think with all the unknowns of Bill 23, it’s really never been more of an important time to be fiscally conservative in a lot of our development. And like I said, we can still work towards those provincial housing targets. So personally, I just feel much more confident picking the medium projection and supporting what staff have recommended based on that information.

[2:35:31] So I’d like to make that motion. Thank you, Councillor Frank. So what I’m gonna do is go to Mayor Morgan because I know he had some slightly amended language for section D of that staff recommendation. So I’ll go to him to introduce that. And then if you’re comfortable, we’ll do that as one motion with the amended language ‘cause we are at committee, so we can do that. Mayor Morgan. Yeah, so I’ll support the comments that Councillor Frank just made about adopting the medium scenario and everything she said about the difference between a scenario you adopt for your planning and the investigation of a target.

[2:36:08] I think that’s a very responsible way to go. My preference and consultation with our staff is that we are a little more specific on D without fundamentally changing the intent of D. So I would suggest that we move a D that reads as follows. The civic administration be directed to report back to council through the appropriate standing committee in advance of the Ontario government’s deadline on options, approaches, and necessary investments required to achieve the city of London’s assigned target of 47,000 new homes.

[2:36:41] And I can provide some rationale for why I would prefer to do that if Councillor Frank would like it. I’ll do it anyways, but I’ll go back to you, Chair. Well, Councillor Frank is nodding her head in agreement. So if you wanna go right ahead with your rationale, the floor is yours, Mayor. Yeah, first off, I wanna add a timeline that our staff get back to us before the province asks us to actually choose a target in March. And so this will give our staff the direction that as they conduct this work, they need to give it back to us so that we can do that.

[2:37:15] I also wanna say in discussions with the Ontario big city mayors, other mayors are going to suggest a similar approach. We wanna gather not just some strategies, but also necessary investments. As you may know, Minister Clark wrote a letter that says, the province intends to make municipalities whole related to bill 23. The more information we can gather about the necessary investments that might need to be made to support the provinces target, the more we can push back into that space of the challenge that the DC changes are causing for municipalities.

[2:37:54] And essentially further press on that idea of making municipalities whole for the dollars that they would be losing. So I just wanted to be a little more specific in the language. It will align with some language that other councils will be considering on this similar. And it does not commit us to doing anything yet. It basically gets us some very specific information in advance of the government’s deadline. We will make a decision on what to do together as a council. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. So we have a duly moved and seconded motion with some slightly changed language on the floor.

[2:38:29] I have Councillor Layman next on the speaker’s list. So Councillor Layman, I’ll go to you. Thank you. I think that’s a pragmatic way to go. My own concern is that if we’re off on our projections on the low side, what will that mean for the surrounding areas and what implications will that have for London? So I’d like to ask Mr. Wallace a question for you, Chair, if I may. Oh, well, delegations are closed. Okay, I’ll go to staff, Mr. - That’s fine. I’ll go to staff. - Yeah.

[2:39:03] Assuming that our growth projections are off to the low side, will that drive development to the surrounding areas of, you know, Kilworth, Thorne Dale, Strathroy, Elderton, et cetera? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, ideally, we’re bang on with our projections. If we’re off, then what’s gonna happen is that we either on the high side or the low side that we’re gonna have a disparity between the amount of possibly the revenue we’re bringing in, depending on where that information’s being used.

[2:39:37] And being able to prepare for that future development that’s gonna occur. So if we were on the low side and we didn’t bring forward the lands that were appropriate, then people are gonna find different places to live. That’s usually what happens. So to answer that question, if we were for a long period of time at a low projection portion, experiencing that, then it would have an net impact of people not coming to London ‘cause we wouldn’t have the supply. Ideally, we could course correct as we went, but that would be a challenge if we were always low on our projection.

[2:40:16] Thank you, Mr. Mathers. And everybody can check Twitter later to see if the media thinks you’re bang on on your projections or not. But Councillor Layman, I’ll see if you’ve got any follow-up to that. Thank you. Yeah, I share your enthusiasm. Yeah, so this is a challenge for us and anyone doing long-term planning. How do you project out? It’s hard enough to project five years on 15, 20, but you have to. You have to start somewhere. You have to lay a roadmap out with adjustments along the way. So as I said, the start of my comments, I think finding middle ground of those projections is a pragmatic way to go here.

[2:40:56] Thank you, Councillor Layman. I’ve got Councillor Hopkins, and then Councillor Raman on the list. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just wanna thank all the delegates that were here making us think and do our work. And that’s what we’re supposed to be doing here. Really appreciate some of the comments. The motion on the floor. I do have a, I guess a question around the, the amendment, the friendly amendment D, and wanting to have a better understanding that we are indeed not making any commitments when it comes to necessary investments.

[2:41:39] I have a little bit of a concern. I know, I heard here that the provincial government has given us targets, 47,000. I also understand there’s no consequences to not meeting those targets. And when I hear that maybe there’s opportunities of funds being taken away from us, if we don’t meet them, I’m a little concerned there. So I just wanna make sure that I understand the changes in D, that we are not really committing anything at the moment, but obviously I appreciate the thought process about how we as a city can, I guess, please, the provincial government in terms of trying to do the best that we can do to meet their targets that they have set for us.

[2:42:26] So if I can go through you, Mr. Chair, maybe to the mayor who made the amendment. I don’t have the, I don’t see the wording at the moment, but I just wanna make sure that. So I will advise that the revised language is in eScribe, so councillors can refresh and see the language there. I will go because you asked to Mayor Morgan, and then if perhaps, I don’t know whether Ms. Livingston or another member of staff might want to respond as well. I’m seeing head shaking know that we’ll go to Mayor Morgan.

[2:43:05] I just wanna make a comment on, so first off, the intent here is not to make a decision. Full stop is to get information before council. The 47,000 target is what has been set to us by the province, and although they have not outlined any consequences for not meeting that, there’s a line in Minister Clark’s letter that is important for us to be conscious of, ‘cause it may translate into further provincial actions. It says at the same time, it’s critical that municipalities are able to fund and contract road, water, sewer, and other housing enabling infrastructure and services that are growing communities need.

[2:43:44] There should be no funding shortfall for housing enabled infrastructure as a result of Bill 23 provided municipalities achieve and exceed their housing pledges and growth targets. So I think we need to get the information. There will be time because this report will not come back to us until I would suspect late January, February sometime, sometime in advance of the March deadline, at which point, hopefully through your sell-through aim or myself through Ontario, big city mayors, we would have more clarification from the province on what they intend or not intend to do to compel or incentivize municipalities to follow their suggested targets or not.

[2:44:27] So I think there’s a lot more information to come, but I wanna be clear, my intent with this amendment is not for us to make a decision, it’s to gather information. Thank you, Mayor Morgan, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I appreciate that clarification, so we’re not really making any decisions right at this moment. So if I can just proceed to make some comments, I will be supporting the motion. As much as I do hear the importance of being conservative, I really do think, given all the changes, in particular with Bill 23, that being conservative is most likely the better route, we can always go up.

[2:45:10] We can’t, there are those opportunities, the GMIS, but I would prefer going lower, but for me, it could be a compromise here with the reference scenario. I wanna thank staff too for being bang on, I know I’ve sat here for a number of years, and I have great confidence with the projections that so far staff have done. I will, more or less, just wrap it up.

[2:45:46] I think if you go too high, the planning and the financial implications are great, given the uncertainty. I do want to just speak to the other delegate that was here. I know when I was campaigning, and I do think that the population growth is happening in Ward 9, ‘cause it’s all about development. And I just wanna say there were many, many new Londoners coming to our city the past couple of years, and it was because our housing affordability was there, buying a house compared to other places in the province, was so great.

[2:46:25] I’m not sure where that is gonna be going into the future. In fact, my son who was in Toronto was still unsure about coming here, because about our pricing, as much as he would like to come back home. But I think, to me, it’s a bit of a compromise. I think going conservative would be my happy place, but I’ll be supporting the motion. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Just before I go to Councillor Ramen, just advise colleagues, we are at 6.30. So this is typically when we would recess for a short dinner break.

[2:47:03] I have Councillor Ramen and Councillor Ferrera on the speakers list still, Councillor Stevenson as well. So I will just look now to see if colleagues want to take a recess and then continue the debate on this topic after the recess, or if we want to finish this item before we take our break. So I’m in your hands, but I will look to see if there’s a desire for the recess now, or if we want to finish this item first. Councillor Hopkins.

[2:47:39] I’ll just make a suggestion that, you know, we continue, I know there’s a number of speakers where at the end of the agenda, I know we’ve got people here in the gallery maybe just continuing would be my suggestion. And I see a number of heads nodding in agreement. So we will, Councillor Palosa. That’s right. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and just, it’s just sandwiches, and I do believe we’re allowed to eat at our spots ‘cause I am, just not when you’re speaking. So if people want to duck out one at one as you need to, if you need that energy boost, do so, and I would like to be added to your speaker’s list.

[2:48:21] All right, I have added you to the speaker’s list. I saw lots of heads nodding in agreement to continue through this item. So we will continue through this item. Councillor Ramen is next on the list, and Councillor, just before I ask you to start speaking, I’ll just ask Councillor Layman if he can take the chair for two minutes, I’m just gonna step out and I’ll be right back. Okay, I have a Councillor Ramen on the speaker’s list followed by Councillor Palosa. Thank you, and three. So I’ll be honest, I’m struggling with this recommendation and what we have on the table.

[2:49:04] And part of the reason is the conversation from LBI, and one of the things I heard overwhelmingly in Ward 7 during the campaign was that there was concerns over our projections. And specifically, and not from staff, but the fact that we were outpacing in many people’s minds what was projected and that we had, and it wasn’t related to these projections. It’s based on the London Plan projections.

[2:49:39] And that work came from the Smart Prosperity Group as well. So yes, I see that the 2% increase in the next 10 years. I think that that is a strong forecast. I think that that makes sense. The rest of it, I do, I am struggling with a little bit, whether or not that’s a bit on the low side. However, with so many unknowns, I think that being fiscally conservative at this point is prudent. I appreciate that Mayor Morgan cited the letter from Minister Clark.

[2:50:14] I too have concerns around the language, which now ties our investments to our funding from development charges now to exceeding and achieving our amount that we’re supposed to reach in terms of our target of 47,000. So I guess that’s also where I’m struggling is if really we’re now being a report card, given a report card that says you must exceed or meet the 47,000 target. In order to be able to be made whole, what kind of limitations and challenges is that going to present?

[2:50:56] So I am looking forward to receiving that report back to council to get a better understanding of what that might look like. And I also think it’s really important, again, to acknowledge the fact that we’re only talking about the development for housing-enabled infrastructure. So again, what does that mean for the other parts of this that are not housing-related infrastructure? So anyways, thank you. I appreciate the motion on the floor and we’ll be supporting it as I do see it as fiscally conservative, thank you.

[2:51:32] Thank you, Councillor, and I’ll turn the chair back to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Next on the speakers list is Councillor Ferrera. And thank you, Mr. Chair, and through the chair, just speaking to the motion on the floor, I just wanted to have some clarification. The motion on the floor is basically speaking to the reference scenario and the reference scenario, and we’re talking about meeting the provincial targets of 47,000 over the next 10 years, but I do see also in the report from Mr. May, there’s that this reference scenario does project 33,900 new homes over the next 10 years.

[2:52:15] So I just wanted to get, I just kind of had some clarification on that one, if you don’t mind, thank you. Certainly, Mr. May, there’s— Through the chair, absolutely. So the projection that’s included within this report, that’s the reference scenario is 33,900 units over the 10 year period. So the 47,000 would then be looking at what can we do as a city, what can we do as far as the industry partners to try to have something that was enhanced above that, target something that is not necessarily based on the science that we’ve received from our consultants, but are saying like, hey, if we wanna go over and above, what can we do to be able to meet those types of goals?

[2:53:02] So they are two different things, but as far as this study and the actual projection that you’re looking at today and the recommendation, that would be approximately 33,900 units over the 10 year period. Thank you, Mr. May, there’s Council for a good. Okay, Councillor Stevenson, you’re next. Thank you, and through the chair, I just had a question around affordability and availability, and I’m understanding that the targets are different than these projections, but what does staff have to say to those people in London who are really concerned about the access to housing and to the affordability?

[2:53:44] Mr. May, there’s— Through the chair, we’ve heard loud and clear from our preliminary conversations with all of the new counselors and existing counselors, just the importance of that housing piece, mostly the affordable side of it, and attainable is another word that’s being used by the province as well. So this is guiding the overall need. So this is not just the affordable piece, it’s going to be providing housing in general to Londoners. We have our own approach to be able to help increase the amount of affordable housing, that’s our 3,000 unit plan that we’ve been working very hard to deliver.

[2:54:23] However, what we’re talking about today will increase the supply, and the thought is that that will also have an impact on the affordability as well to all Londoners, especially those that might be more impacted by the housing crisis out there right now. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, and my thought is just for Londoners who are very concerned about it and going forward, from their perspective, it might be more conservative to go with the higher growth, from their viewpoint, and just wondering what your response is to that.

[2:54:57] Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so there’s always a balance with this, and I may have some of my friends in the finance group speak to this as well, so I know Mr. Yeoman is on the call, and Ms. Brebon is also here. We need to also do that in a way that’s going to ensure that we’re not setting ourselves up for failure. So if we were to have a projection that’s too high, we might construct more servicing and not actually be able to achieve those targets. So that is a concern. Oh, Mr. Yeoman, just add to that comment.

[2:55:34] Through you, Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity. So from a finance perspective, and also being a professional land economist myself, the projections are viewed as being responsibly aggressive that are before you tonight. We’re getting to the sort of high end with even the reference scenario of my sort of danger, Will Robinson period of potential financial impacts that we might receive? The issue that you have is that our DC revenue collections often lag the actual investments that we have in infrastructure.

[2:56:06] So we had a period actually in 2017, where we had to defer over a dozen projects that were planned for construction because of low revenues over the last five years as well. We’ve only hit our DC revenue targets, our revenue amounts that we assumed once, and that period as well too. So what we’re seeing with these projections are substantially increased baseline from what we’ve had in recent years, which is great, and it’s responding to the trends that we’re seeing any more than this, though that you’re looking at a fair amount of risk for the municipality that we caution you on.

[2:56:43] Thank you, Mr. Yeoman, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, just one last thing. And that is given that we have exceeded the London plan right now, and rightly or wrongly, people may be concerned. Like, how can we reassure Londoners that we will be on top of it and potentially not be in this situation again, where our vacancy rate is so low? Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, so we will be able to provide a lot more information in this report that we are targeting for February to SPBC.

[2:57:21] So we’ll be able to provide you a lot more substance to this, but on the high level, there’s quite a few things that we’re doing, including the streamlining efforts that we’re doing in our areas we had funding from the province be able to do that. So that is gonna help us be able to keep up with the timeframes that have been a challenge in the past. We’re also doing a comprehensive review, which will provide us with more understanding of what we need in the future as far as land. So we have a number of different initiatives that are ongoing.

[2:57:54] And I think it’s actually would be very helpful to go through this targeting process. Council will have to decide whether those targets are appropriate and what we should do with those targets, but at least for us to be able to provide you some information which on something that’s fairly aggressive and what you’d have to be able to get to yourselves at that point. Our role as the city staff and from the planning perspective is incredibly important and we have a lot of, we can impact the growth substantially. However, we can only do so much.

[2:58:28] We can bring lands, we can bring applications forward, but we don’t actually bring lands online. We don’t build houses. So that is something that we really rely on the development industry. We can provide the servicing through our DVC studies, but we really need to be able to at the same time like provide really good advice to you. And then also get the development community on board and to be building these lands because we don’t wanna have ponds, pipes, treatment plants sitting there that aren’t being utilized. And that’s what we’re trying to caution you on to be able to have a reasonable basis for our projection. Councillor Stevenson.

[2:59:04] Is there any advantage to possibly looking at this a little more frequently given the changing kinds and that assuming that our developers are gonna be meeting the needs of the people that we can ensure we’re right behind their supporting? Mr. Mathers. Absolutely. And the really great thing is we have a process. The current year’s process is completed, but it’s called the growth management and plantation strategy. So every year we can look at how many lots we brought online. We look at the next five year period and we can make decisions on whether we want to bring forward projects to provide servicing or push them off based on the growth that’s occurring.

[2:59:45] So we do have like our five year, 20 year plans, but the GMIS allows council based on the thoughts of the development community and ourselves on what the needs are. And then we have the ability to be able to bring projects forward so we can respond on an annual basis. So that’ll be a really great process for council to be able to get informed and then also know that they can react to the marketplace. Good, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, Councillor Palosa. Thank you.

[3:00:18] This is gonna be a question through you to Mr. Mathers and his team. As per your report, new housing units are projected to continue the trend towards medium and high density units with single and semi detached low density units are projected to account for less than 30% of new starts. My question for you is the current city plan calls for 45% infill. How do we see these numbers projecting as we go forward for infill versus new land use being taken care of? Recognizing we’re starting to see some substantial developments along the bus rapid transit corridor. Mr. Mathers.

[3:00:55] Through the chair, I’m also going to allow Mr. McBeth or Edwards to speak to this as well. However, on the high level, part of this analysis does look at our current supply and our plans moving forward. So we know we have a robust plan looking at intensification and that will be the basis and needs to be the basis for how we allocate our growth into the future. Mr. McBeth, would you like to add anything to that? Yes, thank you.

[3:01:27] Here’s the chair. The growth projections identify three intensification scenarios but they’re identified as options because as part of the comprehensive review, which is you take your vacant land inventory and you have to make assumptions around your intensification and then weigh it against your projected population to see if you have sufficient urban lands or if you have to expand your boundary. So that is a large part of what a comprehensive review is. So when you get to the comprehensive review, the vacant land inventory will be reviewed to evaluate ability to accommodate intensification and some of those decisions around the actual percentage or targets or the amount of intensification council wishes to see will be part of the comprehensive review.

[3:02:19] Councillor Palosa. Thank you. I appreciate the information. I think my focus lies more on the redevelopment of lands for infill and intensification versus the vacant land component and I’m very familiar with the urban growth boundary and where we are in different areas of the city. And that’s a concern that I have, realizing we’re looking at bill 23 and having been the past Terracific Works for two years, the amount of money the city pays to develop these areas and make them suitable for development. Anything can do for redevelopment of lands, increases higher services to Londoners and more connected service for public transit.

[3:02:59] Do you have anything specific that we’re hoping for for redevelopment? Mr. McBeth. Yeah, so through the London plan, through you. So through the London plan, the place types, which is the land use designations do identify these nodes in corridors, like the transit villages and the different corridors for mixed use or high density residential types of development. There’s also what’s called the HDR overlay, which is properties throughout the city where high density residential may be permitted.

[3:03:35] So it’s part of that land need analysis is not only vacant land, but it’s the potential for increase within the established built environment. Councillor Paluzza. Yes, I’m familiar with the place types and transit villages as a Ward 12 Councillor. I have white oak small, I’m familiar with those plans. I think I was more specifically looking for, are we gonna continue with the 45% target? Are we gonna put a percentage target in there? Realize me, declare to climb emergency and there’s a climate lens now.

[3:04:08] I think just looking for something a little bit more specific if now is not the right time, that’s fine too, but I’m digging. Yeah, so through the chair, it may be premature. Part of what this exercise is, is we start with the population projections and then we go and evaluate the lands and have to compare them. So based upon the decisions council makes around what the projected population growth will be, then in parallel, we are updating maps to see what that growth may look like.

[3:04:42] And then the potential for a range of different intensifications would be presented to council during the comprehensive review to see what that would actually look like. And Mr. Mathers, did you wanna add something to that? Sure, the short form version is that in the official plan it speaks to the 45%. So that’s our base scenario. We might provide you different scenarios as well. Councilor Palazzo, are you good? Okay, then Councilor Trust, how are you next? Through the chair, I would just like to ask a very, very basic question.

[3:05:25] And that is, isn’t it a mistake for us to conflate building more housing with building more housing in vacant areas where there’s not housing now? Which is to say, isn’t there a real untapped potential that we really haven’t even started to open up yet for redeveloping properties that are within areas that are already developed? Mr. Mathers.

[3:06:05] Through the chair, absolutely. That’s why we really need to be focusing on intensification. When we’re looking at all of the city’s goals, the goals of the London plan, wanting to have that climate lens that we’re applying, it will be essential that we look at that low hanging fruit, which are lands that are already serviced or even properties that are vacant at this point, right? So that’s absolutely essential. That’s right, Councilor. Through the chair, I wanna thank you for acknowledging that there are properties that are currently vacant that could be good candidates for redevelopment.

[3:06:39] And I just think, I wanna support the motion that’s on the floor. The only minor change I would ask is, rather than it come to planning and environmental committee, I think this is an issue for the entire Council because it borders on housing policy as well. So I think it would probably be safe to say, this committee, if that would be okay. So right now, just so you’re aware, Councilor, with the change in language that was brought forward by the Mayor, the language currently says that civic administration be directed to report back to Council through the appropriate standing committee.

[3:07:21] It doesn’t specifically reference the planning and environment committee at this time, so that the clerks can assess which committee it actually has to go through at that time. And I’ll just see if there’s any comment from the clerks in terms of determining the standing committee. I see none. So right now it just says the, oh, is Livingston. Mr. Chair, our intention is to bring it forward to SPPC. That is the plan we’re working towards. Thank you for that, Ms. Livingston. So it would come back to this committee, Councilor Trussa.

[3:07:59] Well, the Mayor has his hand up and it was his motion. So we’ll see if the Mayor has some thoughts on that. It was Councilor Frank’s motion, but if she’s okay with it, I’m happy to be more specific in the motion and specifically mention SPPC, if it makes Councilor Trosta out more comfortable. And sorry, Your Worship, it was Councilor Frank’s motion. You made the amendment to it, but Councilor Frank has given me the thumbs up on that. So we will just ask the clerk to change that to specifically reflect through SPPC. Satisfactory Councilor Trosta out, nothing further from you.

[3:08:43] Okay, colleagues, I have exhausted the speakers list on this item at the moment. I will just look to see if there’s anyone else who wants to speak or who wants a second opportunity to speak. We are at committee, so you’re not limited to one go. Seeing none, then I will ask the clerk to open the vote on this. Seeing the vote, the motion’s passed 15 to zero.

[3:09:44] All right, colleagues, we have one item left on the agenda. I did indicate we had passed our recess time already, but I do know that some members have slipped out to just get something quick and are nibbling away at their desks. So if we’re willing to continue through the last item, I’m not sure that I would venture to say it, I don’t think it’s gonna take very long ‘cause I’ve been known to be wrong on that before, but we do have just the one item. So unless I see anyone raise their hand in objection, I think we’ll deal with the final item and then we can move to adjournment at the end of that.

[3:10:17] So I’m not seeing any hands up in objection, so we will continue to item 4.3. That’s the application of the equity lens for the citizen appointment process. This was a motion from Councillors Frank and Raman or a communication I should say from Councillors Frank and Raman with some draft language included in that. So I will go to Councillor Frank as the mover or Councillor Raman, to either one of you want to speak to this quickly, Councillor Raman.

[3:10:50] Thank you and through you. So you’ve been provided with some updated language following some wordsmithing and reworking. This is direct emotion directly from our conversations when we were making the appointment process that the following actions be taken with respect to the application of the equity tool under the anti-racism and anti-oppression framework as it relates to the appointment to advisory committees, boards and commissions.

[3:11:23] Specifically that civic administration be directed to take the necessary steps to ensure the application of the above-noted tool to recruitment and public engagement endeavors related to appointments. And second that we then direct this work, a staff report be submitted to governance working committee for consideration related to the incorporation of the tool to the appointment process so that we have an opportunity to then review this with the governance working group and look to potentially incorporate some of the suggestions that are brought forward.

[3:12:00] I’m asking my colleagues to support this recommendation for the opportunity for the governance working committee to do this work. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Raman. So you’re moving that in Councillor Frank. You go ahead. I do notice though that the two, I don’t know if it’s not on mine but the two different kind of motions aren’t showing up on. And the clerk’s just updating that right now. So that’ll be an e-scribe in just a moment. And then could I throw in to add advisory committees, boards and commissions? ‘Cause right now it just reads boards and commissions.

[3:12:36] And the clerk has already included that in the updated language, so. So if everybody, if you can’t see it, just refresh your screen and the revised language will be an e-scribe for you to see and I’ll look for any speakers to this. Councillor Palosa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate where this is coming from and the desired outcome. It’s probably hoping to achieve.

[3:13:11] And I realize the work that the city’s been doing. My concern in this is yes, a bunch of the different agency boards and commissions get appointed. Councillors are members of the public but realizing they’re doing a lot of their own strategic plan themselves in training and having those hard conversations amongst their own boards of finding a way to engage them, realizing if that’s also something that the different agency boards and commissions have taken on as a core value that matters to their organization too.

[3:13:46] They’re, in my opinion, they’re gonna be more apt to really take that to heart and try to do that recruitment and engagement on their own and be mindful in their own policy, making those spaces of who’s marginalized is who’s mostly to be affected. So just mindful that right now this just seems to be internal and what we might do to affect outside boards and commissions and not seeing an opportunity for them to engage in this process of how they might see it work or how it would work best for their organizations. So that’s just my comments. Thank you, Councillor Palosa, any other speakers?

[3:14:26] Seeing none, I will ask Councillor Palosa to take the chair just for a moment and I’ll offer a couple of comments myself. Thank you, recognizing Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanna just take the opportunity to echo the comments that you just made. I think it’s really gonna be important in this process that the boards of these various boards agencies and commissions are engaged themselves in this discussion. I think that they have a role to play in this too. And I will say to Councillors Frank and Ramen, my sincere thanks for recommending this going to the governance working group.

[3:15:03] I think there’s a real opportunity there for us to have a discussion because ultimately, we as a council are the only ones that can decide how we as a council apply this in our decision-making process. And that’s the form by which we can change the guidelines that we use for ourselves. So I think that it’s gonna be a full-some discussion at governance working group when that comes forward. So I appreciate you including the governance working group in this motion. Thank you. I have no other speakers in the list at the moment and returning chair to you.

[3:15:37] Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Any further speakers? I see none. So we will ask the clerk to open the vote. Posing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to one. Thank you colleagues.

[3:16:12] Moving on item five, deferred matters and additional business. There are none. Item six is Confidentials. There are none. So the final item is item seven and that is adjournment. We’ll look for a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Ferrer and seconded by Councillor Ramen. And this can be a hand vote. All those in favor. Thank you everyone. Thank you everyone.