Open Council

8th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - BUDGET

Open Council

8th Meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee - BUDGET

January 26, 2023, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:34 AM; it being noted that Councillor P. Cuddy was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen disclosed a pecuniary interest in Item 4.1 b.) having to do with Business Cass P-2, Ontario Works and Children’s Services, specific to the Children’s Services portion, by indicating that his wife owns and operates her own daycare.

2.   Consent

2.1   2023 Annual Budget Update Presentation

2023-01-26 - SPPC Submission - 2023 Budget Update Presentation - Deliberations

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the update presentation BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right-Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($2,900,000); Tax Levy ($6,581,000); Capital Expenditure ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

b)    Case P-2 - Ontario Works and Children’s Services - Reduction in Required 2023 Investments - Operating Expenditure ($620,000); Tax Levy ($1,030,000) BE APPROVED;

i)     Case P-2a - Reduction in Life Stabilization Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts – Operating Expenditure ($388,000); Tax Levy ($388,000); and,

ii)     Case P-2b - Reduction in Child Care Investment in 2023 due to Transitional Funding Availability, Case P-2c - Partial Deferral of Expansion Child Care Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts - Operating Expenditure ($232,000); Tax Levy ($642,000)

        

c)    Case P-3 - Housing Stability Services - Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units - Portable Benefits and Staff Resources - Operating Expenditure $1,794,000; Tax Levy $1,794,000 BE APPROVED;

      

d)    Case P-4 - Community Improvement/BIA - Project Clean Slate - Operating Expenditure $200,000; Tax Levy $200,000 BE APPROVED;

        

e)    Case P-5 - Information Technology - Cybersecurity Infrastructure Expansion and Updates - Operating Expenditure $1,009,000; Tax Levy $1,009,000; Capital Expenditure $142,000 BE APPROVED;

     

f)    Case P-6 - Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression - 1001 Inventions Exhibit - Operating Expenditure $125,000; Taxy Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

g)    Case P-7 - Land Ambulance - Additional Resources to Address Service Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,759,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

c)    Case P-3 - Housing Stability Services - Roadmap to 3,000 Affordable Units - Portable Benefits and Staff Resources - Operating Expenditure $1,794,000; Tax Levy $1,794,000 BE APPROVED;

      

d)    Case P-4 - Community Improvement/BIA - Project Clean Slate - Operating Expenditure $200,000; Tax Levy $200,000 BE APPROVED;

        

e)    Case P-5 - Information Technology - Cybersecurity Infrastructure Expansion and Updates - Operating Expenditure $1,009,000; Tax Levy $1,009,000; Capital Expenditure $142,000 BE APPROVED;

     

f)    Case P-6 - Anti-Racism and Anti-Oppression - 1001 Inventions Exhibit - Operating Expenditure $125,000; Taxy Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

g)    Case P-7 - Land Ambulance - Additional Resources to Address Service Pressures - Operating Expenditure $1,759,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Trosow

That Budget Amendment P-1 BE AMENDED to re-allocate the $225,000 for Downtown Tree Planting and retain for tree planting efforts across the city:

it being noted that the amendment would have the following affect:

Case #P-1 Excluding downtown tree planting - Various Services  - Budget Right-Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($2,675,000); Tax Levy ($6,356,000); Capital Expenditure ($250,000)

Motion Failed (7 to 7)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-1 - Various Services - Budget Right-Sizing - Operating Expenditure ($2,900,000); Tax Levy ($6,581,000); Capital Expenditure ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the following related to Business Case Amendment P-2, BE APPROVED:

Case P-2a - Reduction in Life Stabilization Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts – Operating Expenditure ($388,000); Tax Levy ($388,000)

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the following related to Business Case Amendment P-2, BE APPROVED:

Case P-2b - Reduction in Child Care Investment in 2023 due to Transitional Funding Availability, Case P-2c - Partial Deferral of Expansion Child Care Investment in 2023 due to COVID-19 Impacts - Operating Expenditure ($232,000); Tax Levy ($642,000)

Motion Passed (13 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)    Case P-8 - Transportation - Capital Project Adjustments - Capital Expenditure ($10,225,000); Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; and,

       

b)    Case P-9 - London and Middlesex Community Housing (LMCH) - Capital Project Adjustments - Capital Expenditure $21,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.3   Review of For Consideration Property Tax Operating Budget Amendments (2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)   Case P-10 - Roadways - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Cases for Streetlights and Winter Maintenance and Walkway Maintenance Reductions - Operating Expenditure ($196,000); Tax Levy ($196,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000); BE APPROVED;

i)   Case P-10a – Reduce previously approved additional investment in local improvement for streetlights – Operating Expenditure ($136,000); Tax Levy ($136,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000);

ii)   Case P-10b – Reduce annual walkway maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($60,000); Tax Levy ($60,000)

        

b)    Case P-11 - Parks and Horticulture - Reduction in Horticulture Aesthetics - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000) BE APPROVED;

c)    Case P-14 - Revised Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding - Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus - Operating Expenditure $3,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; it being noted that his will be funded from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve;

d)    Case P-16 - Community Improvement/BIA - Funding for the Hamilton Road BIA - Operating Expenditure $100,000; Tax Levy $100,000 BE APPROVED, and that the property tax levy funding to Business Improvement Areas BE REVIEWED in conjunction with the consideration of future multi-year budget updates, and during this term of Council, in 2026;

e)    Case P-17 - Capital Financing - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Case - Infrastructure Gap RF Contribution - Operating Expenditure ($475,000); Tax Levy ($475,000) BE APPROVED;

f)     that consideration of Business Case P-13 - Information Technology - Eliminate Printing of Council Agenda Materials - Operating Expenditure ($8,000); Tax Levy ($8,000) BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process, 2024 to 2027; and,

g)    that consideration of Budget Amendment P-15 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding Increase to Neighbourhood Decision Making Program - Operating expenditure $250,000; Tax Levy $250,000, BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process 2024-2027.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the SPPC recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The SPPC recesses at 11:49 AM and resumes at 12:20 PM.

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

e)    Case P-14 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding - Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus - Operating Expenditure $3,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED;

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the source of financing for Budget Amendment P-14 Humane Society of London & Middlesex New Comprehensive Animal Campus BE REVISED from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the motion, as amended, BE APPROVED.

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

e)    Case P-14 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding - Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus - Operating Expenditure $3,000,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED; it being noted that the source of financing will be the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following BE APPROVED:

a.     Case P-10 - Roadways - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Cases for Streetlights and Winter Maintenance and Walkway Maintenance Reductions - Operating Expenditure ($936,000); Tax Levy ($936,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000)

i.          Case P-10a – Reduce previously approved additional investment in local improvement for streetlights – Operating Expenditure ($136,000); Tax Levy ($136,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000)

ii.          Case P-10b – Reduce annual walkway maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($60,000); Tax Levy ($60,000)

iii.          Case P-10c – Reduce previously approved additional investment in winter maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($740,000); Tax Levy ($740,000)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve Budget Amendment Case P-10a – Reduce previously approved additional investment in local improvement for streetlights – Operating Expenditure ($136,000); Tax Levy ($136,000); Capital Expenditure ($200,000).

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve Budget Amendment Case P-10b – Reduce annual walkway maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($60,000); Tax Levy ($60,000)

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

Motion to approve Budget Amendment Case P-10c – Reduce previously approved additional investment in winter maintenance – Operating Expenditure ($740,000); Tax Levy ($740,000)

Motion Failed (5 to 9)

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

b)    Case P-11 - Parks and Horticulture - Reduction in Horticulture Aesthetics - Operating Expenditure ($200,000); Tax Levy ($200,000) BE APPROVED;

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

c)    Case P-12 - Community Recreation and Leisure Programs - Reduction to Neighbourhood Playground Program - Operating Expenditure ($250,000); Tax Levy ($250,000) BE APPROVED;

Motion Failed (0 to 14)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

     

d)    Case P-13 - Information Technology - Eliminate Printing of Council Agenda Materials - Operating Expenditure ($8,000); Tax Levy ($8,000) BE APPROVED;

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That consideration of Business Case P-13 - Information Technology - Eliminate Printing of Council Agenda Materials - Operating Expenditure ($8,000); Tax Levy ($8,000) BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process, 2024.to 2027.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That consideration of Budget Amendment P-15 BE REFERRED to the next multi-year budget process 2024-2027

Case P-15 - Neighbourhood Strategic Initiatives and Funding - Increase to Neighbourhood Decision Making Program - Operating Expenditure $250,000; Tax Levy $250,000

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

g)    Case P-16 - Community Improvement/BIA - Funding for the Hamilton Road BIA - Operating Expenditure $100,000; Tax Levy $100,000 BE APPROVED

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the motion to approve Budget Amendment Case P-16, BE AMENDED to include the following wording:

“and that the property tax levy funding to Business Improvement Areas BE REVIEWED in conjunction with the consideration of future multi-year budget updates, and during this term of Council in 2026”

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the motion related to the approval of Budget Amendment Case P-16, as amended, BE APPROVED:

“That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

g)    Case P-16 - Community Improvement/BIA - Funding for the Hamilton Road BIA - Operating Expenditure $100,000; Tax Levy $100,000 BE APPROVED; and that the general tax levy funding to Business Improvement Areas BE REVIEWED in conjunction with the consideration of future multi-year budgets, and during this term of Council in 2026.”

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That a recess BE APPROVED at this time.

Motion Passed

The SPPC recesses at 3:06 PM and resumes at 3:18 PM.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

h)    Case P-17 - Capital Financing - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Case - Infrastructure Gap RF Contribution - Operating Expenditure ($950,000); Tax Levy ($950,000) BE APPROVED.

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Budget Amendment Case P-17 BE AMENDED to be in the amount of ($ 475,000).

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the amended Budget Amendment Case P-17, in the amount of ($475,00), BE APPROVED

h)    Case P-17 - Capital Financing - Reduction to Previously Approved “For Consideration” Business Case - Infrastructure Gap RF Contribution - Operating Expenditure ($475,000); Tax Levy ($475,000).

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

4.4   Review of For Consideration Property Tax Capital Budget Amendment (2023 totals rounded to the closest $1,000)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Budget Update:

a)     Case P-18 - Community Improvement/BIA - Streetscape Master Plan for Dundas Street - Argyle BIA - Capital Expenditure $150,000; Tax Levy $0 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the SPPC recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The SPPC recesses at 3:52 PM and resumes at 4:05 PM.

4.5   Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Reserves and Reserve Funds Overview BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted projections are subject to annual review and adjustment.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.6   Debt Overview

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Debt Overview BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.7   Reconciliation of the Draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the reconciliation of the draft Property Tax Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.8   Operating Budget

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, the amended 2023 operating budget (Appendix A) BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $1,117,281,244 and the tax levy amount of $736,457,801 after recognizing $12,773,658 of increased taxation from assessment growth.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.9   Capital Budget

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the capital budget (Appendix B):

a) the amended 2023 capital budget BE READOPTED in the amount of $447,680,000; and,

b) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $1,458,611,000.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.10   By-laws Regarding Tax Levy, Operating and Capital Budgets

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward any necessary by-laws regarding the tax levy, the operating and capital budgets for introduction at Municipal Council.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by J. Morgan

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Water Budget Update:

a)    Case W-1 - Schedule Change for Springbank #2 Water Reservoir Replacement and Expansion - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure ($37,581,000) BE APPROVED; and,

        

b)    Case W-2 - Schedule Changes for Water Growth Projects - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure ($8,075,000) BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.12   Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Water Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.13   Reconciliation of the Draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the reconciliation of the draft Water Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.14   Water Services

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Franke

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 operating budget and the 2023 capital budget and associated forecasts for Water Services:

a)    the amended 2023 operating budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $93,695,368 and gross revenue amount of $93,695,368;

b)    the amended2023 capital budget for Water Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $38,852,000; and,

c)    the amended2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Water Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $324,163,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges related to the provision of Water Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020 as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021, January 1, 2022 and January 1, 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

Moved by S. Lehman

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Annual Wastewater and Treatment Budget Update:

a)    Case WWT-1 - Mud Creek East Branch Phase 2 Budget Increase - Operating Expenditure $0; Operating Revenue $0; Capital Expenditure $1,657,000 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.16   Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Wastewater and Treatment Reserves/Reserve Funds Overview for the 2020 to 2023 Multi-Year Budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.17   Reconciliation of the Draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board Budget

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the reconciliation of the draft Wastewater and Treatment Budget to the Public Sector Accounting Board financial statement budget BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.18   Wastewater and Treatment Services

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That in accordance with section 291(4)(c) of the Municipal Act 2001, as amended, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 operating budget and the 2023 capital budget and associated forecasts for Wastewater and Treatment Services:

a) the amended 2023 operating budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the gross expenditure amount of $117,543,814 and gross revenue amount of $117,543,814;

b) the amended 2023 capital budget for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE READOPTED in the amount of $92,640,000; and,

c) the amended 2024 to 2029 capital forecast for Wastewater and Treatment Services BE APPROVED in principle in the amount of $621,579,000;

it being noted that all rates and charges relating to the provision of Wastewater and Treatment Services were increased by 2.5% effective January 1, 2020; as approved by Council on November 26, 2019, increase by 2.5% effective January 1, 2021, 2.7% effective July 1, 2021, 2.5% effective January 1, 2022 and 2.5% effective January 1, 2023 as approved by Council on October 27, 2020.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Municipal Council resolution from its meeting held on January 24, 2023 with respect to the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

2023-01-26 Submission - Resolution - Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Added Communication from the Animal Welfare Community Advisory Committee Report, BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 4:35 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 (7 hours, 15 minutes)

[0:06] Okay, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us.

[11:52] This is the eighth man, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. Just as excitingly, it’s also our budget day for the 2023 budget. The Sea of London is situated on the traditional lands at the Noshnabek, Horoshone, and La Pek, in Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this treaty home. The Sea of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit people today. As representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request.

[12:30] To make requests specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. This meeting is open to the public, and it’s being streamed on the city’s website and available on YouTube, and it will be recorded and available for future viewing. I am looking to the committee for disclosures of the community interest. Seeing none, I’ll also let the committee know, Councillor Cuddy is joining us virtually.

[13:14] Councillor Hillier sends his regrets today as he’s undergoing a planned surgery, so our thoughts are with him today for a speedy recovery. And as always, what happens at committee gets fully voted on at council, so every Councillor will have time to digest what happened today and considering how they want to vote at council, you could change it. And that certainly gives Councillor Hillier an opportunity to vote on the entire budget. I will go back to disclosure’s machinery interest, Councillor Van Merbergen. There are conflict on, I believe it’s P2, as my wife operates her own daycare.

[14:02] Here, I’m wondering, I see it’s lumped in with Ontario Works, is it possible to split that? To our finance team, I’m seeing head nods, but just a verbal, I can confirm we can do that. Perfect, we’ll pull that apart, noting your conflict. I will go to item 2.1, the 2023 annual budget updated presentation. Morning, and thanks for the opportunity to provide, I guess, a bit of a brief refresher on the 2023 budget update.

[14:48] We’re just pulling it up on screen now. We’re not gonna spend a lot of time on this. We’re just really intending to give a bit of a sense of what we’re gonna tackle here today and in the process that we’re going to go through. So, you’ll recall that there are 18 property tax budget amendments in this year’s budget update. 15 of those amendments are operating budget amendments. Three of them are capital budget amendments. If all of the amendments are approved, that would see the 2023 tax levy increase reduced to 2.9% from 3.9%.

[15:27] And that would mean the four year average would be reduced from 3.6% to 3.4%. You can also see on the slide here that the four year average annual property owner impact would be reduced from 109 to 101 dollars, again, if all amendments were approved. For 2023 specifically, the impact to the average residential property owner would be reduced from $122 3.9% to $92, 2.9%. Again, if all amendments are approved.

[16:05] So, as we outlined during budget tabling, for this year’s budget, we’ve suggested a five step process to work through the various budget amendments. For the 15 operating budget amendments, we, as civic administration, have recommended seven of them. And we would suggest working through those amendments. First, of the three property tax supported capital budget amendment, we are recommending two of them and those will be dealt with as part of step two. The remaining eight operating budget amendments are for council’s consideration.

[16:39] Those are step three. Step four is the remaining for consideration capital budget amendment. And then finally, step five is the water and wastewater treatment budget amendments. There are two water budget amendments and one wastewater budget amendments. So here’s step one, these are the amendments included as part of the recommended operating budget amendments. I’m not going to go through these in detail, but these are what you can find on your agenda as part of section 4.1 on your agenda for today.

[17:17] Step two is the recommended capital budget amendments. Again, there are two of them and you can find these as part of section 4.2 on your agenda for today. Step three is the for consideration, operating budget amendments. These are section 4.3 on your agenda for today. Step four is the for consideration capital budget amendment, the one remaining capital budget amendment. This is section 4.4 on your agenda for today.

[17:54] And the water and wastewater budget amendments can be found in sections 4.11 and 4.15 of the agenda for today’s meeting. Just in terms of the process for deliberations, again, we’ll work through the property tax supported budget first, going through all of the various 18 budget amendments. There are a number of housekeeping recommendations that we need to take care of as well related to reserves and reserve funds debt. We need to also re-adopt our 2023 tax levy and our capital budgets for 2023 and the capital forecast as well.

[18:37] And we also, of course, need direction to bring forward the necessary bylaws for council as well. Same process on the water and wastewater treatment budgets. We’ll go through the budget amendments and then deal with the housekeeping recommendations as well. And then just finally, before I pass it back to the chair, I just wanted to give a bit of an overview of the public engagement activities that we’ve done leading up to budget deliberations this year. So we’ve implemented our social media and digital advertising campaign. We’ve used some print advertising as well.

[19:13] We’ve included a budget handout in our Ontario Works Check mailouts. We’ve posted all of our budget materials on our website at London.ca, as well as on our get involved.London.ca portal as well. Copies were available in the clerk’s office as well as at all library branches as well. We held two in-person budget open houses as well as one virtual budget open house as well. Of course, we had the public participation meeting last week and we also supported councilors award meetings as requested and also provided a presentation on requests to one of our advisory committees as well.

[19:53] So with that, I will turn it back over to the chair. Thank you. Thank you. Looking to committees to give you any questions strictly on that presentation review, Councilor Troso. This is a very general question and it’s a question that I’ve received which I’ve tried to answer but I think you can do it better. There are a number of items in here that are coming from various different funds other than the general fund that are not showing up in the levy. Could you really briefly, I mean really briefly, explain where just what the sources of those funds are and it’s not free money, it’s coming from someplace.

[20:34] So the question is, what is the source for the money that’s in the funds that are not going into the general levy? Just really briefly. To staff for a brief reply. Certainly through the chair. So in various budget amendments, you’ll see that there are alternative funding sources that are proposed. In most cases, those are proposed from the community, community investment reserve fund or other reserve funds that we hold, our reserve funds, the funding sources vary on them.

[21:11] Typically, a lot of them are property tax supported. So there are property tax supported contributions that have gone in there in the past that now have accumulated a balance such that we are utilizing those funds to pay for some of these amendments. Specifically related to the community investment reserve fund ‘cause that’s one you’ll see in a few different places today. That fund is a fund that the use of is basically council’s purview, but it is funded through our year end surplus, a portion of our year end surplus, 25% of any surplus that we have any given year goes into the community investment reserve fund to be used for one time initiatives at council’s direction.

[21:55] The other amendment, maybe that I’ll mention briefly, is the land ambulance budget amendment, which we are suggesting that we utilize our assessment growth revenues, or our portion of our assessment growth revenues this year to pay for. So assessment growth revenues really are the revenues that we get from new property taxes from new homes and businesses in the city. And we set those funds aside every year and you’ll see those come forward, the allocation of those funds come forward in February, late February this year in terms of how we will propose to utilize the new revenues from property taxes.

[22:37] Now that the key and core principle that we use in determining how to use those funds based on our assessment growth policy is that growth should pay for growth. So we specifically segregate those funds and use them as a funding source for any service areas, whether it be civic service areas or some of our agencies, boards and commissions that require funding to pay for growth pressures that they may have. So anybody who needs to access funding to pay for growth pressures is required to submit a business case to the treasurer in accordance with our assessment growth policy that outlines the rationale, the growth pressures that they have.

[23:22] And if it’s approved, they will then be allocated a portion of our new assessment growth revenues. Again, this is specifically though for growth related pressures. So given that a significant contributing factor to the land ambulance budget amendment is growth, we are suggesting that the increase be paid for through assessment growth revenues. So I’ll maybe stop there and I hope that’s answered your question. Thank you, that was very helpful. Thank you. And as we get to each of those points of suggested reserve funds, we can certainly ask staff for a review of what the intended purpose of that reserve fund is and the current balance or anticipated balance after any year-end surpluses go into them.

[24:06] Any further questions on item 2.1? Okay, I look for a move and a seconder to receive staff’s presentation moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Troso calling the question in e-scribe. Opposing the vote, the motion is passed 14 to zero.

[24:46] Thank you, I have no scheduled items. That moves us into items for direction, which is the 2023 budget. My layout for the day is, we have two days set aside for this. If we’re efficient, it could be done in one, last year we got done at three o’clock, which gives you Friday back as a workday to deal with constituents and whatnot. My plan is to break for round 12.30 for lunch, if it’s at a good point. Break for the day at five o’clock if we haven’t finished, as well as a break around 2.30-ish.

[25:20] If we’re really close to getting done in a day we might push through just to wrap things up. If not, we’ll just come back tomorrow. As you can see in the room, the deputy city managers and staff are here on call all day to answer our questions. Many counselors have sent questions in advance, so thank you for that. It allows staff to have an answer for you. If you have not done that, you’re welcome to still message them during this meeting as they are on their computers waiting to be of assistance. This is the final year of the prior council’s multi-year budget. I fully recognize that this wasn’t half of this council’s budget, so we’re tidying up from the 2018 council.

[25:58] Come April, that’s your opportunity to really bring forward those business cases we just discussed and flush through our ideas for this next council, which is what we’re also working through with the cities for your strategic plan. So please feel free to question how we got here, recognizing even in 2018 things were different then. Four items for direction today. Being pulled to so far is business case P1, being the budget budget right sizing, business case P2, the Ontario Works and Children’s Services.

[26:39] It’ll be separated due to questions and a conflict. 4.3 for consideration, 4.3 A through H, each one will be voted on separately, and that’s what I have so far. And just a reminder, just like a committee, sorry, Council Deputy Mayor Lewis, something. Sorry, Madam Chair.

[27:13] I thought you were ready to start discussion, but you were still writing some directions, so please continue with that, and then I’ll stick my hand back up. As with that committee, you’re welcome to ask questions or statements of anything. It’s just being pulled if you want to maybe suggest an amendment or a vote in a different way besides yes. So looking to see if there’s anything else to be pulled from the list I just mentioned, Councillor Ferreira. And thank you, through you. The ones that you mentioned did, I kind of missed some of those, did you mention P10?

[27:50] 4.3 A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H, will all be voted separate. Okay, thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, with 4.1 A and B being pulled for voting on separately, I am prepared to remove the remainder of 4.1. I think we can probably vote on that as a block of items, pending any questions that colleagues may have.

[28:24] Okay, so that will move consent items for direction, 4.1 C, D, E, F and G as one block and just a reminder, you can still ask questions or make a statement, just looking to anybody else for a seconder of that, seconded by Councillor Frank. I will start my speaker’s list of anything in 4.1 C through G. I will start with the Mayor. Thank you, and this is a great, great seat.

[29:00] I see why sometimes you try to flag me down. I just have a quick question on the land ambulance. So we received a fairly comprehensive presentation, and I want to thank the County Warden, as well as the Chief and their CAO for coming and answering all of our questions, the business case outlines, where we would essentially deal with some of their increase through assessment growth. When do we anticipate the remainder of that pressure coming forward for consideration?

[29:34] Is that all going to be dealt with in the multi-year budget or are we looking at additional assessment growth asks beyond what is contemplated in this budget? Or is everything essentially accounted for that they outlined in their presentation to us last time? Thank you, Ms. Barbelle. Thank you through the chair. So based on the submission for the 2023 budget, the County Land Ambulance Committee has approved the budget and submitted it to County Council and to the City of London. So I do not anticipate any further pressures for 2023.

[30:10] We do note, however, that through the development of their master planning process, they have indicated a number of years of pressure continued into the future. So I anticipate the remainder, or at least the next iteration of where the pressures might lie, would begin in 2024 through that discussion. So I’m anticipating that we would have a multi-year plan and budgets submitted by the County and the Middlesex Land Ambulance to be able to provide what their requirements and anticipated estimates would be over the course of the multi-year budget in time for our budget submissions later this year to prepare for multi-year.

[30:52] Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you for the answer to that. So I think that’s obviously good news for the budget update, a little bit less moving forward. But I know we have representatives on the Land Ambulance Authority, certainly myself and Councillor Hopkins on the advocacy side. A number of the things we talked about in that presentation, it certainly feels like we have some runway to consider and of course the changes to control costs and the service moving forward is something that will require a lot of engagement with the province. So sounds like we have some runway before we hit those pressures, but that the multi-year budget and future assessment growth updates will face some asks from that.

[31:32] So I appreciate the answer to the questions today. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. I’d like to follow up on the Mayor’s remarks every year. We’ve seen double digit increases come from Land Ambulance. And the frustrating thing for me is we’re presented with a bill with no input. We have, well, there’s some input but I don’t think it’s taken as seriously as it should be on how we get to that bill that we pay for. So it’s essentially, here’s what’s going to happen, here’s how we decide the money and here’s what London’s going to pay for it.

[32:10] And every year there’s other reasons. Well, this year we’ve got higher case counts and here’s where there’s not higher case counts, there’s some other reason and some other reason. I don’t believe we’re getting a full financial picture even though we’ve asked and asked and asked for that. The frustration is such that I want to know when does a contract expire between ourselves and the county for being a joint providers and funders of the service? Looking to staff, if you have an answer on hand. Thank you through the chair.

[32:49] So the contract or cost sharing agreement with the county for Land Ambulance expenditures is simply a cost sharing agreement. So all that does is define how the total cost of the delivery of Land Ambulance services are a portion between the county and the city of London. So that agreement expires in 2025. So before that time there are automatic provisions to begin the renegotiation of those cost sharing deals. But certainly that is simply just the cost apportionment and not the actual delivery of the services which is set out in legislation to be the county of Middlesex.

[33:32] Councillor Lehman. Thank you. I believe before we get into a four year budget process next year, we have to have some serious discussions about that contract renewal. And if it’s being renewed, and I think we need to have some provisions in there of having some more control decisions on how money’s are spent because we’re footing a majority portion of that bill. Hey, thank you. I assume that was a statement for multi-year budget fund versus today fund.

[34:05] Okay, thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And just following up on the Mayor’s remarks and Councillor Lehman regarding land ambulance, I know we’ve made some changes in the past council regarding our relationship with the county. And I’m just wondering if there’s anything more that we need to do. I understand we have someone on council on that board or committee, but I know we’re working on developing a stronger relationship.

[34:38] Is there anything else that we need to be doing? Okay, I’ll also know what some of these questions could be used for the multi-year budget process, but just at a high level and brief, please. Yes, through you, Madam Chair. Some of the steps that we have taken over the last couple of years are threefold. There are three mechanisms that we have to address the relationship around land ambulance. The first is at a staff level through the management oversight committee, which was reestablished and we meet regularly. That is an opportunity for staff both from EMS and from the city to try and have a conversation about what pressures need to be dealt with when, have a better understanding of the concerns.

[35:26] I think the fact that there is now a master plan also gives us some ability to plan before we were just dealing with year over year changes and no runway on what they might look like to the future. So we do now have that. So that’s opportunity number one, opportunity number two, through the last council established a position on the authority board, which councilor Stevenson now holds. I think that is council’s opportunity to have direct input into the oversight of land ambulance. And the third, of course, is the city county liaison committee, which this council’s last council struck and populated and I believe this council has representation.

[36:04] Through last council, that was an opportunity to have very frank conversations about land ambulance. And so I think utilizing those three mechanisms can really help strengthen us in the planning for the multi-year budget and also build on the perhaps shared advocacy that might be required around dressing, frankly, what is a health pressure on a municipal budget. Councilor Hopkins, are you satisfied? Yes, really pleased to hear and thank you for all the great work that everyone’s doing. And I think we need to continue those relationships.

[36:38] Thank you. Councilor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. I’d just like to, through you, staff, to confirm for us what is the requirement by the province in terms of a structure with land ambulance, vis-a-vis a city like London and the surrounding county like Middlesex. Is there a standing requirement from the province as to how we structure this with regard to land ambulance?

[37:14] To staff, through you, Madam Chair, the province articulates the relationship. So Middlesex County has been identified as the service manager, if you will, for land ambulance, much the way the city of London has been identified for childcare and Ontario Works and homeless prevention and housing. So they are the designated body to manage that service delivery across Middlesex County and the city of London.

[37:47] We then establish through our portionment agreement what the funding relationship is and then try to utilize these other mechanisms to support the delivery. But it is a legislated identified authority on who is responsible in terms of making the decisions. I’m hoping that helps in terms of the question. Okay, looking further further questions, I’ll go to Councillor Troso and then Councillor Stevenson. We’d like to ask a question about the cybersecurity under P5 and I want to be very careful to make it clear that I’m not asking for any details that would put us into the closed session ‘cause I understand how sensitive this is.

[38:32] But I noticed that we’re doing this because we’re asking for professional services with respect to the initial implementation costs. Do we expect that those, and again, if this is beyond what we can discuss here, I don’t want to trigger a closed meeting right now. I just want to be told we can’t talk about that now. Is this something that’s going to be recurring from time to time, these outside professional costs? To staff? Yes, thank you and through the chair. Commonly in information technology services, we use implementation partners to implement the initial technology.

[39:11] Many of the technologies that are identified in the business case are cloud-based technologies. So we don’t anticipate a need to do another round of implementation unless we pivot to a new product. Thank you. Counselor, are you satisfied? Yeah, one follow-up here. Do we reach a point in the future because I think this is going to become a much bigger issue for us as we go on. And I’m wondering at some point, do we need to consider having this expertise in-house? To staff?

[39:46] Yes, thank you and through the chair. I, at this point in the current environment in climate, it’s not recommended to have implementation services in-house, but it certainly is recommended that we have management and operational experience to run these products and respond to these events. Thank you. And finally, on that through the chair, understanding that this would likely be a confidential item is a committee of council, perhaps corporate services, going to have the opportunity to review the RFP or at least review the actual implementation, understanding, understanding that it’s confidential, but that there is some council participation in this.

[40:38] To staff, if you just want to state what committee it comes through and the RFP will come? Yes, thank you and through the chair, the reports will come through the corporate services committee, and that’s where the RFPs will be brought forward. Councillor Stroud, you’re satisfied? Thank you, that’s perfect. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair, I just wanted to respond on the land ambulance that I am on the authority board. I have spent quite a bit of time with some of the members of that board going through the budget. I feel really confident that they are doing the best they can and with financial stewardship, and I do have a meeting with Ms. Barbone to get the city’s perspective, and we will go over that again.

[41:22] My question is on P3, and I apologize for not sending the questions in advance, but I was just wondering, in 2020, this is coming from the roadmap where it’s planned to have 500. It looks like we’re doing 100 a year from now until 2026, adding 100 each year. In 2022, it was temporarily funded from the operational budget contingency reserve fund, and this year it’s with the tax levy. So I’m just wondering, is that the plan going forward that we’ll be adding 100 each year, and it’ll be adding to the tax levy?

[42:00] To staff, Mr. Dickens, or? Thank you, and through you, Chair. Yes, as part of the council approved roadmap to 3,000 units, we have taken a matrix approach to achieving those housing targets through a variety of housing tools and housing programs and methods to support tenants. So the goal in the roadmap is that the housing supplements or rent supplements make up part of that matrix. So the goal would be that every year we are adding 100 units using this tool that you see before you.

[42:36] Councillor, are you satisfied? Just to further question, just wondering why tax levy versus some of the reserves we have for the roadmap or even the assessment growth, given that that population is growing as well? To staff. Thank you, through the chair. The portable housing program that Mr. Dickens is referring to as an ongoing program, so that cost will recur every single year. That’s a cost that we’re gonna have to incur each and every year, because it’s an ongoing cost, we would always recommend an ongoing funding source for that cost, and therefore, a reserve fund, which is typically one-time funding.

[43:16] It would not, in our view, be an appropriate funding source, we would prefer to see an ongoing funding source for it. Councillor? I understand, and the challenge I see with that is in this housing crisis that we have, the roadmap takes us to 500 units, and we’re taking care of an extra hundred people each year until 2026, so people are gonna wait while we incrementally add this to our tax levy. That was just a closing statement? Just a closing statement, I don’t.

[43:47] No, perfect. That exhausts my speaker’s list, looking for Councillor Stevenson? 4.1, C through G. Okay, sorry, I do have another question then on P4, which is number D. Heard great things about this program, and I noticed it’s up, the budget is up 36% from last year, and I’m just wondering if there’s any comments. Staff regarding P4. Through the chair, the additional funding there is for the project clean slate project that’s moving forward, so that is why we have that additional incremental increase.

[44:36] So is this something new then, ‘cause I thought it was 54,000 in 2021, 147,000 in 2022, and now we’re at 200,000. So I just wondered, is this where we’re staying to, or is this projected to keep increasing? Mr. Mathers, for someone else? Through the chair, we’ll have to work on response to that question, so if you could just leave that with us for a moment, we’ll get back to you shortly.

[45:08] Okay, I’ll look for any, I’ll come back to Councillor Stevenson when we have an answer, looking to the rest of the committee to see if there’s any more questions for item 4.1. This is recommended property tax operating budget amendments. 4.1, C, D, E, F, or G. Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to explore P5 a little bit. It’s a large ask, a large increase, over a million dollars. Given that we already have, I would thank security instruments in place.

[45:46] Could we perhaps, through you, Chair, to staff, just hear more of a full some explanation as to why we need even more to the tune of a million dollars? Okay, to staff, please. Yes, thank you, and through the Chair. When we look at a cybersecurity environment, it is increasing in size of volume, diversity, and complexity each and every day. In 2021, Forbes did a study, and 44% of all ransomware is targeted to municipalities. So there is an increase in the threat environment that faces municipalities and large institutions.

[46:28] I think it’s also important to note that in 2021, Deloitte did a report, and it looked at the amount of expenditure of large institutions compared to their revenue. So the expenditure of cybersecurity as a percentage of revenue. When we extrapolate that review, and we look at the current spending of the city of London, one would expect it to be between 2.43 million and 10.97 million. We’re presently around 2 million right now. This ask would get us to 3 million, and that would get us on the range from that Deloitte report when we look at revenue to cybersecurity expenditure.

[47:11] Thank you. Councillor van Mergan, are you satisfied? Councillor Layman. Through you, Chair, just a follow-up question. How many cyber attacks do we get annually? I think that through the Chair, we are treading into potentially some conversation that is best handled in camera. I would look to the clerk for advice on that. I would advise it’s a lot. And we’re whales versus fishing. That’s fine, I understand.

[47:45] Okay, is there a reply ready for Councillor Stevenson? Mr. Mathers. Through the Chair, thanks for your patience on that one. So over the previous years, it was a pilot. First year was just a partial year. Then it moved into implementation, and it wasn’t fully up to, it hadn’t fully ramped up. But we’re at the point now, as I was asking for the full funding support, what’s ongoing moving forward without the full program. Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Troso.

[48:20] I just wanna add to the Chair, actually, I just wanna add to the cyber security issue, the cost of not having adequate cyber security is gonna go up so much as we have this sort of like international grouping of, I don’t know what you wanna call them, cyber terrorists, or these are not just harmless kids in the garage seeing if they can play computer games on the city’s system. We’re talking about very, very sensitive, personally identifiable information that we’re holding, and the cost of a breach is going to be massive.

[48:59] And I don’t think this is the place to sort of start to get reports back for what it has cost other municipalities for not being diligent. But this is not something that we wanna save a little bit of money on, and I just think we really need to understand that if this is some place where I wanna give a lot of deference to our computer staff. Thank you, I have Councillor Preble, Councillor Raman, and then Councillor Layman, and then I’m hoping to call the question. Comments regarding P4, why are you initiative? I personally know some people who are in this program, I think it’s a really very beneficial program, and we are keeping young people on track and giving them an opportunity while our city or the core is being cleaned, so I think it’s a very positive program.

[49:46] In terms of the P3, and I don’t wanna delay it anymore today, but I would like to receive more detailed information about the criteria, these amounts will be distributed to the individuals affected with these conditions. But I don’t want any more details now, but I would like to receive it once these criteria are established prior, awarding the amounts, thank you. Thank you, and more reports will be forthcoming. I’ve seen kind of nods from staff, Councillor Raman.

[50:21] Thank you, and through you. I wanted to ask some questions about P6, the anti-racism and anti-oppression 1001 inventions exhibit. I understand the exhibit that we’re looking at is coming from London, well, sorry, the United Kingdom. And I understand that in the wording here, it says the feasibility of bringing the 1001 inventions exhibit to London, so I’m just wondering what other things are being considered in exploring that feasibility. Are there other partners that we’re looking at as well? Thank you.

[50:53] Ms. Morris. Thank you, and through you, the chair. Yes, there are, so the feasibility piece is really about the venue. We need to partner with an organization that is accustomed to having volume of people, particularly this will be likely a lot of students coming on school trips. So the feasibility is, do we have a partner that can host this exhibit that has the space and the ability to house it for at least four weeks? Feasibility also, in terms of partnering with other municipalities, this would be the first time that an exhibit like this has come to Canada.

[51:27] And so we really wanna elevate that and be able to showcase it across other municipalities as well. So the feasibility of bringing it is requiring some specific venue pieces in London, but also are we able to have it offer value to other communities as well? Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that response. Just looking at the last line which says, other recommendations with financial impacts will be considered as part of the multi-year budget. I assume these are more direct impacts.

[51:59] And one of the things I noted when I was looking at this amendment is that we have now, we have a new staff person on board as well since the time that this amendment or this idea was put forward by the committee. And I wanna ensure that we’re using and resourcing our dollars to have the most immediate impact. So I’m wondering if you can speak to what you think the impact would be of this display. And I’m also wondering if you can comment on discussions with the school boards.

[52:34] As we know, school boards are really struggling right now to be able to attend field trips because of busing issues as well. So I’d hate for us to commit to something that with the intention of school trips that may not be able to be feasible as well. Thank you. Thank you and to staff. I’m not sure if this exhibit also would offer a virtual classroom experience realizing there’s such a disparity between schools as well. Thank you for the questions and through you, the chair. So the planning of this exhibit will take significant time. It’s already taken a year and we don’t have a venue as of yet.

[53:09] So we’re really hopeful that perhaps in the next year we’ll be able to have a venue. And so with that and with time, we are hoping that this would be something that people could attend in person. It’s not actually designed to be a virtual type of an exhibit. It’s very tangible, it’s very experiential. Students really get to be immersed in the exhibit. And the piece around this emerged because of the need through the community speaking a lot about how we and also Council’s direction to highlight Muslim contributions. And so the idea here is two. One, to really highlight the Muslim faith and how it has contributed to many, many inventions, including light ‘cause that’s the exhibit that we’re looking to bring here.

[53:50] So highlighting the contributions of Muslims in general and sort of dispelling some of the narratives that have been out, that Islamophobic sort of narratives. And the other is to educate as well and to offer an experiential activity that would highlight some of the science piece to it so that there is a bit of an educational component as well. So the community spoke loud and clear that the way forward is to change the narrative and we do that by offering experiences that are quite different than what people would be accustomed to seeing in the media about Muslims. So that is the intent behind this.

[54:23] It really emerged from the idea that advocacy is a piece of disrupting Islamophobia. But education and awareness is another major focus that came through the engagement with the Muslim community. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Layman, is the final speaker I currently have on my list? Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to make it clear on that question. Regarding cybersecurity, I fully support Mark’s expenditures here and I was actually glad to see it included in here. I believe cybersecurity is a severe threat that we’ve seen other communities face hacks into and the financial exposure and social costs are immense.

[55:08] My line of questions was actually to highlight the threat and I understand that confidentiality a preference response. Thank you. That exhausts my speaker’s list for item 4.1, items C through G. I’m calling the question and could our staff prepare the tax chart and pull it up on the display before you roll into item P1 for Ferreira?

[55:58] Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero. Thank you. I am for direction that consists to P1, the under recommended property tax, operating judgment amendments. This is budget right sizing case P1. We found it to be a useful tool with prior councils. As we go, staff gives us a visual overview of where the tax rate is before we discuss an item. And if we make them take the recommendation, what it would do to the tax levy of increasing or decreasing it to help phrase the conversation.

[56:35] So Mr. Murray, if you can just give a high level overview of this one, what’s before us and what it’s gonna do to the tax rate? Sure, and through the chair, and apologies, I should’ve addressed this maybe in my introductory remarks this morning, but this is our tax levy model. We can put up on screen as you wish. It at present time reflects the assumption that all amendments will be approved. So based on that assumption, you can see the solid blue line being the 2.9% tax levy increase for 2023. As council makes different decisions, changes to amendments or does not approve some of these amendments, we can model in real time what that does to the tax levy.

[57:21] So you’ll see that solid blue line move if you deviate on any of these amendments. Thanks. In your real time modeling of this item, should we choose not to take it? Is that available? We certainly can. This is for P1 specifically, it’s a fairly significant and sizable amendment. It has approximately a 1% tax levy impact, as you can see up on screen right now.

[57:53] So we have just effectively turned it off. So again, this would be if you do not approve this amendment in its entirety again, you would be back up at about 3.9%. Okay, thank you. And I believe every 0.01 is equal to $750,000, roughly really close. That’s approximately correct, yes. Perfect. Just to give us an idea as we discuss items and sometimes how long we spend on an item recognizing the overall impact and how much time and quarterly we should set on it. This is committee.

[58:26] We can speak multiple times if you’ve already seen. I still time, just for you’re aware of it. Staff’s answer does not affect your time. And as we did after our other debates, it seemed to have worked really well if we each asked a couple of questions and then go to another speaker and come back. It just helps keep us all engaged in building off each other’s comments and ideas. I will start a speakers list for business case P1. I will start with Councillor Frank. Thank you and through the chair, I was hoping to make an amendment to this motion.

[59:04] Can I make an amendment and speak to it? Yes, wonderful, thank you. So I was hoping to make an amendment to direct staff to reallocate the $225,000 for downtown tree planting and retain that funding for tree planting across the city. I understand from staff that it is getting very hard to plant trees downtown given the urban space and they are planting their best with major construction projects using the silva cells. That being said, I would really hate to see a loss of $225,000 for our tree strategy. And I understand there is always pressure for cuts, but to your point, I think this would amount to less than a penny a day for the residents and maybe I’ll ask staff if that’s an accurate amount.

[59:47] But I do know that the city has a tree planting strategy that about 44,000 trees a year have to be planted in the city in order to achieve our canopy targets of 34% by 2065. We haven’t been able to achieve that level of planting. And so the result being we have to plant even more trees every single year in order to try and make that. Trees, of course, takes time to grow and the longer that we don’t plant them and underplant them, we have to plant more in the future, which is going to be more expensive and more difficult. So I understand again that they’re having trouble planting caliper-sized trees downtown.

[1:00:19] So I’d love to see this funding reallocated so that we can plant trees across the city, even if they are smaller and planting more. I’d just love to see that ‘cause we are trying to hit our tree planting strategy. So that’s my amendment. Thank you, and do you have a seconder for your amendment? Okay, you have several seconders. I’ll go with the Councilor Troso as a seconder. The wording is going into eScribe for Council can see it. Okay, if you hit refresh, the wording is in eScribe and for those with us, it’s up on the screen.

[1:00:55] So this amendment is now on the floor, starting a speaker’s list strictly to this item. Sorry, Madam Chair, just as a point of order. It should be moved by Councilor Frank, not by Councilor Lewis. Sorry, thank you. The clerk is correcting that. And I’ll start the speaker’s list with Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you to my colleagues for bringing this forward because as we know, we are having our canopy challenges and keeping our canopy. So if there’s another way of doing this, I’m very excited about it.

[1:01:29] I do have a question through you, Madam Chair, to staff about this amendment and the opportunities, are there opportunities in our city? And if you can just speak a little bit to that. Thank you. To Mr. Stafford. Thank you and through the Chair. Thanks for the question. There are opportunities throughout the city. There’s opportunities through enhancing the tree planting during construction projects. There is a tree planting strategy update that will be coming to Council this spring as well.

[1:02:04] So we’re just finished our internal workshops and external workshops with some of the partners in the community and we’ll be bringing that forward to the advisory committees as well. And then there’ll be a chance for Council to see where we’re headed there. And we’ll have updates to where we’re at with the canopy and where we’re at with our strategy and some of those different opportunities that we have to plant trees throughout the city, whether it be parkland or outside the urban growth boundary and various opportunities there. So that more thorough report will be coming shortly in the next few months as well.

[1:02:37] Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I just wanna thank Senator that information. I do hear from my community residents, the need for more trees. So really please that there is a strategy and that we can move this money over. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen and then Councillor Lewis. Thank you and through you, Chair. Yeah, thanks for asking that question as well. Councillor Hopkins, ‘cause it was very similar to mine. Just a comment and that is that what I saw as opportunity here was, and I’ll be supporting the amendment because it was an opportunity to look at offsetting more.

[1:03:16] So that in the future we wouldn’t see this money removed from a budget, but instead we’d see it offset to another area if we were unable to meet our tree commitment elsewhere. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Lewis and then Councillor Trovceau. Thank you, Madam Chair. Through you to our staff, this amendment notwithstanding, what are we currently spending on our tree planting strategy? And what would staff’s immediate capacity to spend this money be?

[1:03:52] Because I’m not sure that putting extra money into an area does a setting good if we don’t have the capacity to actually put it to use. Okay, so to Mr. Stafford, if you know if this money could be used for the 2023 or after that? Thank you and through the chair, there is capacity in one area. Right now it’s the construction projects throughout the city that go forward. It would help to help to offset some of the costs of those projects going forward. And then the tree planting strategy for the long term would help address some of those other areas and opportunities going forward for other years.

[1:04:29] Councillor Lewis. Sorry, I’m just looking for what we’re currently spending as well. Yeah, does staff meet a few minutes for that or? Okay. Yeah, through the chair, thanks. Yes, if I can go through my spreadsheet here to come up with that, that’d be great. Okay, so staff is digging for that number. I will go to Councillor Troe so first and then Councillor Stevenson and then back for an answer. Thank you and through the chair, I have a very direct question that there’s little remaining space to plant new downtown street trees without changes to the streetscape. My question is, how did we get to the point where we’re making substantial changes to the physical structure downtown and we’re not planning how to quit tree space from the start?

[1:05:14] I mean, what is pushing out this room that we don’t have for trees? Madam Chair, while Mr. Stafford is looking for the number in our total spend, in this case, this budget was set aside for standalone planting of trees, essentially straight into the pavement into a grate. We know that when we redo a street, we’re going to put in the appropriate underground cells to allow downtown caliber trees to be successful. We don’t have room to continue to do independent planting without moving utilities, redoing sidewalks, installing those cells, the silver cell being a brand name example.

[1:05:48] So this budget is hard to spend. When we’re doing our downtown projects, however, we are planning to make those investments in that supportive infrastructure to allow us to put in streetscapes as part of those, or trees as part of those streetscape change projects. Thank you, seems to be an issue between retroactive projects of how we’ve built with utilities and doing better going forward. Councillor Troso, are you satisfied with that before I go with Councillor Stevenson? Okay, Councillor? Thank you and through the chair. Just wanted to thank Councillor Frank for noticing that and bringing it up.

[1:06:20] I know I’ve had a lot of calls about the trees that have been taken down for the East Link of the BRT. And I think in general, I heard that at the door too, that people would like to see more trees. And so, reallocating this elsewhere in the city sounds like a great short-term thing. I’ll be supporting. Thank you. I’m hearing a lot of support for this item. I’ll just be mindful too, as we do have a long day before us, just to keep our comments really short. And thank you for not repeating so far and just saying how it relates to your word. Mr. Stafford, I’ll go to you ‘cause I see you waving at me.

[1:06:55] Thank you and through the chair. Approximately $2 million is the tree spent. Deputy Mayor Lewis. All right, thank you for that number. While I appreciate the intent of this, I’m not sure that I can support it. I’m gonna be honest and I don’t mean any disrespect to Councillor Frank. It would have been nice to have this amendment in advance. So I could think about it and ask some more detailed questions. I’m concerned and no disrespect to our staff, but I’m concerned when I hear we’re gonna take money that was in an operating expenditure recommended reduction and use it to defer some construction costs.

[1:07:36] Because those costs should be part of the tender process. Those costs should be factored into the projects as they’re brought forward. And quite honestly, setting this money aside now, how are we going to be accountable to ourselves in that it’s actually being used to offset some of those construction costs in a project because we don’t see those detailed tenders. The RFPs and the tender process are closed and not open to our picking them apart. So I appreciate the intent. I don’t have enough information to be able to support this at this time.

[1:08:12] So I’m not gonna be supportive of this amendment. Thank you. Councilor Perbal and then Councilor Hopkins. Three comments. The first one is I do think that in terms of the downtown and core, the strategy of the city is correct. And I know myself a few months ago, I contacted a city with certain trees that they need to be replaced downtown and then found out that the plants that are streetscape are within the next 12 months. So I do think that it’s a right strategy instead of planting the trees and taking them them out within the next 12 months. I do think that in terms of if we have the capacity to do honestly increase the canopy percentile to use this money, having said that what was just said, there was my question to the staff as well.

[1:09:01] I don’t mean to offset the construction costs. I don’t think they would feed the purpose and what we really wanna do. So if it’s really directly for the increase of canopy for it, if it’s offset and make up certain certain financial challenges, I’m not for it. Thank you. I don’t know if staff wants to comment on that briefly of the bits for canopy coverage versus construction offset costs. Thank you and through the chair, it’s to increase tree planting and there would be costs in construction projects for tree planting.

[1:09:33] So it would be to help offset those specific tree planting costs. Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you and through Madam Chair for allowing me just to make maybe another question. I understand this has come to us tonight, but I do sit on the planning committee and I do see, you know, as we approve development and the loss of tree canopy is real. And I’ve noticed that boulevard trees many times are part of that taking away more trees to develop.

[1:10:09] So would, through you Madam Chair to staff, would this also include, and I know we’ve got a strategy coming to us, which I’m looking forward to, but as we make decisions here today, I think it’s, you know, without putting you on the spot, are we going to be looking at opportunities that will uncover boulevard trees, for instance, and other matters, not just construction? Just a brief answer from staff, please. Sure, thank you and through the chair, yes. The upcoming tree planting strategy update will address and recommend some changes to our boulevard planting.

[1:10:46] Councillor? And just to be clear, we see that there is already $2 million and this added $225,000 for me. There is a need, it’s a lot of work to be done. So as we build, build, build, we are a forest city. So with that, I’m hoping my colleagues will support this amendment. Hey, that exhausts my speakers list and call, hey, so I have two more speakers now on my list. And just, this is strictly on the amendment and realizing there’s future reports coming.

[1:11:20] Councillor Van Merbergen and then Mayor Morgan. Thank you, Chair. Okay, we heard the number $2 million. I just wanted a little bit of clarification. Is that what the projection is for 2023? Or is that over the four-year multi-budget cycle? Could I just get, I wasn’t quite sure if I— Yeah, thank you and through the chair, it is an annual program. So as we’ve heard, that’s a significant— Through the chair, please. Permit?

[1:11:51] Through the chair, please. Yes, Chair, thank you, Chair. So as we’ve heard, it’s a significant amount that we’re investing in trees already. To my knowledge, this has gone on for several years. Can we extrapolate from what we’ve heard that over this four-year, just this four-year budget cycle that’s coming to an end, that that would approximate maybe around 8 million that we’ve spent on trees? To staff. Yes, that’s through the chair, yes.

[1:12:24] Councillor Van Merbergen. Okay, thank you very much and through you, Chair. The, thank you very much for that. I can’t see, I have to agree with the Deputy Mayor on this. The amount that we’re pouring into tree planting, I think this is really not necessary at this time as we’re trying to keep a lid on the overall taxation increase. Thanks. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Yes, thank you. So on this one, I wanna say, I appreciate the comments that were made about the process.

[1:13:02] I certainly think we obviously want to plant as many trees in our city as possible. I say that as someone who in the first multi-year budget that I was a part of moved millions of dollars of one-time funding into the tree planting program to try to boost our canopy as much as possible. But in this particular series of budget amendments, we have staff who are trying to right-size budgets. And in this case, there is a budget downtown that is not going to get utilized because they don’t have the capacity to spend the money there. So if we want to plant more trees, we can have a business case in the multi-year budget on planting more trees.

[1:13:37] We’ll know exactly where it’s gonna go. We’ll know what sort of programs we can leverage and we’ll know how that will be utilized. I think what I hear is a number of colleagues saying, there’s a need and we’ll find a spot to spend it somewhere. But that’s not how the budgeting process works. This is an amount that is not needed, won’t be utilized. We can shift it into a general pot or we can take advantage of some of the federal programs that we need to ensure are designed properly. The desire of the feds to plant a billion trees across this country needs to have a specific urban strategy so that cities like the city of London can take advantage of it.

[1:14:12] I anticipate we’ll probably have to put our own money in and we could foresee an ask in the future where we’re making contributions to the tree planting budget, leveraging the federal commitment to plant trees across this country in an urban environment. And I’m happy to support the original staff amendment now ‘cause I think it frees up our capacity to participate in those programs. It gives us the opportunity in the next multi-year budget if colleagues want to boost the tree planting budget to bring a business case forward with that in mind and see exactly how it’s gonna be spent, exactly what programs we’re gonna support, whether it’s construction related or whether it’s other areas.

[1:14:47] And that’s the way that I would prefer to do it. So it’s not that I don’t support the intent behind the motion. It’s that I think I agree with the fact that given how this came forward as something that can’t be spent, I think going through the process of backing it out here now and then pitching a very specific budget amendment in the future is the right way to go about it. We can debate and decide that later. So I just, I’m gonna vote not to support the amendment. I wanted to explain my reasons ‘cause I didn’t want it to be interpreted as not supporting planting more trees in our city, which I’ve certainly supported in the past. Thank you.

[1:15:20] One final speaker on my list being Councillor Frank and then I wish to call the question, realizing this is just an amendment and it’s such a small, small portion of the overall budget. When we’re talking about a billion dollars, this is $225,000 of it. So I now have Councillor Frank and Councillor Layman, I believe, 60 second comments, please. Absolutely, thank you and through the chair. I think I just wanted to summarize, one, when I heard the $2 million figure, I was like, wow, that’s so low. So I find it very fascinating that we all have very different perspectives and I appreciate that, but I do think that every year that we wait to not plant trees is a year that we’re not meeting canopy targets and a year that we’re not meeting our climate change targets.

[1:16:00] And so I don’t want to defer it to the multi-year budget because we again will have to wait another year and trees will have to be planted this May and that will be before the budget process happens. So I’m still gonna be supporting this amendment. Councillor Layman. Thank you, Chair, for indulging me. I understand you want to keep things moving and it’s on the halls, not a big figure, but I think the mayor raises a very good point. It’s about process here.

[1:16:34] And the staff spent a lot of time going through and finding areas where, for whatever reason, the monies are no longer needed. And then as soon as they find that way to add hawk, look for ways to spend it outside of the process that we have in the four-year budget, which our business cases are brought forward and decisions are made on allocations of funds. And for that reason alone, I will not be supporting this. Looking to staff for clarification on item P1 as the tree planting, looking for clarification for numbers for our clerk, as the number relates to operating expenditures and capital expenditures for these trees, just looking for clarification numbers, Mr. Murray.

[1:18:09] Through you, Madam Chair, the updated numbers for the, are you looking, I guess, through you to the clerk for the total revised numbers for the amendment or for the, sorry, for the budget amendment as a whole or for specifically for this amendment. Thank you, through the chair. I apologize for slowing this down, but there is an effect to the P1 business case on both the operating and the capital proposed reductions.

[1:18:48] So I have added the effect that this proposed amendment will have to the wording, and I will refresh this in E-Scribe for everybody’s consideration, thank you. It’s now in E-Scribe, so hit refresh through the Councillors and for staff, ‘cause we’ll look for your input on wording and numbers, Mr. Murray. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:19:26] I can confirm that those figures are correct. Councillor Pribble, you’re fine, or you’re not fine. If the amendment is just dealing with the trees downtown proposal, if I read the trite, it’s 100% capex, the amount allocated. Mr. Murray. Through you, Madam Chair, the programming question here, the downtown street tree planting is, in fact, a capital program.

[1:19:59] So that is being reduced and reflected in the figures you see on screen, because it is funded through capital levy, it also has a tax levy impact, so that has also been adjusted on screen. This program specifically does not have an operating budget impact. Okay, thank you, the clerk is pleased. Okay, she’s very pleased. So the wording is correct, the numbers is correct. I’m looking to call the question, this is strictly on the amendment, Mayor Morgan.

[1:20:34] No more, no, no, Mayor Morgan, no, yes, yes. Yes, I want to confirm with our staff that if it’s part of the capital levy, how are you saying it doesn’t have an operating budget ask? Are you not reducing the overall capital levy portion of the operating budget, irrespective of whether this amendment passes or not? I just want to understand that piece. To staff? I apologize, I’m in spoke, as it does affect the capital levy, it does, in fact, affect the operating budget. And I can confirm that those figures, as it relates to the operating expenditure, the tax levy and the capital expenditure, those revised figures are correct.

[1:21:17] Thank you, that was a very important clarification for me. Okay, so your screens are refreshed and it’s strictly the amendment to the main motion we’re voting on right now, not the main motion. So a yes reallocates the money, a no does not. If you vote yes, it takes the money out of the staff’s recommendation and puts that tree planting money into the construction or into somewhere else. If you vote no, you’re moving not to reallocate that money and leave it as per staff’s recommendation.

[1:22:29] Closing the vote, the motion is lost, seven to seven. Okay, so motions fail on a tied vote. As we heard, there’s an opportunity to bring this forward at the multi-year budget process. We can move when staff’s report comes back to do more tree allocation or specific targeted areas as well. So what’s before you now is this default back to the original staff recommendation that was before you. Looking for, Councillor Lewis is a mover. Councillor Troso is not a seconder.

[1:23:04] Councillor Layman is a seconder. My speaker’s list will start with Councillor Troso. I think this one will, through the chair, I think this one will be easy, through the chair presumably to Mr. Stanford. I just wanna make absolutely sure that this is reflecting costs that have already been saved and doesn’t do anything to further delay the green bin implementation program. I just have to be absolutely sure about that. Okay, this is a green bin question. This would be for Jay. Our green bin delays so far have been redo due to chassis supply chain issues with the trucks and wanting to roll out a pilot project backed onto the full city rollout.

[1:23:50] But Mr. Stanford, if you could just confirm, do you need the question repeated? If it’s possible through the chair, I apologize I was tucked in the back. That’s okay, it was strictly pertain to green bin, so please repeat it. Thank you and through the chair, thank you Mr. Stanford for answering this. But I just want to confirm absolutely and without equivocation that this is not going to do anything to further delay the implementation of the green bin rollout.

[1:24:28] But that it’s just reflecting savings that have already been incurred. Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, that is correct. This is not further change or any delay. Okay, Councilor Pervall. So the chair to the staff, Mr. Stanford, actually follow up if we are talking about the green bins. Last we know that the rollout should start in the beginning of summer and October we are looking at a full rollout. Are we still on track with those dates? Mr. Stanford.

[1:24:59] Through the chair, based on available information from our truck manufacturer right now, we are targeting about an October 1st rollout for the city, still subject to final confirmation. If we’re able to move anything sooner, that will be brought forward to committee and council. But at this point, no, the major rollout is more towards fall. We were hoping for maybe something sooner, but with no new information on the vehicles right now, that is just not something we can plan for at this point. Thank you.

[1:25:30] Welcome to my life of hoping for green bins for years. My speaker, it’s true. The delays have been astronomical thanks to the pandemic. Mayor Morgan is next and then Councillor Ferrera. Yes, I wanna speak in support of case P1 and I wanna make just a couple of comments to do so. So case P1 is really related to the service review process that council put in place in its first multi-year budget. And over that time, civic administration has carved out over $70 million of savings without any significant reductions in service through finding efficiencies through zero base budgeting, through Lean Six Sigma.

[1:26:14] That’s basically dropping the tax levy by over $24 million and it kind of a net cumulative savings of over $70 million now. This is essentially our place where everybody who talks about, let’s find the $50 hammer in the corporation. Let’s find the efficiency. This is essentially the culture of efficiency that has been baked into the corporation through years of training and successive service reviews. And this is where we find those efficiencies that don’t impact jobs or service levels for lenders. And I wanna commend civic administration because this business case, although it’s just one business case of many, represents an incredible amount of work across multiple divisions to try to find these efficiencies and savings.

[1:26:58] And so for each and every individual staff member who contributed to this, I wanna say thank you for doing that. And I also wanna commend civic administration. We only control certain parts of our budget. We’ve got boards of commissions and outside pressures. And I think each and every year civic administration does more than it’s shared to try to find those savings and put counsel in a position to be able to make the investments that we wanna make by finding the efficiencies that allow us to offset those tax pressures. This business case is going to bring down the increase dramatically as we spend the rest of the day debating whether or not to accept the business cases that we may put some back in and we may take some out.

[1:27:38] That yes, is yet to be determined through the discussions we’ll have. But this sets us up very well to have capacity and flexibility within our discussions today. So I strongly encourage you to support case P1 and I wanna strongly thank our staff and all the work that’s been done to find these savings. I think it’s incredible. Thank you, Councillor Ferrera. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. So I have one, I just have some questions just for clarification on amendment case P1. And it’s in the additional details section right at the end.

[1:28:13] The right sizing of subsidized transit due to lower than anticipated ridership. So I just wanted to know since there may have an impact in the foreseeable future. Sorry, Councillor Ferrera, could you just move your mic a little bit closer? I’ll just move up closer to the mic. So basically what I just wanted to clarify was just more details like exactly where these subsidized dollars for transit would go, where they would ultimately fall or where they wouldn’t fall. Like for example, would it go to the LTC or does it go to paratransit or some other type of subsidized services?

[1:28:50] Thank you, Ms. Miller. Thank you and through the chair, the city of London currently subsidized five subsidized transit programs. Children 12 years of age and under 100% subsidy. Youth ages 13 to 17 received 36% subsidy on a monthly pass. Senior 65 and over received 25% subsidy on tickets only. Visually impaired receive 100% subsidy. And individuals 18 and over who are eligible for our income related monthly pass receive a 36% subsidy.

[1:29:25] So we fund based on actuals and based on actual ridership. In 2022, our budget for all five of these programs was approximately 2 million. And although we’ve been slowly increasing our ridership since COVID, we are just spending under a million dollars. So civic administration proposed a right sizing of this budget. It will still allow us with $1.5 million for these five programs where we fund actual usage for 2023 moving forward. If ridership does increase over the coming years, then we will look at that as part of them next multi-year budget.

[1:30:01] But civic administration and finance field that we have a good amount of money in our 2023 proposed budget to support increased ridership in any of these five programs. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Councilor Ferris, I can question her. And thank you through you just to follow up. So just to confirm if there is a requirement as more people are riding using these services that need to subsidize transit, the funding will be there. That’s just really what I wanted to confirm. Yeah, I believe that’s been confirmed.

[1:30:33] Thank you, and through the chair at that screw, we do not have wait lists for any of these programs. So we would fund actual ridership for all of these programs. Okay, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know Councillor Tresault had his hand up as well. But if he would allow me to go first, I’m good with that. And I would like to follow up with Councillor Ferris, questions around the subsidy programs. I’m really pleased that we are meeting the demand. Obviously there hasn’t been the demand throughout COVID, the ridership has gone down.

[1:31:09] As we go into the next four year budget, which I assume is going to be happening later on this year, the subsidy programs that we provide, will we be, where are the conversations to be had? Is it now after we go, we complete this 2023 budget? And then we start looking at the next four years. So if we are wanting to increase subsidies within our programs, what does that process look like? Thank you.

[1:31:42] Thank you for that multi-year budget fund does start with me in April. And to staff, when’s the appropriate time to get those numbers back and dig into them and look at the changes? Thank you. And through the chair, as part of our review of our current subsidized transit program, we will be looking at, in particular, all five of our programs for the next multi-year budget. And in particular, our income-related transit program for adults, so we will be bringing back as part of the multi-year budget, perhaps an enhanced or a review of our current programs. Hey, I see a thumbs up and a smile from the counselor, so I’ll go to counselor Trump, so.

[1:32:21] When I thank you through the chair, when I read this, I was having a difficult time understanding how cutting subsidies is going to increase ridership. But I think you’ve been helpful on that. My big concern here now is paratransit. Is this just in a totally different universe than what we’re talking about on this line? Yeah, to staff, realizing the counselors are also new, of just even outlining how paratransit works as we have had lots of community conversations and concerns as well about that. And maybe the best way to have those conversations productively.

[1:32:57] Through you, Madam Chair, the Civic Administration’s responsibility is for the subsidy programs that Ms. Smith has identified. The delivery of transit and parent transit rests with London Transit Commission. And if there are specific questions for that, I would recommend that we ask Ms. Pelezny to attend and she would be in the best position to answer those questions. Just to reiterate, we’re responsible for the subsidy programs from a Civic Administration perspective. Okay, and so just to clarify, that would be asking Ms. Pelezny to attend at a future and scheduled meeting in which we could be prepared to ask her our questions.

[1:33:35] Councilor Troso? So there’s no possibility administratively or practically to transfer this funding into improved paratransit at this time. Ms. Livingston. Madam Chair, if Council wish to make that budget amendment for 2023 to direct this funding to go to the allocation that is provided to London Transit Commission, I believe that is absolutely within your purview. Councilor Troso, I don’t know if you wanna, I do have a speaker’s list, but if you have a motion.

[1:34:19] Hey, thank you, just your mic’s not on. And there is a realizing we are going to the multi-year budget and London Transit Commission is arms length in the city. You can certainly ask for them to come in, have our questions ready, ask for their budget, and realizing we also have two counselors appointed to serve on LTC. We can involve in some conversations with them as well. Realizing a person would just be given the money and not knowing if they can even spend it or what they do with it.

[1:34:53] And if we would have the desired outcome, you seem to be very passionate about making sure that people have better services. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Through you, just something that I wish to share with all colleagues. When it comes to our outside agencies, boards, and commissions, they set their own budget priorities and their own expenditures. So while we could direct additional funding to them, we have no direct authority on how they choose to spend it. That is the purview of those boards and their CEOs in terms of bringing forward a budget.

[1:35:29] So it is with appreciation. I will share with all of council. I had a great meeting with Jeff Preston last week. I had a great meeting with Jackie Madden this week about the needs of paratransit. I certainly think there are some drastic improvements needed there. That said, sending LTC funding through a budget amendment today guarantees zero extra dollars get spent on paratransit. The board will spend that as they choose. So, and that would be true of all of our boards and agencies and commissions.

[1:36:04] So I just want to flag that for colleagues now in case similar thoughts are floating around about other budget amendment proposals today. We cannot guarantee how those boards spend their money. Thank you. I will also comment as a budget chair. I’ve had conversations with those individuals as well or upcoming meetings with them as well to help identify the issue in the best ways forward. I do have Councillor Hopkins and then I’ll go back to Councillor Chaucer. I’ll go to the council, okay, perfect. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[1:36:35] And I did serve briefly on the LTC board and I just want to reiterate what Deputy Mayor Lewis spoke about doing redirecting funds right now regarding paratransit is not the way to do it. I know we’ve got two Councillors on the board and the board makes that decision. And I think that’s where it should be. I think we need, if we’re going to do anything, I would want to know exactly what the numbers look like and what the concerns are from Ms. Pelletchney and from the board’s comments as well.

[1:37:14] So I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you, Councillor Chaucer. Thank you, that’s very helpful. I’m not going to make an amendment on this, but I just want to just indicate this is going to be something that we need to spend a lot of time talking about. Perfect, I will ask our budget team to connect with you offline, specifically then of the best way forward and timing to bring this forward for the multi-year budget process. We have a proper conversation through committee or through here, Councillor Pribbles now satisfied. I have no one else on my speaker’s list in regards to item P1 calling the question.

[1:37:57] Digital question, please proceed. If we were in the side of the 7/7 vote, do we still vote yes on everything or is it understood that we voted? I’m a little confused, could you explain that to me? Through the chair, all of the voting records will be reflected in the report from this committee meeting that will go forward to council. So voting yes on this doesn’t undo my vote on the amendment. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to zero.

[1:38:51] Okay, thank you, that moves us on to case P2, the Ontario Works and Children’s Services reduction in required 2023 investments. Looking to staff of how you’ve pulled this apart, recognizing we have one conflict in here to allow Councillor van Bergen to vote and discuss the rest. Thank you through the chair.

[1:39:26] So we have split these into two pieces, one relating to Ontario Works specifically, and then the other piece relating to the two childcare components based on the conflict that has been declared, thanks. Hey, we’re gonna discuss the Ontario Works piece first for the full conversation. The wording is just going up into E-Scribe now, and then I’ll start my speaker’s list.

[1:39:58] If anyone would like on it strictly for the Ontario Works piece of P2. I’ll start with Councillor Ferrera, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Just one very simple question on that. So I see that the reason for this budget amendment is the case load is dropped from 11,000 to I think 9,000 or something like that, families. And I just wanted to know, I can see that we’re trying to save some money, we’re trying to throttle the services down just because the need is not there.

[1:40:35] But if the need does increase in the future, for instance, maybe we have another spike in the pandemic or we have some type of economic slowdown in the near future, would we be able to throttle that back up and actually provide these services in a timely manner? Okay, Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through the chair, yes, our forecasts are based on eventual forecasting reports that we receive throughout the year. It’s also based on some of our in-house forecasting. We’re quite confident that if we see a drastic increase or spike in the Ontario Works case load, we would still be able to manage our high standard of service delivery.

[1:41:14] And we’ve accounted for that in the business case that you see before you. Counselor? No, that’s everything. I just wanted to just confirm that, thank you. Look, can you see if there’s any other speaker on just strictly the Ontario Works piece? I’ll also need a mover and a seconder of that piece. My next speaker is Councillor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And that’s exactly why I had raised my hand because we didn’t have a mover and a seconder yet. So I am prepared to move this. Okay, are you gonna have comments too?

[1:41:45] We’re just moving it. Okay, my seconder is Councillor Van Merbergen. We’re just putting that into you scribe now, looking to see if there’s any further speakers strictly on the Ontario Works piece. Okay, if you’ll refresh, it’s in there and calling the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[1:42:32] Thank you, that brings us into the second half of case P2 which is pertaining to childcare. So Councillor Van Merbergen gets a brief break at this point. There is coffee available in the Councillors lounge, just to let you know. I am, you can stay. This is your opportunity to stretch your legs. Also for anyone else who’s been sitting for too long, you’re welcome to walk around the room and pace as you will. So looking for a mover and a seconder for the childcare portion, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by the Mayor, starting a speaker’s list for any questions or comments you have regarding it.

[1:43:11] I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. My question pertains to the governance risk outlined in this part C. Specifically, it says that cost savings could be redirected to other expansion opportunities that may materialize in 2023, given what we know about the childcare. I’ll call it a crisis. I’m wondering, should we be more prudent to put that aside just in case anything does surface and that way we have some extra dollars to help meet the needs of families that are really struggling with childcare.

[1:43:49] Thank you. Okay, to staff in the gallery. Sorry, I need a mic on just in the gallery once. Okay, test it out. Test test. Perfect. Thank you and through the chair. I would say in our modeling with finance for expansion in 2023, we are quite confident that if any opportunities come up that are shelved already, we can accommodate them with an existing budget. We do list it as a consideration here because we know about the need and the spiking demand for childcare, particularly under the candle wide early learning and childcare framework.

[1:44:25] In the intervening time since this business case was first developed, the province has announced a targeted expansion strategy. We are waiting on further information, but we understand this will come with both capital startup and operating funding. And so we don’t anticipate that our existing expansion budget will be stretched in any way. Thank you, Councilor Ramana, follow up. Thank you, do we have any indication of whether or not that’ll still be on the same split to staff? Thank you and through you, Madam Chair, are we talking about the 80/20 split?

[1:45:00] We, so that is the current state for 2023. The other future unknown is there is a forthcoming childcare funding formula change, which is expected to be in place for January 1st, 2024. And so we’ll be involved in some conversations this year with the Ministry of Education, but we don’t have details at this time what that will look like in future years. Thank you. Looking for another speaker on the list, seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 13 to zero with one recused.

[1:45:52] Excellent job. That moves us on to 4.2. Review of recommended property tax capital budget amendments. There’s 4.2 A and B. I have not been given notice to pull any. So looking for a mover and a seconder of both items moved by Councilor McAllister, seconded by Councilor Ferreira and starting my speakers list. I will also note that Mr. Chisholm from the LMCH is available virtually, I believe. Should there be any questions? Okay, not yet.

[1:46:29] Okay, so if there was really in-depth questions on, let’s just take care of, I guess the question’s gonna be, does anyone have in-depth questions for B that we would need specific questions to get into? I’ll, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to share, there was a London Housing Board subcommittee meeting last night. So Mr. Chisholm actually asked me to stay on the call at the end of the meeting to advise that he is meeting with the Chief of Police this morning as well to discuss security issues around LMCH properties, of course.

[1:47:09] So I’m just gonna offer a really brief comment to put it in the simplest possible terms. This Budget Case P9, if colleagues look through their budget document, this impact is just simply moving ahead a year. This impact would have come a year later. This allows us to get moving on the reimagined South Dale Project a year, almost a year ahead of schedule in terms of getting those old townhouses demolished and the shovels in the ground for the new apartment building. So I do encourage colleagues to support this so we can get those new rent-gear-to-income units under construction sometime this year.

[1:47:50] Thank you. I don’t know if, staff, if we’re gonna have specific questions for Mr. Chisholm, staff can maybe reach out to see if we had expected that 10.30, we’re on it to reach out. So looking to see what your other questions are right now and we can always, okay, he’s just coming in now. So we’ll just give him a chance to log in for he’s not trying to catch up. Hey, welcome Mr. Chisholm.

[1:48:27] We are on your business case. Deputy Mayor Lewis has given us an overview, a really high overview of things. Welcome, we are just starting our speakers list and I will start it with Councillor Troso. Through the chair, thank you very much, Mr. Chisholm, for joining us. I support this, but my question is given the need for immediate improvements of what I consider to be some life-threatening situations that I’ve seen in other buildings.

[1:49:07] Why is this not more? Probably not a popular question to be asking at a budget meeting, but I just think there’s so much work that needs to be done. And yeah, I’m in favor of this, but could someone answer that? Mr. Chisholm? This business specifically focuses on starting to regenerate the London Middlesex community housing portfolio, which is on average 50 years old. So this investment is focused on building for the future of housing.

[1:49:39] We’ve had some business cases submitted through the multi-year budget process in 2018. And we’ll be putting in requests for additional funds in the 2024 budget to improve things like community intake and support, community safety, and other elements, we think will contribute to the issues you’re raising. But this one is focused specifically on the capital funding required to start our first redevelopment. So while we don’t disagree that additional funding would support achieving better housing for our residents, we wanna make sure we do that thoughtfully, purposefully, and we are able to have an impact.

[1:50:18] So we’ll wait for that submission until 2024. Hey, thank you. So I hear that more is coming in the multi-year budget process with a thoughtfully laid out thing. So Councilor Troso, a follow-up? Yeah, I just, the problem I’m having with this, and I wanna work with you on this, and I get too far ahead of the situation, but I’ve seen life-threatening situations in very dangerous situations that I think need to be addressed. Having said that, I’ve only been in, I have not been in all the buildings. I’ve been in buildings in my ward, and I’ve just seen things that are just appalling, and I’m just wondering when they’re gonna get fixed.

[1:50:56] And you know, because you were kind enough to take me through, which I really appreciated. Are you looking for a comment on like the long-range plan of LMCH, of how long until what kind of issues are fixed, I guess, specifically? Well, I mean, there are a number, there are a number of specific maintenance items that need to be done at, for example, 345. Horncliffe right away, some of those have to do with security, some of those have to do with the condition of the garbage room, where you’ve got like, open containers of needle sitting there, and I’m just very concerned about the situation.

[1:51:32] I get a lot of calls from residents, and I feel I need to raise it at this point. Okay, thank you. I will highlight this is strictly due to the capital expenditures of LMCH, and recognizing they also have full comprehensive reports, and they do come before us, and present as well. Mr. Chisholm, if you just give a high overview question of, I guess, next steps to deal with the other outlying concerns in the community. All right, and through the chair, the issues that the council raises are real for our residents. In just speaking to the site that we toured, we have done things, we have overnight security at three of our sites.

[1:52:14] We are implementing improved FOB access to things like garbage rooms and building spaces to support a safer environment for our tenants. And we’re looking at what other measures we need to do. That building is also part of a CMHC-funded program, previously approved through the multi-year budget process, where we’re improving the community spaces, laundry rooms, and some of the community rooms in that building. So we have a lot of things happening at that building, and we will be putting an RFP out in the coming months to refresh our cleaning services, and we know we need to increase the number of hours at many of our sites to improve the cleanliness.

[1:53:01] We’re experiencing a lot of issues with unhoused and guest-creating issues in our buildings that are sometimes cleaning, sometimes safety, and we’re continually working on those. And while it gets worse every winter, we know that we need ongoing investments to improve that, and that’s what we’ll be bringing back to through the multi-year budget. Through the chair, thank you. That is very helpful. I do not want to support your case, P9, I think what you’re doing there is very important. I’m not going to offer an amendment or oppose this measure at this time.

[1:53:37] I just want to thank you again for addressing my concerns, and I’ll be looking at this very carefully. Thank you, Ms. Barbone. Did you want to make comment on this as well? Thank you through the chair. If I could actually draw your attention to 258 in the budget surlocks. Sorry, a little bit louder, please. Oh, sorry. If I can draw your attention to page 258 in the budget surlocks, that is the list of all the business cases that are approved already included in the 2023-based budget. So you’ll note that there are four business cases that support increases to the London and Middlesex community housing budgets.

[1:54:17] So case number 12 for addressing the infrastructure gap. Case number 18, which is the co-investment with the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation, as well as case 19, which is specifically staffing and security, as well as case 21, which is the regeneration of public housing, which is tied to the advancement of them. They request that you see before you today. So there are increases already included, and as part of the tax rate that you are approving. Councilor Troso comment on that or just a thumbs up, a thumbs up is perfect. Mayor Morgan’s next on my list, and then that would exhaust my list.

[1:54:52] So if you would like on it, let me know. Yes, thank you. And to Mr. Chisholm, I don’t have a question, I’m gonna make a comment. First off, I would encourage everyone to support this case. As a deputy mayor outlined, this is an important component of the strategy of our housing, social housing corporation, to both renew its units, as well as provide additional amenities to residents. This is mainly linked to the Southdale community components, where we have a 68 existing townhouse units that will be replaced by 265 new units.

[1:55:31] This will enable phase one to happen sooner. The consequence of delaying this budget amendment and not moving the money up is it may impact the financing, substantially delay the construction of those new units. And for the first time, I think in 60 years, we’re actually constructing net new social housing in our city. So this is a really critical business case. It’s actually quite exciting that we’re moving it forward in the budget process, such as Councillor Trostau’s point. This is really needed, it was needed years ago. And so to see it move up in the process and get phase one started early is great to his further points.

[1:56:08] And I’ll be very conscious to keep it tight for the budget chair on the conditions of the units across the whole portfolio. That’s why it’s so important for the other project that they’re working on with CMHC to refurbish and rebuild 2,000 units and upgrade them across the spectrum. I know the boards working very hard to do that as quick as possible, given the capacity that they have. They have that money in place. CMHC has been very generous with the loan and the grant portions. And I think they’re executing that strategy at the same time as they’re rebuilding and creating net new units.

[1:56:42] So I think there’s a lot of activity happening on the capital side within the housing stock and it’s really important. But this is a really critical business case on the capital side to ensure that things happen sooner. I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. My question is regarding P8. While I recognize that it’s a $10 million decrease in the capital expenditure, I was looking at the projects. And for instance, for example, part A, the Richmond and Fanshawe Road intersection.

[1:57:20] Am I reading it right that the project cost is over 100% higher than original? The staff, Ms. Chair? Mr. McRae is available to answer questions related to the transportation projects. Thank you. Thank you. Come on down, Mr. McRae. Sorry, just one moment. A mic for the gallery, please. Try again, please. Thank you, through the chair. Yes, it’s been certainly unusual times with respect to construction, cost, escalations in the last year or two.

[1:57:54] A lot of the estimates for these projects were entered into the budget process approximately five years ago, sort of during the creation of the last development charges background study. And so the budgets are somewhat dated. This is typically reasonably manageable. However, the rapid escalations in construction costs and particularly some material prices has resulted in certainly higher than typical increases. So you are correct that is the approximate magnitude of the additional costs required to deliver that project at the intersection of Fanshawe and Richmond Street.

[1:58:36] Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. It did note here that 40% of the budget amendment approximately is due to current economic factors. 30% with additional property-related cost and that 30% is attributed to addressing requirements and findings that arose during the detailed engineering phase. And I’m noticing that in a lot of these projects were 72% over budget, 60% over budget, 100% over budget. And a fair amount of that, I think most of us, not in the industry, can understand the economic factors.

[1:59:13] Apologize. But I’m wondering, I’m seeing like 30 to 40% of the increase due to new information that arose during the engineering phase. So I’m just wondering if there could just be some informed staff response there. So an informed staff response of like what these increases are that was coming forward in the engineering phase? Yeah, for the engineering phase. Okay, Mr. McRae. Yeah, certainly through the chair, I’m happy to elaborate on that. So yes, there is typically a component related to property and that relates to property acquisition and costs that we’ve seen just with respect to the rising property values.

[1:59:56] With respect to additional requirements and findings that arise during the detailed engineering phase. There are particular acute project risk components. Oftentimes these relate to third party utility requirements that we don’t become aware of until the detailed design of those external assets is developed. And much of that work has to happen by the external utility partners.

[2:00:31] Another area of risk often is the underground conditions. So the soils and groundwater levels. And again, figuring out the depths of the pipe, how those interact with soils and additional procedures and that need to be included in the construction tenders. Councilor? Thank you very much. And through the chair, being new to this and wanting to understand this a little bit better. I’m wondering when project costs are like over 100% higher, what the processes are at what point we look at modifying the project or whether we move forward on it, what the process is there.

[2:01:14] Mr. McRae. Certainly that begins the environmental assessment phase when that is sort of the preliminary planning stage of the project and the need and justification is considered at that point. And also do nothing alternative is always considered during the environmental assessment phase. As we learn more, we are cognizant of the big picture and we will reevaluate based on additional information that becomes available, particularly relating to costs.

[2:01:56] And that is certainly something we will consider and if appropriate recommend for council’s approval, reevaluation of a project on the whole, if appropriate. Thank you. Councilor Stevenson, are you satisfied at the moment? Thank you. Just a final question or maybe a comment that as we move forward into 2023 and these kind of cost overruns, I’ll be asking a lot more questions, I think, as to what we can do to bring these back into alignment, if anything.

[2:02:32] Absolutely. And that’ll be a decent portion of the multi-year budget process too of looking at inflationary pressures as we always pad out the budget, but could not have foreseen this coming with the pandemic. So I have Councilor McAllister left next and then Councilor Raman and then Councilor Pribble. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you and my comment is in regards to P9 and the request from London Real Sex Housing. And I’ve had a few meetings with London Real Sex Housing and I just want to reiterate to my colleagues how important and great the need is for housing in the city.

[2:03:11] I don’t remember the number off the top of my head, maybe Mr. Chisholm can chime in after I finished in terms of the number, but I believe it’s well over 6,000 on the wait list. And we as the city do manage the wait list and the need is so great. So I would ask my colleagues to support this because it’s nice to actually see after decades of not building anything that we were getting shovels on the ground and building new units for Londoners who desperately need new housing. And Mr. Chisholm, if you just want to chime in and give the exact number of our wait list currently. Yeah, Mr. Chisholm. Oh, Kevin can do this well, sorry.

[2:03:43] So I’ll let Mr. Chisholm ‘cause he’s been called out and then I’ll go to staff for a follow if you wish. Thank you, if Kevin has the number available, I’d appreciate him to give a current, the number we provided to the board at our orientation was from October. So I think it’d be best to use the city number. Mr. Dickens. Thank you and through the chair, the current wait list of our social housing wait list is approximately 6,000 applications. So the team is continuing to work with those on the wait list to make sure we’re actually doing a reach and engagement and we’re looking at methods and processes that we could put in place to enhance that case management component, looking ahead to future plans and multi-year budgets and things like that.

[2:04:36] But at this time there’s approximately 6,000 applications on the social housing wait list that we as the service manager continue to manage. Thank you. Councillor McAllister, you’re satisfied? Perfect, Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. I had a question about P8 part I, the Sunningdale Road widening and just wanted some additional information regarding the move for moving the timeline from 2023 to 2025. What can be shared?

[2:05:11] Thank you. Mr. McCray. Yeah, thank you through the chair. Yes, part I is, indicates a revised schedule for the projects and certainly not an indication of lower priority. But rather it’s driven in particular for the Sunningdale Road improvements, the influence of external privately owned utilities within the project footprint and procedures associated with relocating how those procedures are undertaken and paid for.

[2:05:51] So it’s an unusual utility in that corridor and something the project team is actively working on. So the project is active, it is continuing and it’s an important project with respect to flow of all modes, both vehicular transit, walking, cycling. And so we’re keen to see the projects progress. However, we have to work through some of these challenges imposed by third parties and we’ll continue to look for opportunities to work with developers in the corridor because we know the needs for the improvements in the corridor are growing and so working with both developers and also in-term city led improvements that can be done without while at the same time avoiding any sort of throwaway costs that from infrastructure that would need to be reconstructed in the near-term large capital project.

[2:06:58] Sir, follow up. Thank you and through you. Yes, just to follow up with this deferral, let’s call it, of the schedule from 2023 to 25. Does that mean that there will be no consideration for any traffic mitigation strategies in that area, in that time or is it just related to the widening? Thank you, Mr. McRae. Yes, through the chair, we’re certainly aware of the acute needs, particularly where new developments are occurring and we see that happening throughout the corridor and at the near the intersection of Richmond Street.

[2:07:40] So again, we work with developers to get in-term immediate improvements in place. We’ll certainly scrutinize the corridor. The large capital project is near-term. So we’ll just, we need to make sure that there’s value for money and any in-term improvements being implemented such that they don’t need to be removed or reconstructed at the time of the capital project, but certainly we’ll staff will be scrutinizing the corridor to look for any improvements recognizing that the needs are current and continue to grow along Sunday and Dale Road.

[2:08:19] Okay, Councillor, if you have a followup, I’m gonna go to our speaker and then come back. Okay, a final comment. Thank you, through you. Just final comment, you know, one of the challenges that I see with our budgeting right now is we’ve lost significant revenue to do infrastructure projects in the north and the west, whether it’s through some of our funding changes with BRT and the new transit station. And now with this deferral and there are significant traffic and congestion needs.

[2:08:55] And this is a fast-growing part of the city and we really need to look at how we invest. Thank you. Thank you. I had Councillor Pribble and then Councillor Troso. And I just actually noticed now that’s not my question, but I just noticed now in the budget presentation, we are, there’s a proposal of savings and capex mine 10 million. And then in the minutes, sorry, in the agenda for today, it’s actually plus 10 million. So I think if that could be please corrected. But my question is this, we do have certain savings compared to the budget and we are putting these projects and as it was said mainly in the north, we are putting it to 24 29.

[2:09:38] My question is in the, in terms of the future procedures and approving the projects, if it’s moved to the next four years and actually the money is not there because we are, we have much smaller savings that we are pushing up. Does it come back to the council as part of the budget? Is it going to be an additional amendment in the four years? To staff, thank you through the chair. You’re asking me to correct to address that comment initially about the project.

[2:10:16] There’s two questions for you now. One is what’s with the 10 million plus or minus? And then the second question, the council will repeat it. So answer the first one, then he’ll repeat a second. So the first question, the 10 million dollar is the deferral is the summary of all of the items contained within business case P8. So that is the total of all the deferrals that is going forward and that is the correct total that is being deferred. And councilor Pribble, if you repeat your second question about budgeting and… Yeah, so I just want to note in this, we are in negative minus 10 million and this we are plus 10 million what we got today.

[2:10:54] So there is just the minus one. Councilor, could you state a page number or a number to help staff follow along? Okay, page 31. And if you look on the B point I, we are in a minus 10. And if you look at today’s page two. To staff?

[2:11:30] I tend to be corrected, it is correct. I just looked at it. Excellent. So the numbers, sorry, the numbers are correct. Going back to the actually my second question. So we do have certain savings minus 10 million dollars but the projects are being deferred which are much more than the 10 million dollars. So how does it work in terms of we just pushed right now, let’s say 35 million dollars to the following four years? So how does it work for these projects? Because point one, how are we gonna… Are they a goal, are we gonna start as a council from the beginning, is it gonna be an amendment?

[2:12:07] That’s first part of the question and second, as you see the other projects that were the other projects that were introduced throughout this amendment, they are much higher as well, right? So my question is, we are pushing it into the next four years. How is the process gonna be if those projects are still in or we start from the beginning? Thank you through the chair. So what we’re effectively doing here is shifting the timing of these projects. So where funding is being pushed from 2023 to 2024 or 2025, assuming this amendment is approved, it will be adjusted accordingly in our budgets.

[2:12:45] You will then see that. You’ll have the opportunity to review that again when we come to the multi-year budget next year. You will have the opportunity to again, review and re-approve the budgets for that year and in subsequent years as well. So based on the direction here today, we will adjust our budgets accordingly, but for those projects in 2024 and beyond, you will see those and vote on those again next year. Councilor Pribble, are you satisfied? Yes, I have, thank you. Okay, Councilor Troso’s and then Councilor Graham-Rogan that’s currently in my speaker’s list.

[2:13:19] I’m not going to go into a full discussion of why I think road widening is a poor solution to traffic congestion and how it just pushes it down the line to somebody else. So I’m just gonna keep this on this budget item today and ask why is this money being paid for by the city, shouldn’t this have been figured into the cost of the new development? Because if you need to widen Sunnydale Road, it’s not just coming from people going to the golf course, it’s coming from the massive new development out there. Is that a question to staff that you’d like a response on?

[2:13:57] Yeah, Councilor Gooden-Krust stuff from staff. Through the chair, yeah, thank you. So you will see for each of these parts, A2I in this budget amendment, you will see a table that is called the capital budget source of financing amendment table. And that shows for each of those specific projects, how that project is funded. And for all of these projects, you are quite correct that there are, sorry, in terms of the page number, referring at least for the first one to page 133, that’s for part A.

[2:14:33] You will see the capital budget source of financing amendment table there. So you can see for part A of this amendment specifically, a significant portion of the $13.3 million increase for this specific project, approximately 11.6 million of that increase is in fact attributable to growth and is in fact paid for through development charges. So there are definitely different funding splits for each of these projects.

[2:15:05] Because they’re all growth projects, they all certainly do have a development charges component that goes towards paying for them. Councilor. Thank you through the chair. But still there is a request being made. And I know it’s on capital and it’s not gonna show up in the assessment, but it’s still taxpayer money. Why are these growth-induced improvements not being referred to the assessment growth where they would have to compete with a lot of other claims?

[2:15:42] Why are they getting sort of a pass from having to go through that difficult process? Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So the important thing to note here is that the development charges background study determines the priorities for capital-related growth funding. The assessment growth process relates to the operating side of any growth-related improvements or any growth projects in the city. So the priorities and the funding splits and what portion is funded through DCs comes through the DC background study and that determines the timing of those projects as well, which then based on other factors, as you’ve seen articulated in each of these various components here, that could change, but it’s originally set through the DC background study.

[2:16:39] Sorry, through the chair, please. Through the chair, I don’t wanna take this whole thing apart or offer a motion. I’m happy to accept this. I just wanna make sure that I understand that when this comes up in 2024, I will have the opportunity to talk about some of the downside effects of widening Sunnydale Road in terms of what it does to Richmond and how people get downtown. And I’m not waving that by approving this now. Okay, to staff, and then I’m gonna call that conversation. Thank you through the chair.

[2:17:16] Absolutely, you will have the opportunity to review all of these projects as well as the rest of the growth capital projects in the multi-year budget. Thank you. Okay, Councilor Van Bergen. Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to clarify, so we’re getting a proposal here of a reduction of 10.225 million. Personally, I’d like to know there’s no tax levy impact. So what is the advantage of voting for this?

[2:17:50] To staff. Oh, sorry. Thank you through the chair. So despite the fact that there may be no tax levy impact or very, very little effect on the property tax supported side of the capital budget, it is still important to kind of align our capital budget regardless of the funding source with when the projects are actually intended to move forward because we have our city services reserve funds, which are our DC reserve funds.

[2:18:24] They rely on ensuring that we have a good accurate sense of when these projects are going to be moving forward so that we can balance the needs for the whole growth capital budget against each other and ensure that we have sufficient funding in place to make these projects happen. So it is really imperative that we try to get the timing as right as we can so that we can accurately assess those impacts. Okay, so and for Council, the DC charges reserve funds development charges.

[2:18:57] So just right sizing that that when it hits, we line up with that. Councilor Van Merber going to follow up. It was very clear in this last election cycle that the people in London have expressed explicitly that they need a better road system. We need the construction, we need the widening, we need the constant improvements and they’re demanding such and it hasn’t just been this last election cycle, it’s been the last few election cycles.

[2:19:32] It comes through loud and clear. And so any chance that we might be delaying something I think is a disservice to the city. And so I’d like to ask specifically with regard to the Southdale Road widening which has been taking years and I’ve had nothing but complaints and urgings to get that widened certainly as far as Colonel Talbot and even to get the circle, the traffic circle done at Colonel Talbot in Southville.

[2:20:10] By voting for this, are we in any way going to delay much needed road widening and construction? To staff, I believe this answer would probably be similar to the one you just gave for a different road but just to reiterate, Mr. Craig, did you want this? Through the chair, I appreciate the councilor’s comments. The Southdale Road improvements are progressing and in fact, one of the parts on part D in this business case facilitates the funding for the next phase of those improvements being the intersection at Southdale and Colonel Talbot.

[2:20:57] So that’s the second phase of that project. Approval of this business case will facilitate the construction of that project in 2023. And then the subsequent improvements to connect that intersection and the previous improvements constructed in the past year is in the five-year horizon. I’d have to check to give you an exact here. Thank you very much for that, Mr. McCrae. I just wanted to clarify. So if we vote for this, are we delaying any of these needed road constructions?

[2:21:38] No, the only delays in timing are to reflect project realities whereby for project scheduling reasons, technical reasons, the projects aren’t going to get built as quickly as we thought. And there’s not a lot of those, but that’s the only reason for re-timing. But essentially, this is predominantly updating cost estimates to prepare the accounts so that when we go to market with construction tenders, the finances are in order so that we can award those tenders and progress the projects to construction.

[2:22:20] Councillor, it sounds like putting the dollars in the right years for development charges as construction timelines become more firm. Thank you again. Okay, so I’ll rephrase it a little differently. Is there a downside or negative consequence? Do not voting for this? Mr. McCrae. Yes, this business case is recommended to get the funding in place into the right accounts so that we can award the construction tenders in an orderly manner.

[2:23:06] So many of these projects are planned to be constructed this year. And this is updating the estimates so that we can go to tender and be confident that we can award the tender that the funding is in place. Okay, thank you. You’re satisfied? Thank you. Mr. Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And I would definitely encourage my colleague here to support these changes. And I just want to make a couple of comments here. In particular, as it relates to the north and the west end, that’s where we’re seeing a lot of growth.

[2:23:43] And it always seems our infrastructure is lagging behind. So I am so pleased to see some of these projects being changed and timing moving forward. I know it’s a balancing app for staff. I’m not going to go into the further challenges that we may have as a municipality when it comes to infrastructure projects with the changes in particular to bill 23. Not sure even how that conversation is going to look like and how we’re going to deal with that. But for now, I’m really, really pleased that we’re able to get some timing correct, especially where the growth is.

[2:24:23] And the importance around not only having road projects, but also other opportunities to move around, given that we don’t have them out in the west in particular. And I know it was mentioned in the north when it comes to transit. So I’m really pleased. I know it’s a juggling act for staff, but hoping my colleagues will definitely support this, especially out in the south end. Thank you as a reminder. I am 4.2 A and B is on the floor.

[2:24:56] My speakers list is exhausted. So just looking for further questions. Okay, seeing none, I will thank Mr. Chisholm for joining us today virtually. Also Mr. Chisholm just through you. If counselors wanted onsite experience at an LMCH building or something in their ward, just to confirm that you are available for that, if they want to reach out. Yes, and through the chair, I am available for that. And I will be reaching out to every counselor where we have housing to make that offer and just tell them what we’re doing in their communities.

[2:25:28] There’s a lot of important and exciting work funded in the property. So it just helps to have that visit one-on-one. So they will be hearing from me. Thank you. I would also recommend reaching out to every counselor. Should they even not have a housing project within their ward? So thank you for that. As I see no further hands calling the question on I am 4.2 A and B. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[2:26:06] Thank you, that moves us on to item 4.3. These are the consideration for property tax operating budgets. Realizing the time, I’ve been advised that lunch will be ready in a few minutes. I’m going to ask committee though, as there is a multitude of items, well, seven items before us. If there is interest in discussing item key 14, being the Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus as the first one, taking that out of order, realizing those are the only community members we have joining us in person today.

[2:26:40] And just for your, so I see a thumbs up. Is any of them, Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, for me, I really would encourage my colleagues to do that. We do have members in the audience from the Humane Society and they’ve been with us for a long time. So if we can move P-14 out. The clerk has anauded that we don’t need to do an official vote. I seem to see consensus that we’re, as they are up in the gallery, if you had any questions on break, you can certainly talk to them as well. ‘Cause they have no food up there unless they’ve brought their own.

[2:27:14] So when we get back, we will deal with item P-14 and then go into the rest of the items. And I do have speakers and questions for each of these items for this afternoon. So, and does anyone have any questions going in to break? I’m still testing about 30, 30 minutes. I seem to see nods for Councillor Frank. I was going to do the Humane Society after break ‘cause I got motions and amendments of things.

[2:27:53] It will not be quick in my spidey sense. Okay, so I do need a motion to take a 30 minute break. Moved by Councillor Ferrera, seconded by Mayor Morgan, a handboat in favor of that. Motion’s passed. Okay, so this is your chance to go and ask staff any questions and your lunch is laid out and the Councillors lounge to keep you close. It was 30 minutes. So Councillor Cuddy, just looking for an indication that you’re with us online.

[2:59:37] Thank you, Chair, I’m here. Thank you. We’re resuming. Thank you for everyone for being back promptly. Item 4.3, we’re looking at business case P-14. Being the neighborhood strategic initiative was in funding. Humane Society of London and Middlesex Animal Campus, operating expenditure $3 million is the business case that’s before you. It’s on page 171 of your budget book. The presenters are in chambers with us. When we get time, the mic will go on up top in the gallery and questions can be asked direct to them.

[3:00:15] So looking to start a speakers list, if you want to ask questions first, as it’s an item that was pulled specifically for consideration, we could move in second at first or you can do a speakers list of some questions that would influence your vote. Looking for direction, Councillor Troso. Okay, Councillor Troso is moving it. Deputy Mayor Morgan is seconding it. Oh, if you’re gonna be like that, Councillor Hoffman’s seconding it. So what happens when you give me the big chair? The speakers list is starting.

[3:00:56] I had some counselors write in with questions beforehand. So who would like to start off? And I can ask our presenters to come to the gallery microphone, your pick up top or down below and IT will turn that mic on for you. So my speakers list will start with, okay, I fed you now, you’re all still chewing. Is there any questions for the $3 million asked when he means society? Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. I’m excited about this project. We had the privilege of touring. And my question is regarding funding and the confidence in the remainder of the funding ‘cause I know a lot of it is still pending and I’m assuming that our $3 million will be one of the last pieces.

[3:01:42] Okay, so the London Humane Society for response please. Thank you for that question. And through the chair, my name is Erica Willick and I’m the director of finance at Humane Society, London and Middlesex. I’m also the internal project manager for this capital project. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet many of you yet as they don’t let the accountant out too often. However, I’m really happy to be here today to answer more detailed questions related to the finances and this project in particular. So we’re very hardworking over lots of years and are currently at the spot where this project is funded at 62% of the total needed funds.

[3:02:24] The successful securing of this community grant project would give us a transformational lift to this project to 76%. And since this project is shovel ready that would allow us to begin construction with secured funding in place this spring. Councillor Stevenson have a follow-up. No, this time my next speaker. Okay, Councillor Lewis and then I’ll go to Councillor Perbal.

[3:02:59] Sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Perbal. And I have some questions myself but I’ll do it from the chair once everyone else has a turn. I just want to offer a comment, Madam Chair, through you. And that is, I’ve seen the proposal for this project. I’ve been out to the location. I voted for the Zoning Amendments at the Planning Committee and Council so that this could go ahead. I’m fully supportive of this project. And well, it’s a completely different scenario. I think that the example of what we did in granting some funds for the move of the Fugitive Slave Chapel is a lesson to us in how funding that we provide can often be leveraged for significantly more funding, both from the public.

[3:03:50] And we saw some very generous private sector donations for that project as well as from senior levels of government. And we certainly saw the federal government step up and not only match, but exceed the municipal contribution for the move of the Fugitive Slave Chapel. So I think when we consider whether or not that this is a good investment of municipal dollars, we have to ask ourselves two very important questions. One is by leading the way and setting an example, are we going to encourage others to step up and do the same?

[3:04:25] And I know that just in the short time since the mayor’s state of the city address where the $25 million donation was announced, that many other Londoners have taken up the challenge to step up and follow the lead and donate to that cause as well. So we can really set a tone here. We can also help leverage some money from other levels of government. But we’re also going to get a community benefit. And when I look at the things that the Humane Society is proposing, whether it’s some extra summer programming or end-March break programming and things like that for kids, which honestly helps us because we don’t have to worry so much about our capacity if there’s other opportunities available, if there are opportunities for the London police to surrender a dog or another animal that had to be removed from a home during a police call because the owner is in police custody for whatever reason, that helps our police force be more efficient.

[3:05:29] So I think there is a community benefit here that is beyond just and not the caring for those animals is an important, but it’s beyond just caring for the animals. There is a community benefit here that is greater than that, not that that is an important. So I’m supportive of this ask. I think some others may have some thoughts to share and some amendments to propose on this. I will say that I’m also reminded of the Fanshawe College grant that we approved back in the multi-year budget in the previous council, where the ask was spread out over a number of years.

[3:06:06] And this is a significant amount of money. And so I would not be opposed to seeing this spread out over a little bit more than a one-year period because it is a lot to ask in one year. But overall, I think the investment is a good one for the community. Thank you, Councillor Perbeble. I also had the opportunity to visit this facility and plant. And I think it’s very positive, I have very much support of it. This sort of chair to the staff, I just more wanted to know if it’s a project like this asking $3 million, what is the process in terms of how do we finance, in terms of timing?

[3:06:43] If it’s one lump sum, if it’s based on certain completions, point one, point two, how do we protect ourselves? And I’m not saying this is going to be the case. How do we protect ourselves as a corporation in terms of the project is either not completed? Partially completed. And those are my questions just so I know how we finance such projects. Thank you. OK, I’ll go to Ms. Smith. Thank you very much. And through the chair, thank you for the question. We can speak about— I can speak about the accountability part. And if this is approved, we would then enter into a contract.

[3:07:18] It’s a Council-approved contract for capital funding. We use with all of our capital funding applications that are successful. And we hold accountability outcomes on an annual basis. So if this fund is spread across a number of years, we would enter into that contract annually. And through that agreement, we would hold them to the outcomes that they have developed and that we have required as part of the capital grant process. And it holds money if they are unsuccessful in building. It allows us to be reimbursed for the monies that we have allocated.

[3:07:56] Councillor? I think the first part was the financial. How do we do it into one lump sum or this? But now, when we talk about accountability, do we also give ourselves in the legally binding document clause that we can verify ourselves, potentially go to their premises? And as I said, it’s not just specifically to this. I believe it’s going to happen. It’s going to be fantastic for London. But for the other ones, if we put in clause that we can verify the commitments of the organizations. Thank you. And through the chair, thank you for the clarification.

[3:08:30] 100% we detail what the money will go for, what the project looks like, and we hold them accountable to both what it looks like, and with financially audited statements to account for that the money was spent. In that contract, they itemize exactly what they will spend the money on, and we hold them to be accountable for those funds expended in those exact ways. Councillor? I think she’s the part for the financial law. Thank you. OK. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair, yes. Once we have the formal commitment in place, it will then be a matter of working with the Humane Society to understand the timing of their needs.

[3:09:09] Certainly, in these types of situations, the funding is tied to typically specific milestones in terms of when we would advance certain tranches of the funding, so that would all have to be worked through with the Humane Society. But typically, it’s not generally upfront, $3 million payment or whatever. It would be dependent on when they actually require that funding. Thank you. Councillor? Thank you very much for the answers. No more questions? Looking for another speaker for my speaker’s list? OK.

[3:09:40] I’m going to do Councillor Hopkins, then I’ll chime in, and then I’ll do Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I assume there’s going to be some type of an amendment since I heard that the $3 million will not be one time. It can be spread out over three years. So first of all, I’d be supportive of that and very supportive of this capital cost or this— I don’t even know what you would call it. It’s, I guess, a donation that’s going to the Humane Society.

[3:10:19] I know as our city grows, the population expands, and the need is great. If anyone has not seen the need in getting this facility improved, I would definitely encourage you to go out and have a look at the existing building. I’m really glad to hear that it is shovel-ready, maybe through you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question. Just the anticipation of without putting you on the spot. But generally, when are you planning on starting, and how long you anticipate the process to last?

[3:10:57] Yeah, so your construction timeline, as well, is divided into phases. Thank you, through the chair. We have completed a number of very important phases on this project already, as Council is aware, the rezoning was successfully completed for the permitted use for London’s benefit. Last May, we purchased the land at 1414 Dundas Street through collaborative partnership with Old Oak Properties, a local London developer, and have gone through the rigorous site plan approval processes.

[3:11:31] So that brings us to being construction-ready, shovel-ready. How long does it actually take to build? So our construction timeline is 14 to 18 months to construct this facility. We plan and are able to pending securing these funds to proceed in the spring, targeting April of 2023, and continuing on through to the 14 to 18 months of summer 2024. Yeah, thank you for that extra information. I know there’s still some more funding that is required to make it all complete.

[3:12:11] But I do think this municipal funding is really important. It’s something that you can work and add to as you can continue your fundraising. So very supportive and looking forward to the chair has to say. Thank you. If many will indulge, I am not moving any amendments or anything from the chair. My question, I guess, through myself, to our visitors is realizing some of us have a chance to come out on site, some have not.

[3:12:43] And definitely, the public would not have had an opportunity to hear your presentation to us. Just looking for clarification of, I guess, first overall, some services. We’ve heard police surrenders mentioned as a possibility. While on site, we discussed some outreach to First Nations and things that could happen with them. If you could just speak to that first before I get into some financial questions. Good afternoon. My name is Megan Coogrello. I am the director of fund development at Humane Society London and Middlesex.

[3:13:17] Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and for that question. In my portfolio at the organization, I oversee community engagement. One of our biggest limitations right now, those of you who have been through would agree, is the lack of space. When you look across Canada at other Humane Societies, they have space on site to be able to provide a more balanced model to Humane Societies. And what I mean by that is they have dedicated space for education. They have dedicated space for veterinary services that they can provide to their community member.

[3:13:53] Both are community members. Both of those important foundational pieces would allow us to be industry standard. We’ll be able to not only have more space to accommodate for people who can no longer keep their animals, but we will be able to educate our community, help provide training, provide lower veterinary costs to our community members, to help keep animals in their loving homes. One of the main reasons we see people bringing their animals to us is because they simply cannot afford medical costs associated to that member of their family.

[3:14:37] Does that help answer your question? Well, I appreciate the information. Neither of my questions were answered. Asking if what the police surrender process would be 24/7 if that’s possible. And what programs, if any, you were thinking of to reach out to neighboring First Nations versus just the local London community. Wonderful. I’ll pass it over to Executive Director Steve Ryle. Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity. As Megan mentioned, my name is Steve Ryle, I’m the Executive Director of the Humane Society, a lot of Middlesex.

[3:15:12] And direct response to the request about the LPS, we have began some very light conversations about 24/7. And we’ve looked to them for some guidance on how to best set up our facility in our receiving area of 24/7 to be able to do that for them. And we’re into the detailed part of what they exactly would need. And it seems like it’s quite simplified to pass codes to our back door and easy to access, caging and a simple message that would leave us. And we could touch base with them in the morning when we’re not available through those hours. But the shelter would project it to be, have staff in at 24/7, seven days a week.

[3:15:48] Second question is we have began conversations with some different groups in the Aboriginal animal welfare areas. They have some very serious needs in obviously medical care for their animals and veterinarian services. And so we’re working now to try to see how we can help them in the current situation. But our veterinarian companion animal hospital, as we have to call it, will be also open to them and anybody in the community. We’ve been able to have buy-in from over 14 different veterinarian clinics here in the city that they support us having our own clinic and providing those services at a lower cost to be able to help keep animals in their home and not be surrendered.

[3:16:30] Some things that we’ve done so far, I guess as of recent, is we were able to negotiate a deal with our connections in the city with Coligan and we donated over 75 large jugs of water at the recent announcement with the water issue that they’re having in Oneida. And so we transported those out there and we’re able to get those into homes as soon as possible. And we’ll look to do whatever we can for them in the future as well. Thank you, Mr. Ryle. My other questions, it’s up to you or your finance team if you want to take it. If the city provides this funding that brings you up to 76% funded for your project, would you proceed with all phases of your build or still need to scale it back when you start construction with your RFP process in April?

[3:17:18] Thank you and through you to you. So the project would be able to be proceed, fully proceed. The reality is, is should the timeline between 14 to 18 months with our need being urgent, we may prioritize moving in and completing certain aspects of the building sooner rather than later, but not to be later down the road so that our construction project would be able to proceed.

[3:17:56] Thank you. As it’s a London Middlesex Animal Campus, do you have funds from other municipalities besides the Cindy of London currently granted or forthcoming? Or are you helping to leverage this one for others? Hi, good afternoon, Lindsey McDermott. Nice to see you all and thank you for the question. Certainly the latter part of your question is correct. We are building strong relationships with our partner municipalities and this very significant community grant would help us leverage funding conversations in those municipalities and also recognizing that this particular community grant doesn’t exist in the same capacity in those municipalities.

[3:18:41] So our ability to work with the city on this piece would absolutely strengthen our position with those conversations, thank you. Thank you and the $3 million ask, all up front or spread out, does it impact your construction timelines? Thank you for the question and through you. So related to the financial and timeline implications of when the funding is received, as I had previously outlined, our construction period is 14 to 18 months, able to start in the spring.

[3:19:20] The timing is very important to emphasize as that is related to the cash expenditures for construction will then be outlayed in the same time period, meaning the construction costs will be coming out and due to construct the facility over the 14 to 18 months. As a result, spreading the funding over time does have implications to look at to ensure there aren’t unmanageable financing gaps or gaps in the cash flow in any month.

[3:19:53] I’m not quite that precise, but I am able to look at by quarter. And so should the funding be spread out over too long of a time, it does have significant implications because we’re then faced with looking at bridging those cash flow gaps with things like debt financing. We did look very closely at debt financing early on in this project lifecycle. Kind of that year and a half ago, we went very deep and detailed with looking at leveraging this project to expedite the construction of it because the needs are so urgent.

[3:20:30] However, as we all have experienced and know about, interest rates have significantly increased and the outlook for interest rates over our construction period are unfavorable. So as a result, our appetite for debt financing has significantly reduced. Therefore, should the reserve funds be there, it is this project and Londoners are best served to have the timing line up with the construction timeline, line up with the construction timeline. I guess I’ll end there. No, that’s perfect.

[3:21:01] Thank you so many preferred upfront for construction timelines and avoiding debt financing. I had Mayor Morgan as my next speaker if you wanted to proceed now. I would, so I’ll make some general comments and I’m gonna make an amendment or suggest an amendment, I should say. So first off, I wanna thank the Humane Society. I can’t really see them without awkwardly turning. So I’ll speak this way, but know that I’m speaking through the chair to you. I wanna thank you for the approach that you’ve taken to submitting this funding request to us. For those who don’t know, they went through the proper granting process, the community granting process, the reason why it lands within the budgeting process is because the amount that they’re asking for exceeded the amount that we have allocated within that granting process.

[3:21:48] However, they did go through the exact right approach for it to come before us today. I also think that they’ve done a good job of engaging with us and providing the opportunity for us to come visit their facility, tour their premises. I know when I went and sat down with them, ask many, many, many questions about both the operations as well as the finances of the facility. And I will say you’ve put together an impressive list of supporters from across multiple sectors in the city, including people who I know have donated substantially to your fund personally.

[3:22:24] And I think you’ve done a really good job of outlining a case for us to support, as well as bringing significant private dollars to the table before even contemplating asking for municipal support. And I really, really do like the idea of you leveraging our money to help you close the gap with the remaining funds that you need to complete the project. So I will be supporting this today. However, I do have a suggested change of the source of financing that I’d like to make. And I have a motion prepared that I provided the wording to the clerk’s and our finance staff and the budget chair.

[3:23:01] Essentially, what I’m gonna propose is that we change the source of financing from the Community Investment Reserve fund to the operating budget contingency reserve. I don’t know if the chair wants me to try to get a seconder for that before I make my case. Okay, I’ll leave it with you then. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, please proceed. Okay, let me outline why I’m making this amendment. There’s a couple of reasons. First, the Community Investment Reserve fund will not actually have the money in it to fulfill this obligation until we have the surplus discussion and actually run it through our surplus policy.

[3:23:36] So from one perspective, the money is not there. Two, with my contemplation of how I perceive the Community Investment Reserve fund to work, which has a lot of council discretion to it, I think that there are higher in other needs that council can discuss, leading into the multi-year budget process, based on many of the things that we discussed with residents as we campaigned, and having that outled available to us, I think is an important piece, leading into the multi-year budget process. I certainly have some ideas to pitch, I won’t do those today, but some ideas to pitch to council for your consideration on how to use those funds based on what I heard for residents at the door, as I knocked on them across the city.

[3:24:19] The operating budget contingency reserve, I know there are new members of council, probably don’t know what that is, but we do contribute to contingency reserve for unforeseen circumstances that might arise. This also helps us meet our future obligations and offset some of the challenges that we’ll have down the road, whether that’s related to existing obligations or unfunded obligations that we have, is meant to stabilize the tax rate too, year over year, so that we can draw and contribute to it as need be to provide some consistency of expectation of the tax rate.

[3:24:57] It’s speaking with the treasurer, and obviously she can speak for herself, that I believe that there’s some comfort with this as a source of financing at this time based on where the funds are. Obviously, we make contributions to this each and every budget cycle and year, so we would not be making as large a contribution if we went this approach, but still we would be contributing to the contingency reserve, and I think it’s an appropriate source of financing in this case that leaves council the maximum flexibility with the Community Investment Reserve fund down the road.

[3:25:31] I also know that it would align well with everything that’s been said about how to draw down, if we’re targeting the operating budget contingency reserve, that it can be drawn down on a pace in and away that makes sense based on the construction timelines that the Humane Society has with the full advantages of the grant agreement that was outlined by Deputy Manager Smith. So for those reasons, I think the change of source of financing is appropriate, and the project certainly has my full support, and with this change, I think it gives council the maximum flexibility leading into the multi-year budget discussions.

[3:26:07] Thank you, just going to the finance team first, making sure two things. One, you’re fine with the wording as before you, and to colleagues, if you hit refresh and eScribe, the wording on the screen will come up for you, and secondly, a question to our finance team. If the suggested reserve fund has the current balance available, that’s needed for this, just to confirm for committee. So through the chair, I can confirm that that wording is appropriate to change the source of financing. As noted on the business case on page 174, that we had identified that should the surplus not be sufficient, we would have been going to this reserve fund to draw the balance anyways, so changing it is not a concern, there is sufficient balance to allow this to proceed.

[3:26:53] Okay, Councilor Cuddy, your hand is up. Just looking to see if you want to speak to the Humane Society case overall, or just simply the amendment that’s on the floor of changing the source of financing is that’s what’s currently on the floor. Thank you, with through you Madam Chair. First of all, I will be supporting the amendment proposed by Mayor Morgan. I will also be supporting this motion. Because it’s in my ward, I’d like to speak very briefly to it. As with other Councillors, I’ve also toured the facility. And very briefly, the organization is extremely well-managed.

[3:27:30] They have a great business plan. They have an excellent board of directors. And for me, those check all the boxes, but more importantly, Chair, they’re in need. And that’s what I want to stress to all of my colleagues that they are in need of a new facility. And for this reason, and for the others I’ve spoken of, I will be putting my full support, but I encourage all of my colleagues to do as well. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cuddy. Councillor Hopkins on the amendment. Yes, Madam Chair on the amendment and through you to staff. I’d like the creative way of doing things, a different way here.

[3:28:06] It’s quite interesting how we do have some flexibility. So on the operating contingency reserve fund, I know there’s money, how much money is there? And how would the drawdown work as well? So I thought of supporting an amendment where we could draw it throughout the three years, but I have a feeling that the drawdown works a little bit differently if you could just give me a little bit more information to finance.

[3:28:41] Thank you through the chair. The current uncommitted balance of the operating budget contingency reserves approximately $60 million. What we would suggest is, if this amendment is approved by council, we would recommend just committing that funding in its entirety right up front so that it is fully committed and reflected and comes out of the, I guess, available balance in that reserve. Councillor Hopkins has testified strictly on the amendment, Councillor Troso. Yes, as the maker of the initial motion, I fully support the amendment based on what I’ve heard.

[3:29:17] So if it can be considered friendly, I don’t know if we still need to vote on it, but I do fully support what the mayor has said and I really thank him for that creative way of looking at this. Yeah, as it’s a change in financing, it does need to be voted on, which we are doing right now, ‘cause I had no more speakers so calling the question on strictly the amendment for a change of financing source. Closing the vote, that motion’s passed 14 to zero.

[3:29:54] Thank you. That puts us back to the main motion with the amendment being made. I will note too that we seem to be highly in favor of it so far. Let’s keep our comments brief. That’d be great. I’m gonna start with Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. I just have one question. The 22% left to be funded is about $4 and a half million and with financing not being an option. I’m just wondering if there’s a plan B in worst case that funding isn’t found. So the LMCH or Ludden to the Humane Society?

[3:30:32] Hi, thank you and through the chair. So to clarify debt financing, our appetite is reduced and I used a metaphor for that. So it’s not off the table and will continue to be looked at but in a very much reduced capacity to when we started the project. So the implications of this money and the timing that had the impact to ensure that we’re able to continue and that $4 million gap is a level of comfort with the in works and future secured funding with the fundraising team is a level that this organization is comfortable with.

[3:31:09] We do have a couple of other smaller reserve funds if needed to bridge small timing gaps as well for the organization. The organization is far from flush with money but and have been saving for this for a very long time. And financially stewarding in a very responsible way is a high priority. And so the bridging that gap remaining is within the comfort of the organization to proceed. Mr. Stevenson. Thank you, just wanting to make sure the 3 million is it too and that we’re not left in a situation that nobody wants to be in.

[3:31:47] Thank you. And if I turn back to you and you’re done, feel free just to wave me off as well. And I will go to somebody else. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. Yes, very supportive of this plan. I just wanted to comment further on the request for other municipalities as pointed out by budget Chair Palosa. I do think it’s important that this is a shared endeavor and would like to see that come about from other places as well. And I do think that us making the amendment so that it’s coming out of another reserve fund instead of a community investment fund also takes off the table.

[3:32:24] Other people saying, well, we don’t have those kinds of funding mechanisms that the city of London does because there are other opportunities and we found them as well. So just wanted to thank you and provide that comment in my support. Thank you. Last call for questions or comments. Call on the question. Sorry, Councillor Cuddy, is this a new hand or an old hand? Old hand, my apologies. No, we’re good. Please vote.

[3:33:18] Opposing the vote, the motion’s carried 14 to zero. Thank you and thank you to the Human Society for joining us today. And just a reminder, this money is not final until voted on at council, but it seems you have support and I look forward to seeing the facilities that’s built out. Thank you. As we move on to case P10, this items, if you, the wording’s gonna be split out into E-Scribe as it’s been asked to be separated into three parts separately for the streetlights, walkway maintenance, in the winter maintenance.

[3:33:59] So that’s gonna be separated out into three and we can vote on it separately. So 4.3 a, I’m gonna assume, I, I, I, I, I. So starting my speakers list on that. And just for committee’s information, I was assuming that business case we just heard would take the most amount of time followed by this one and then everything go a little bit faster after that. And if we stick to that plan, we can still get done in one day as some people were asking. We take as long as we take, but we’re kind of almost where we need to be. I will start my speakers list with Councillor Lewis.

[3:34:34] Thank you, Madam Chair. And I suspect we will have some discussion on this. So I’ll try and be as brief as possible. And I’m gonna focus in on, on two pieces of this, in particular, and the first one’s the winter maintenance. And I’ve said this publicly several times over the last week and I’m gonna say it again here so that all colleagues can hear it. I was a very strong supporter. In fact, Madam Chair, you and I were the movers and seconders of the motion that pushed the standard lower to five centimeters in, in the last, in two years ago in the budget update.

[3:35:10] But I also have to say I’m not going to be afraid to recognize when something that I championed hasn’t worked out the way I hoped it would and say maybe we have to take a different look at things. And I think that’s where we are today on this. So when we’re talking about these snow clearing changes, we’re not talking about eliminating sidewalks, no plows. The threshold from five to eight is how soon we deploy sidewalk plows in a snowfall event.

[3:35:43] And we regularly get, it’s one of the most common complaints, probably speedings only the only one that gets higher levels of complaints from our residents at a constituency level. And I talk to Mr. McCray about this. And obviously there’s lots of factors that go into winter maintenance complaints that we get from residents. But before we went to five centimeters, in the 2019, 2020 winter, we had 105 complaints. Since we went to the lower standards, 303 and 232 complaints are actually up.

[3:36:26] This year, we’re only part way through the winter but we’re already at 73. Because we are never going to get to bear concrete conditions with snow plows. And so this expectation that every slippery patch of ice, every accumulation of snow is going to be removed from the sidewalks. If we just put more money into plowing, it’s not working. And it won’t work. The cost will be millions and millions of dollars and an incredible frustration for our staff and we will still have complaints.

[3:37:01] So I think it’s a question of are we going to continue to spend money on something that really hasn’t proven to increase customer satisfaction of our residents. Or sorry, I’m going to say to increase resident satisfaction because I know council trust out really has an issue with the customer word and I agree with them on that. So it has an increased resident satisfaction. We’re still not going to plow right to the bear concrete. So people with mobility issues are still going to face mobility issues because there is still going to be snowpack on our sidewalks.

[3:37:35] So I think rather than continuing to spend additional money on something that’s not getting us results, I think we need to step back and look at other ways we can address this problem. This isn’t a discussion for today. It would be a discussion for a standing committee in the future, but I would be willing to revisit the idea that perhaps we need to require homeowners to clear the sidewalks in front of their homes as other big municipalities do. Because a person with a shovel or a small personal driveway snowblower is going to get down to pretty close to bear pavement level which our heavy snowplows for sidewalks are simply not going to do.

[3:38:16] So I’d be willing to revisit that discussion and really see if that can make the difference that we’re looking for. We talked about paratransit a little bit earlier. If we enhance paratransit services in some way, shape, or form, again, we may decrease some of the mobility challenges that some of our residents face in the winter months because they’ve lost faith in paratransit and so they’re trying to make do with sidewalks when in fact we should be enhancing their mobility options in a different way. So I hope that folks will support the winter maintenance reduction this year and I hope that we will have a very full some discussion over the next few months about how we can approach this differently because I think there are other solutions that we really need to consider embracing.

[3:39:02] On the streetlight, the local streetlight improvement program, I want to touch just briefly. I’ve had a petition in my award, it has failed. This is not that we’re going to stop putting streetlights where they’re needed. It’s not that we’re going to stop lighting pedestrian walkways or other areas where safety concerns may be an issue. This is about retrofitting these streetlights into old neighborhoods where they don’t currently exist, where it is up for a neighborhood vote and none of the neighborhood votes that have happened in the last four years have been successful. So again, I don’t think it is a good use of funds to put them away for a process that people aren’t utilizing.

[3:39:40] So again, I hope colleagues will support that and I’ll be very, very brief on the summer walkway maintenance. During COVID, we did not have staff doing those as frequently. I will tell you that I had a great uptake. In fact, a couple of young people were here at various points to be recognized by the mayor for the volunteers and they put in to rake and cut back some of the bushes in the pedestrian pathways by their house. So I’m okay with us reducing this because I think where areas of concern do arise.

[3:40:13] Again, I think there’s other options besides just send out our staff with some heavy equipment and kind of clear cut everything back. So those are my comments on those three items. I look forward to the discussion, but I kind of wanted to set the table on those three things for people to consider. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you Deputy Mayor for your comments. I’ll just speak to the Winter Maintenance Program because a couple of years ago I did not support it and I really appreciate your take on trying something and looking at it and if it’s not working going back and I really appreciate those comments.

[3:40:53] I will be supporting the reduction. I don’t think it’s created much of a change and you spoke to some of the changes in numbers, but I don’t think it’s even reduced the amount of accidents or slip and falls or anything like that. I don’t think much has changed. The walkway maintenance, I have no problem there. I’m glad to see that people are volunteering and taking up the cause. I do have a quick question around the lighting because we heard from the community loud and clear that lighting is important, that this I think it’s 16,000 relates strictly to the fund that we have, which is cost sharing with the city and there’s a lack of uptake on that fund.

[3:41:42] So if we do not support the 16,000 and I would think it’s got nothing to do with lighting in our city and creating more opportunities to put lighting, especially from the safety issue, as long as it doesn’t distract from that, but just as we speak to this one fund that is not having any uptake on, what happens to the money? To staff? As Madam Chair, I can start, Madam Chair, I can start if there’s further questions, Mr. McCrae’s here as well. We would continue to spend money from our city budget related to street lighting improvement.

[3:42:16] The local improvement program that is on the table here, the one that has been no uptake, that funding would be an amendment and the finance folks can tell you what happens to funds that are reduced, but it’s to reduce the tax levy. Who else would you comment from? Yeah, so just where does that, so if we’re not supporting that this program will no longer exist, where does the money go? Just kinda wanna put a placement on it. Thank you through the chair.

[3:42:47] So if this amendment is supported, the program would come out of the budget, we would not be collecting property tax dollars for it, so it would in fact reduce the tax levy. And just to clarify one thing as well, part A is actually 136,000, not 16,000. You are seeing 16,000 on page 156 plus the capital levy component on page 157 of 120,000. So 120 plus 16 is 136, thank you. Yeah, thank you for that correction.

[3:43:24] Okay, I had Councillor Ferrera and then Councillor Frank. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. So I have some questions for parts B and C. So I was just gonna kind of hit them off one by one and just go after you answered it. So the first one, so for part B, it’s reducing the annual walkway maintenance during the summers of 60,000 off of the levy there. So I just wanted to know what areas, locations, mobilizations in the city, would this reduction impact specifically?

[3:43:58] That would be my first one, thank you. To staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. These locations are throughout the city. These are narrow walkways between fenced yards in residential areas, usually connecting one street to another, we would still maintain them and deal with hazard issues, but instead of proactively maintaining them every spring, they would get proactively maintained every second spring, Councillor. And thank you and my second one for part B. So what type of debris or materials could be probable? That would be a part of these walkways that would be restricting us, that would be cleared or may not be cleared right away.

[3:44:36] I know there’s all kinds of debris in these, if you need air conditioners or mattresses, but to staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. We would still respond to things like massive dumps of garbage that are done inappropriately. Generally, the routine maintenance is dealing with dead weeds, leaf fall from the previous fall. So it’s typically vegetative debris and a bit of litter. That would be the average thing we’re cleaning up and we would come out, of course, if there’s an issue where somebody’s had an encampment or some sort of illegal dumping. And thank you. And the last question for part B. So in the ESC or ESG considerations under governance, I see that the risks that they’ve identified would be increased complaints, but I felt like it would also be like the increased incidence of debris as well.

[3:45:18] So I just wanted to know, did the G portion of the ESG considerations did identify anything like that? Madam Chair, in our review, generally, the complaints we get are aesthetic in nature. They’re about down tree limbs or about weeds or about litter. So there really isn’t a real risk associated with that. We would still, as I said, respond to any place where there’s a maintenance issue, it’s impassable, it’s dangerous. Okay, thank you. So my last question’s for part C, and then I’ll finish it off for this one. Okay, so part C, it’s the winter maintenance that was already spoken about a little bit already.

[3:45:54] So it was noted in the budget that the value of the budget amendment was based on the estimated additional six sidewalk snowplow mobilizations annually. So I just wanted to ask out for the record, I wanted to know what were the locations of the six mobilizations, like the areas of coverage that they covered. To staff, Madam Budget Chair, so this is a city-wide program, this is mobilization of our entire sidewalk plowing fleet, instead of going out after eight centimeters, we go out after five and it’s city-wide. Council, you’re satisfied for now?

[3:46:30] One more question. And it is the last question for this one. So speaking to the $140,000 for the coordinated bus stop clearing service provided by the LTC, the language in the budget amendment was there was a corresponding reduction. And I just wanted to know, is this coming from a different funding source? And does that money overlap with the six mobilizations that we were just speaking about? Staff. So Madam Chair, LTC pays the city of London to do the bus stop clearing at their bus stops. And it has to be coordinated in the same deployment threshold as our sidewalk clearing, otherwise we would be unable to manage the way the snow has moved from the road to the sidewalk out of the bus stop and then off the sidewalk.

[3:47:15] Thank you, Councilor, you do not get one more question right now? Just comment, just a comment. No. Okay. No, I have a long speakers list. Councillor, a very long speakers list. I’m going to Councillor Cudi first. I just don’t know if this is an old hand or a new hand if you just confirm before I move on. Old hand, I’m having problems with that. Okay, someone’s going to take your hand down for you. Okay. So on my speakers list, I have Councillor Frank, Councillor McAllister, and then a bunch more of you. Thank you.

[3:47:51] So my comments specifically pertain to the winter maintenance of sidewalks. So I will not be supporting a reduction in clearing the sidewalks. I’ve chatted a bit with staff about this and my understanding is the only data point that we’re using to demonstrate that there was perhaps, and I’d say perhaps because I don’t actually think it’s clearly a decrease in complaints, is the service London ticket portal. And that I think is a correlation or causation. I’m never sure which is the right one to use because for example, yesterday I was on Facebook and I had a boosted post from the city of London promoting the service London portal to say if there is snow on your sidewalk and you’d like it cleared and it’s not cleared yet, please put a ticket in for service London.

[3:48:31] So I do think using service London is the only data point to decide whether to cut funding towards winter maintenance for sidewalks is not very compelling because there’s so many factors that go into whether people are going to file tickets on there or not. That being said, there actually was a decrease in complaints when we started the higher level of service. So in 2021, the 2021 winter, there’s 303 submissions to service London and then in 2021 to 2022 and we saw the higher service levels be implemented, it went down to 232 complaints.

[3:49:05] So it’s 71 less complaints after we started the improved winter maintenance. So that to me demonstrates even if we were to use that as the only data point to make this decision, there was a happier result with residents. So given all the discussions we’ve been having about accessibility in our community, I will be not supporting a reduction in these services. And if we were to consider reducing it, I’d prefer a full report from staff analyzing the success or failure based on multiple data points other than just the service London portal. As much as I love the service London portal, I don’t think it is the only way that we can make this decision given that there are so many other factors going into people using it or not using it.

[3:49:45] So that’s where I stand, thank you. Thank you for your comments. I have Councillor McAllister and then Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is related to the streetlight portion of this. And I do note that this is the elimination of the cost sharing component, which was the 40% that the public would have to absorb. So that is identified as a positive to this. But it does also stay in the, this is the ESG portion in terms of, sorry, I’m just reading it word for word here.

[3:50:24] It will still allow for the installation of streetlights in unlit areas based on the scoring system similar to the walkway lighting program. And just so we can illuminate the public as to the scoring system because I do represent areas that are older neighborhoods. This came up in the sidewalk discussion as well that they don’t have the sidewalks and there are areas that still never got streetlights just so they can know what that scoring system is and how they would go about getting streetlights. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. McRae. Just one second, returning your mic on, please proceed.

[3:50:58] Through the chair. So yeah, to be clear, the intent is to make the same, to install the same amount of new street lighting as before, but there’s capacity within the streetlight capital city budget to absorb the previously proposed residential share. The intent behind the residential cost sharing, at least part of it, in addition to extending the program was to really solidify and get a good understanding of neighborhood support.

[3:51:33] However, that does not appear to be working out. We do know that several streets express desire for street lighting, but not to the level of contributing financially. But we do see, we know there’s benefits with respect to installing street lighting. So going forward, it would be more of an internal technical evaluation. This would be informed by public requests, public neighborhoods identifying their streets.

[3:52:06] So that would certainly be a starting point. And then other considerations would be things like the number of pedestrians, so walkability, whether there’s sidewalks present or not, whether the street connects to transit route. We could also look at factors such as collisions during the nighttime versus the daytime. So a number of factors to help us internally prioritize where the program spends a car. Councillor.

[3:52:41] Through you Madam Chair, just a quick follow-up on that, though, I think the only issue I have with that, though, is I understand the cost sharing component. I think it was more, and I know that there were attempts, but they didn’t go through in terms of people wanting to do sidewalks, sorry, not sidewalks, street lighting, mixed up now, but my concern is that you said it was an internal review process, and where I have heard frustration from the public is that we make the determination, regardless of whether there is public support or not. And so my concern with eliminating that program is, that’s all I always try to get more information in terms of the scoring system, because I would still like the public to have an opportunity to express their concerns about the lighting, and it’s not just based on our internal review and ignoring the public.

[3:53:25] So could you just provide a bit more insight into what the scoring system and how the community could actually get street lights if they wanted them? Thank you. Mr. McRae. Yeah, I apologize if I overemphasize the sort of internal technical factors. Certainly, neighborhood requests would be one of the primary inputs and identifying to staff where there’s a desire, and that would certainly be a first and foremost consideration into what streets we consider. Just for committee’s information, this was a cost sharing program with owners.

[3:54:05] So if you had older areas of your ward, they would have the coach lights instead, as developers got to pick back in the day, and then if residents wanted it, that a 40% cost sharing could be rolled into their property taxes, and they weren’t super keen about paying it off that way, at least from my residence, that’s why they were super interested, and then not so much with the financial impact. My speaker list next rolls into Councillor Lehman, then Councillor Troso, and then Councillor Ferrera. Thank you for putting me in the first of the rest of the bunch. Appreciate that, Chair. Through you, Chair, to staff, would this impact our invasive plant management, particularly concerned about buckthorn in the Moir ward along roads along the river?

[3:54:52] Madam Chair, this will not affect our spends on invasive plant management strategies throughout the city. Those can still be reported in our managed proactively through forest operation, forestry operations. Quick follow-up, so what if our walkway is inundated by buckthorn going over it, and it definitely cannot go two years? So Madam Chair, we will still be responding to requests for things that are either dangerous or problematic. We would consider an invasive species, infestation in any space, something we’d respond to through that budget through our forestry operations team. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, and just in general, with walkways around the river, frequently they can be overgrown with other vegetation other than just invasive plants or we can categorize that.

[3:55:40] Would that in fact, I just want to be clear on that. Oh, you stated the risk of making it so hit again. I just want to be clear. Staff, thank you, Madam Chair. So this program is really specifically targeting those pedestrian breezeways or walkways between two fenced properties in suburban areas. We have a number of them in curvilinear subdivisions that were built largely from about 1970 to 1990. So this is not gonna impact things like the TVP or natural pathways. It’s really, you’ll see them in their very narrow fence space. They’re between two houses to two adjacent properties, and they connect one long curvy road to another long curvy road.

[3:56:16] So our intent to continue to manage our recreational pathways or ESAs, that all stays the same. Thank you. At this point, I will do a mover and a seconder for these items, just for the clerk can get that ready, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, a seconder of A, B, and C, which we will call separate when it’s time. This item automatically fails if there’s no seconder to discuss these items. Okay, Councillor Hopkins seconds it. So the wording will come up in the E-Scribe then and separate it into A, B and C, just to keep the back end moving behind the scenes.

[3:56:57] Councillor Troso, then Councillor Ferrera, and then Councillor Raman. Thank you for separating these out, Chair and Clerk. I initially had some concerns about A, and those have been satisfied. So I’m going to support A, and I didn’t really have concerns about B, which takes me to see where I have some very, very serious and grave concerns which I’d like to address. I don’t think this is a good time for us to be cutting back sidewalk maintenance.

[3:57:32] I think of anything we should be enhancing sidewalk maintenance, especially based on what we’ve seen over the last few months. I think that sidewalk maintenance is a question of equity. Sidewalk maintenance is a question of accessibility, not to mention mobility. Now this is not just a question of people being unhappy if the sidewalks are not done all the way down to the cement. That’s not what the problem is. It’s not the big problem.

[3:58:03] The big problem is there’s just slushies all over the place that refreezes, and it’s not done, and it is impossible. It is impossible to negotiate the sidewalk with a walker, carriage, much less a wheelchair. And I really do believe that if we cut sidewalk maintenance any further than it is now, we will be looking at increased complaints. It’s not just increased complaints, because I do think that all of the Councillors need to do a better job, and I’m undertaking this in my own ward to really try to get people to be putting through requests and tickets from service London.

[3:58:46] And I think a lot of times people don’t do that. I’m hearing a lot of complaints. I think we’re going to see, not only are we going to see more complaints, but we may have a disability’s rights complaint. And if people are hurt on the sidewalk, we’re also going to be looking at legal complaints. We’re going to be looking at increased liability. And I was disappointed not to see some type of assessment in here in terms of what kind of sidewalk liability issues we’ve had.

[3:59:21] I think the council would be making a very large mistake if we cut this right now, because going cheap on sidewalk maintenance on the grounds that a lot of complaints, not enough complaints were sent to service London, which is something that people are not really using as well as they could, I think is very short-sighted. And like I said, we’ll lead to other types of liability issues.

[3:59:56] Now, we’ve heard from people in the public participation meeting about the need to maintain the sidewalk maintenance. This is a very important issue in areas around the hospital, in areas around the university, which by the way, the hospital and the university, and Vancia and Kings from what I can tell, do a fine job in terms of maintaining their own properties. But once you step off a campus and you’re trying to walk down Richmond Street, it’s not feasible.

[4:00:30] It’s just not feasible to walk down Richmond Street if that sidewalk has not been properly maintained. And what people do is they will either sort of, hopefully, just sort of cut through the, maybe on the lawn, although that’s not gonna do much good because there’s been all sorts of snow there too. What people do, you know where it’s clear? It’s clear on the street. You want people going in the street? I don’t. And I think that if you do not maintain the sidewalks, and if somebody has to walk in the street, and there’s an accident, the city is just liable there.

[4:01:08] And I wish we could have, I wish we could have some more data points here in terms of what that potential liability is. ‘Cause I think it’s a huge mistake to ignore it. And even if there was no liability, what kind of message are we sending out? Six feet. Yeah, sure. If the counselor wants to speculate about potential liabilities, I would suggest that he needs to request that we go in camera for a report from the city solicitor. Because what I’m hearing right now is highly speculative.

[4:01:41] It’s not based on our city solicitor’s opinion. And I would point out that the provincial minimum standards, which the city has required to follow is eight centimeters, which is what’s being proposed here. Okay, so no cross debate? So either we go in camera, or we have to end the speculation on liability. Okay, so counselor, just stay away from the liabilities. It’s a legal realm for us, and we’re gonna try and stay out of that, and you still have a minute left. Well, I would like that time that was just taken. I did encounter it. I had it back in. So, the fact is, I don’t need a legal opinion to know that if people are hurt on a sidewalk, there’s a liability issue.

[4:02:18] And that’s just something we can take just general notice of. And even if there was no liability consideration, I think that if we’re interested in equity, access, and mobility, this is not something that we should be doing. And furthermore, yeah, maybe I should have gotten the full report from the city solicitor about all the tort claims over the last 10 years. But I think that those that are trying to reduce this level of service could have done that too. And so I really wanna urge you to vote no on C. This is not what we should be subjecting people with mobility issues to in our city.

[4:02:59] Thank you. Thank you. I have counselor for our next. So there is still quite a long speakers list, so if we just start keeping things a little bit tired, that’d be great. And thank you, Madam Chair, and to you. I’ll keep this really brief. So I’m okay with parts A and parts B, just asking the questions there. But part C, I am gonna be against part C because I do see it as a matter of accessibility and livability. I don’t really think that measuring the success rate with complaints really kind of will chalk everything up on where we should be going, just because the way I see it is people are more, you’ll see more complaints with grievances, but you will not necessarily see more, I guess, praise when the services are better.

[4:03:50] That’s just like a natural thing that I’ve seen before. So I feel like just measuring it along those standards is just not really the appropriate approach. At the same time, like I said, it’s a matter of accessibility, walkability. And if we do try to just beat the minimum levels of eight centimeters by the provincial standards and go better, I feel like that is what London is about. We would like to just be better than the minimum standards. So that’s why I’ll be not supporting this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. Something I noted on B and C were the socio, the socio-economic equity piece was missing, in my opinion, the lens of gender as well, which I thought based on our strategic plan should have been applied.

[4:04:38] Specifically, we know that based on where sidewalks are located, in places where they have also prioritized a safe city for women and girls. They said not only do our sidewalks need widening, but they also need proper clearing, better lighting. And so it looks like we are not walking the talk when we’re looking at making some of these changes right now. So again, if we’re going to continue to put these types of words into our strategic plans and our priorities, can we walk the talk?

[4:05:15] I will not be supporting the amendment when it comes to sidewalk clearing. I do believe that we have to meet the needs of residents when it comes to clearing and providing a safe opportunity for them to access roads and for all modes of transportation. So I do think that I will not be supporting that. And when it comes to clearing our walkways on winding streets in the summer, that maintenance piece, I do know that there are a number of winding streets in Ward 7, of which I’ve heard from people, their concerns about the fact that they’re not cleaned and maintained and that that maintenance prevents usage.

[4:06:01] So I won’t be supporting that amendment either, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lewis and then Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Madam Chair. I addressed my concern in the point of order, so I don’t need to speak again. Thank you, Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. With regard to winter sidewalk clearing, I find myself agreeing with my philosophical soulmate, Councillor Troso.

[4:06:38] Councillor Troso, I have to agree. While we want to look for meaningful reductions to help alleviate the tax burden on residents, the simple fact of the matter is from a public policy perspective, I think we can all agree that we’re rapidly aging as a society. And that includes the city of London. The number of seniors will increase exponentially as we progress through the years. And some of us see that coming sooner than others. And the fact of the matter is this is something that should not be reversed.

[4:07:20] From a public policy perspective, we should be following the path that we’ve set ourselves up with with regard to clearing our sidewalks and not reversing that. That is a wrong policy move. I think we owe it to all Londoners, but particularly our seniors and those with mobility issues that they be encouraged, particularly in the winter time, to go for that stroll, to go for a walk, much needed fresh air and exercise.

[4:07:54] And if it means that we’re helping them by giving them an early snow clearing, then so much the better. So I will not be supporting that particular cut. Thank you. Thank you. Also note to be mentioned seniors and those who are grandparents, first time, are we’re going over, so congratulations to that fourth, a fourth addition to Paul’s loving family. My question to staff, as I have no one else, my speakers list, so I’m gonna recognize me.

[4:08:27] In regards to the street lights, I recognize why we’re reducing it ‘cause we don’t have resident uptick in this program. My question to staff is how is the rollout going to those areas that have been identified of having poor lighting and residents want them? Is it behind underfunded? I fully recognize there’s been supply chain issues there too with lampposts of just where we at in that program. If Mr. McCrae wants to take it, I see a nod from Ms. Share that he’s the lucky one of just realizing I’m not.

[4:09:01] Like, is that I’m just trying to decide for myself? Is that redirecting it today? Or if not, I will come back in the multi-year budget cycle ‘cause I’ve encouraged others to do the same and I don’t wanna go against, I don’t wanna be hypocrite. Yes, thank you, Chair. We would continue the program. There is some unspent funds available, so the next year or two could be an increased year. And we, staff are familiar with some of the streets with the biggest interest in this.

[4:09:36] And if council approves the direction in the business case, they would circle back with some of those communities and propose the new approach and hopefully come to a conclusion that meets the needs of all. Okay, thank you, Mr. McCrae for that. Already realizing residents have spoken up and just didn’t have the financial means or the desire to do it in that way. For me, I’ll be supporting streetlights from what we heard from staff and I will be, I share the mobility concerns in our neighborhoods for the other two and I have terrible walkways or hatching, connecting neighborhood facilities that children are trying to use for school and economic purposes.

[4:10:18] Looking to see Councilor Cuddy’s hand is down, so he appears to be good. Looking to anyone else to see if you have any questions or comments, we will call each item individually as they’ve been moved and seconded. So if you hit current item, everything comes up outlined for you. So this is P case, P case, case P10A, reduced previously approved additional investment in local streetlights, that question’s being called. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to zero.

[4:11:07] Thank you, now just B is going forward being the reduced annual walkway maintenance, just B calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, nine to five.

[4:12:02] Thank you, now just C is on the floor of the reduced previously approved additional investment in winter maintenance, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s lost, five to nine.

[4:12:57] Thank you, as a reminder, if you felt strongly about one of those items, as we move into the multi-year budget process, you can work with staff to bring something forward through committee for consideration. As we move into case P11, this is the parks in horticulture, the reduction in horticulture aesthetics. Also, I’ll just have it note that these are all for consideration, that it’s not that staff recommended these, we had directed staff to go back and find any potential savings, and this is what they managed to find. So that’s why this is before us today. So looking for a move and a seconder of case P11 to put it on the floor, and we can start discussion.

[4:13:35] Okay, Councillor Frank is moving it. Councillor Deputy Mayor Lewis is seconding it. I will start my speaker’s list for case P11. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. I just wanna say that for me, I will be voting against this, that I believe the beauty and the summer jobs are worth it for this year, although I would like to see possibly in the four-year budget, I just look at partnerships with the college or other ways to achieve this, maybe without the budget line.

[4:14:11] Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Happy to second this, happy to support it. I wouldn’t encourage colleagues to keep in mind that not only is this an expense for us, but that we are actually not the only ones in this business. The old East Village BIA, the Argonne BIA, the Hyde Park BIA, Downtown London, they all have beautification projects, hanging basket programs, all kinds of things that really enhance the streetscape, particularly in our commercial districts.

[4:14:48] And so I would much rather continue to see the BIA’s do their thing, rather than us continuing to invest municipal dollars, particularly in places like center of median planters along someplace like Fanshawe Park Road, or even out of my way along Veterans Memorial Parkway, where going from perennials or annuals to a grass planting is still keeping the space green. These are the colorful, no, in terms of the value for the dollar.

[4:15:25] I don’t think that people are going along our arterial roads, particularly impressed with our plantings. I think they’re on their way to get somewhere. I think where it really matters is in those commercial districts or the BIA’s actually do a far better job because they’re able to focus on those things really tightly. So I say we let the BIA’s continue to carry the weight there and not proceed with investing ourselves supporting this reduction. Councillor Frank and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you and through the chair just a couple comments.

[4:15:59] I will also be supporting a reduction, mostly for the reasons already mentioned actually by Deputy Mayor Lewis as well as Councillor Stevenson, but specifically with the hanging basket program and the winter horticultural displays, I find myself kind of wishing that there were more long-term native plantings that remained and didn’t have to get taken out each year. And I know with the hanging basket program, there are staff that drive around and lovely staff that drive around and water them, but also the emissions from driving around, watering all those baskets could be reduced or eliminated if we had some native plants that were adapted to our climate.

[4:16:37] So I’m looking forward to seeing staff continue to grass in, but using native grasses and native species. And I was chatting via email with some of the staff and they are moving towards that model where they’re doing perennial native species. So I will be supporting a reduction because I do think we need to be moving more towards a climate resilient city and making those investments in long-term green infrastructure. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Ferrera. Yes, thank you. My two will be supporting this reduction. I do want to ask maybe through you to staff about opportunities like Councillor Frank mentioned about not grassing in our areas, but naturalizing them.

[4:17:20] And I’m glad to hear that we are looking at that. But as we do this reduction, will it automatically just be grassed in? Or where do we push the naturalization of our areas as opposed to just saying we’re grassing it in? Mr. Stanford. Thank you and through the chair. Yes, we’ll be assessing all of the variety of areas. And there are some of the areas that are small horticultural beds that have perennials in them already and in certain entrances to subdivisions in a variety of locations like that.

[4:17:56] We’ll go through some of them that are not high impact areas, community centers and variety of other areas. We’ll be looking at still receiving their planning and still beautiful buildings and facilities that we have. But there’s some of those areas that you drive by at 50, 60 kilometers an hour as Councillor Lewis referred to that people see green, but don’t really appreciate which type of plant or what is in the area. And those are some of the areas that we’re looking to try and reduce some of the weeding, some of the weekly, monthly annual maintenance in some of those areas.

[4:18:29] Councillor? We’d really encourage the city to do that. And if you’re looking for perennials in grasses, I’ve got lots, I can give away. It’s true for yards are beautiful. And even the grass plantings you’ve done at Earl Nichols Arena, they’re not colorful, but the grasses are resilient to everyone trampling by for hockey and it still adds some beautification outside the facility. Councillor Ferra. And thank you, Madam Chair and through you. As the downtown Councillor, I’m not gonna be supporting this one simply ‘cause the strategy is for the downtown and urban areas.

[4:19:07] I am looking for areas that we can cut certain expenses just so we can lower the pressure on the budget and the tax levy, but just because I am the downtown Councillor and we just lost our trees because we don’t have enough space. I would like to see something that is involved, I guess you could call it with the beautification of downtown. Like I understand that the London downtown BIA is heavily involved in that, but they do have other expenses that they need to look after. So I feel like something like this, especially since the city’s strategy is trying to bring people downtown to visit downtown, we should try to throw all the stops out really.

[4:19:47] So that’s why I’ll be not supporting this. So thank you. Thank you, that currently exhausts my speaker’s list on this one item, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion is passed, 11 to three.

[4:20:26] Thank you, that brings us on to business case P12, the community recreation and leisure program reduction to neighborhood playground programming, looking for a mover in the second or this one, or an alternate motion. Councillor Lewis or Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll move this to get it on the floor so we can start discussing it, yeah. Okay, moved by Councillor Lewis, seconded by Councillor ramen, starting my speaker’s list. I will start with Councillor Pribble and then Councillor Troso. To the chair to the staff and we are cutting from 22 to 10 when we had the 22 programs, how full they were, what was the percentage of the children participating?

[4:21:07] I’m just questioning if we are basing the cuts on low participation or if it’s kind of our initiative. Thank you. Ms. Smith. Thank you and through Madam Chair, our participation rate on average is about 80%, so we have 20 young people in the morning and 20 up to 20 in the afternoon and we average about 15 to 16 across the city in our about 40 sites. Councillor Pribble. So overall, let’s say last summer, the 22, we were running about 80% children or fulfillment of the programs.

[4:21:49] Ms. Smith. Thank you and through the chair, that is correct. Okay, thank you. Based on that, I just want to, because I’m not gonna have opportunity. The situation we’ve been in last couple of years was the pandemic and children being closed in and not participating. I will not support this and I will support it if the percentile was lower. But if it’s 80%, I will not support it. Thank you. Councillor Troso. And then I have Deputy Mayor Lewis. First the question through the chair, it says the community has not been advised of this possible reduction.

[4:22:28] Now you have the list, is it right that you actually have the list of the finite list of people who are participated in this? Ms. Smith. Thank you, through the chair, we make decisions where the sites are in about June because about 80% of our sites are with schools. So we have to wait until the school boards let us know where construction are. So we don’t finalize and promote our programs, our specific free neighborhood programs until June.

[4:23:01] So you are correct. We have not advised because right now we don’t inform the community about the program until June. Councillor? Thank you, through the chair, my second question is, it says a significant communication plan would need to be developed and implemented in order to inform the public. Do you have a cross estimate for what that would be? Staff. Thank you and through the chair, because we now use registration for this program, we could reach out to past recipients and we would have a very thorough social media and communication plan in cooperation with communications as we do for all of our summer programming.

[4:23:46] Councillor Troso? Yes, so to the chair and everybody, I just wanna make the comment that I’m not gonna be supporting this. It says in the socio-economic equity section that London families have come to depend on this program. It provides relief for parents while children are participating. Under the supervision of experienced play leaders, so we’re creating jobs. It says as a result of the reduction, there’ll be 38 fewer summer positions. 3,360 program spaces would be lost and then it says the reduction will disproportionately affect families who are unable to afford higher cost summer recreation programs.

[4:24:31] Not to mention people who have nice backyards. So I’m just wondering what the thinking is in reducing this. Councillor Troso respectfully, councilhood, okay, Ms. Livingston. Madam Chair, I just pleased with respect, wish to reiterate that this section was done because we heard clearly from council the need to consider affordability as you debated the budget this year and set the tax rate. This list is for consideration. Civic administration does not necessarily recommend it. We tried to explore all and every avenue to give you some options to consider to lower the tax rate.

[4:25:10] So we have also tried in the business cases to give you as much information as possible, including the kinds of impacts that were just highlighted. So I just want to reiterate that. It is not recommended. We did our best to explore many avenues to assist in reducing the tax rate. Councillor Troso, if you have a final question or comment. No, I think I’ve made my position this week. Okay, thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m not sold on this one entirely myself, but I wanted to move it so we could get the discussion on the floor and start having our debate.

[4:25:47] I did take the opportunity to reach out to Ms. Smith and ask some of my questions in advance. And so I was very happy to hear that sites at where the highest social risk index indicated. And these are more of our community center sites, not school sites, Carling, Huron Heights, West London, White Oaks, our Galanese Lions would still be active. And those are the six highest SRI areas, neighborhoods that have the highest populations of school-age children would also be a higher priority than those that don’t.

[4:26:25] And I’m going to apologize to Ms. Smith in advance because I didn’t follow up on this second question for her based on her answer, but through you to our staff. There was an indication, ‘cause I asked about the significant reduction, even though we’ll still have 3,200 spaces left, that we would be losing quite a few. And there was an indication that the play your way subsidy for individuals who can’t afford some of our paid programs would still exist.

[4:26:57] So I wonder through you, Madam Chair, if Ms. Smith or another member of our staff can share with us a little bit more information about the uptake levels we have and the funding that we put into the play your way program to make sure that individuals from lower income households do have access to some of our paid programming as well. Thank you, Ms. Smith. Thank you, and through the chair, I can start and maybe Mr. McGonagall can assist me. So based on income families and each child, for example, would be eligible for up to $300 a year to support recreation programming.

[4:27:32] So that’s probably equivalent to about two weeks of summer camp. The $300, however, has to be spread across the full year. And I’ll turn to Mr. McGonagall to say how much is our full budget in play your way. Yeah, thank you very much. And through the chair, our annual budget to support subsidy for our recreation and sport programs is approximately a million dollars. And in 2022, we supported approximately 5,600 individuals with that fund in 2022. Thank you.

[4:28:07] If you had one final question or comment, as I do have a long speakers list. Yeah, one, yes, I do have one final comment. The level of programming that we would be considering a reduction for. I know that we’ve had some reduction in services for the past two summers because of the pandemic. How would this reduction compare to, and I think we offered a higher level last summer, but certainly in 2020, we offered a lower level because of restrictions. How would the suggested amendment compare to what we’ve offered for the last two years?

[4:28:39] Would we be comparable? Would we be increasing last year in the previous summer’s offerings? Or where does that number fall? To staff. Yeah, thank you. And through the chair for us in 2022 for all of our services, we have been focused on trying to get back to our pre-COVID service levels. And I would say the 22 sites that you see as part of this business case would be us back to our pre-COVID service levels. Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you. And I, to second to this, just to get the motion on, but I will not be supporting this amendment.

[4:29:14] I appreciate just that comment alone, COVID levels, where we’re about 80%. I think most groups, organizations, have not seen the numbers going back to where we are. We are a growing city. The need is going to be even greater. This is for the future of this program. I know it will only grow. And I really do not want to see this reduction at all. It’s very vital that children have a place to go in the summertime.

[4:29:50] Thank you. I think you’re starting to see a consensus amongst colleagues questions or comments. So please just keep this tight. I have Councillor Ferreira and then Mayor Morgan. And thank you and through you. I guess building off of Councillor Hopkins last words. Yeah, we’re definitely a growing city and we’re also a city that values affordability. We see that happening again and again. We’re also a city that we always have, we’re looking out for all, for all Londoners. I think I saw that in the vision of the last strat plan that we were looking at.

[4:30:23] I’m pretty sure it said something about for all. So just noticing that statement for all and knowing that that also includes people who may have been more prone to being disenfranchised or just looking at the equity perspective of that, I feel like we should not be cutting this type of program, especially if we’re at the 80% numbers and we’re only growing and we’re gonna see more demand for these programs. And as a parent myself, I know that any type of child’s care or any type of program for your kids is very hard to come by. I come home every single day and my partner is showing, we’re looking for day care space.

[4:31:00] I know it’s not the same thing, but it is in the same realm. So anything that will help individuals who are just looking for some type of program, especially when it’s fully funded, I don’t wanna see that get cut out. So I’ll be definitely not voting for this reduction in the budget, I’ll be opposed to that. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Yes, I just wanna state that I won’t be supporting this particular budget amendment. I think there are lots of amendments that we can support that are spread across the city. This one disproportionately impacts certain populations in our city.

[4:31:36] And so it’s in our desire to wanna bring the tax rate down to make life more affordable all for all. This one seems to end up having an impact on those who might be facing some of the most significant challenges with affordability in our city. So I think this is not the place to find it. I appreciate that, I wanna say I very much appreciate and would reemphasize what our city manager said about staff giving us options within this section of the budget for reductions. I don’t think this is the appropriate spot for a reduction at this time.

[4:32:10] So I won’t be supporting this one. Thank you, Councilor Roman. Thank you, and through you. I just wanna seek some clarification about this program because I remember using this program in previous years is it was my understanding that it’s not a drop off program. Through the chair, my apologies. I may not understand the historical point in time that you are representing, but this is a opportunity for parents to drop off their kids with experienced staff to take them through daily activities through the playground program.

[4:32:51] Okay, just to clarify, was this and the hours were like around three hours at a time as far as I understand at neighborhood parks to staff? Thank you, and through the chair, pre-COVID, it was more of an informal drop off program and staff would be there. During COVID, we did registration. We found it worked very well. It was still a free program, but we liked the register ahead of time. So we continue to do that and have parents or caregivers drop off the children. It’s about two and a half hours in the morning and again, two and a half hours in the afternoon.

[4:33:27] And pre-COVID, sometimes we did trips. So if we went to a pool or something there was a small cost to the families, but since COVID, we’ve mostly stuck to activities in the green space where we offer the programs. Councilor? Thank you. I know it’s as a reduction of 38 fewer summer positions. Were those all filled last year staff? Thank you, and through the chair, yes, they were just all filled last year. Thank you.

[4:34:03] Councilor Stevenson’s my final speaker before ideally calling the question. Just a very quick point. I can see everyone’s leaning in a certain way here, but I just wanted to say also that with the interest rates going the way they are, I think it’s less easy to determine where families are struggling in the city. And so I really, I’m looking forward to this continuing. Thank you. Call on the question, posting the vote. The motion is lost, zero to 14.

[4:34:56] Thank you. And that in point is sometimes what I’m getting at is if we’re on the same page, we just keep going and save our time for the ones to be faced with each other on another point. Case P-12, or we just did, P-13 is the information technology eliminating printing of council agenda materials. The preference, the preface question to staff is, could you please confirm if this is the copies for counselors, the copies for the public that’s usually found in the gallery, all the both those agendas. And it’s already been noted that this excludes the bound budget material you get that is lovely that we’re enjoying today.

[4:35:33] So up in the gallery, just— Yes, thank you, and through the chair, the cost estimates you see are the reduction of all agendas. Okay, so looking for a moverter and a seconder to put this on the floor, moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Councillor Frank. I will always note that you could always print what you want on your printer if you needed something differently. So I’m starting my speakers list, maybe stay at the mic. We’ll start my speakers list with Councillor Van Merbergen and then Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[4:36:17] So some of us really like our paper agendas and we’re very responsible with them. We recycle, they always go in the blue box, you know? So I just want to confirm that if this passes, that none of us on council can get a printed agenda or printed material, is that correct? If you want to just clarify, if that won’t be supplied by the print room, but if there’s another means that one could print for those who prefer the paper copies. Yes, thank you, and through the chair, the production of all of the agendas would be discontinued, but individuals could certainly print agendas through other means should they wish.

[4:37:02] I will note that the Councillors, Printer does have the large sheets of paper, the 11 by 14s, and could always just ask our assistant to print them off for us. My budget brain question is, this contains the printing questions. What about those of us who have the printing material delivered to our home? Is that cost savings realized within this item as well? Thank you, and through the chair, the transportation and delivery is not included in what is presented before you today.

[4:37:38] Okay, so that would be an additional savings. Okay, Councillor Van Merrigan, a follow up from you. Well, I’m wondering if it might make some sense if some of us on council who still want the printed material could do so, and others could opt out. If we can perhaps, if that might be a feasible amendment? I’ll let, would staff like to respond first while I converse with the clerk?

[4:38:11] Okay, the clerk’s gonna go first, then we’ll converse. Through the chair, that’s already an option, and we exercise that through our office. Sorry, for just clarification, if you could talk slower, and that you would do it through your office versus the print room, or how would that come magically? I’m sorry, I’ll try to answer that with more clarity. Elected officials already have the option to choose not to receive paper, and we coordinate that at the beginning of the term. Sometimes preference has changed throughout the term, and that is managed through our office and our print requisitions that we send to the print room.

[4:38:51] So that’s already in practice. Sorry, just for clarity, but we’re eliminating that today. So that choice still exists, and really we’re just talking about eliminating it from the gallery. Sorry, I think I’ve caused more confusion by jumping in. The current system that we have allows elected officials to opt out. If this is passed, our office wouldn’t provide an opt in option, because there wouldn’t be the ability to do it through the print room, as I understand this business case.

[4:39:27] To staff, I see a nod just for clarity. Yes, through the chair, the clerk is correct. Okay, Councilor Vambergen, so the clerk’s office would not coordinate the printing of our materials, ‘cause I also get mine in paper. The print room would not be printing them. You would have to print them on your own from either your home printer or the office printer in the Councillor’s area. No more paper would come to your house, but you would have to propose an amendment that they’d still get printed for you, Ian. So just to be clear, if this passes, we as Councillors could arrange to have the agendas printed in our office and then pay from our budget to have it delivered to our house, would that still be an option?

[4:40:24] I would ask the Councillor, if you have a home printer provided by the city, you could print your own at home. Well, that’s always an option. (laughing) To the, I guess. Yeah, okay, so we’re gonna save 8,000 bucks. Chair, I’m just wondering if this is just something that is better left alone for 8,000, but I’d like to hear what others think.

[4:40:59] Okay, I appreciate that. And maybe the clerk will look into some delivery or other options of, I don’t know if we could even, I’ll talk to you in a minute. Councillor Frank, Councillor Ferra, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Lewis. Thank you. I will be supporting the reduction. I already don’t get paper copies. And just from an environmental standpoint, I think it’s better if we all move towards a digital option.

[4:41:33] That being said, I do have a question for accessibility directed towards staff. So if folks do need printed copies, the general public or Councillors for accessible reasons, would those be provided? Thank you. To their clerk then, if someone was coming to a meeting and wanted them printed, who needs it for accessibility? Is it just an email to the committee name beforehand asking for a printed copy or would we be able to coordinate that or to any staff? I’ll start and invite anybody else to jump in if they’d like to.

[4:42:13] Accessibility requests that would come through our office, we would manage to the extent that we’re able to, from time to time, we do receive requests where we engage with our partners from the now ARIO office with respect to accessibility. But that’s I think a different realm than just the straight printing that’s included in this business case. Councillor Frank. Thank you and one follow up. I do understand that it’s 8,000 a year.

[4:42:45] And I’m just wondering, I think I remember seeing something about the long-term cost benefits. And I was just wondering if staff could speak to that, just to outline why we are making such a decision on a small amount of money. Yeah, if staff could just speak to, I guess, maybe the following page then of printing material plus the savings in print room labor costs and overall how much we’re looking at saving per year. Yes, thank you. Through the chair, between, in 2023 and 2024, the savings will be $8,000. Between 2025 and 2029, the savings each year will be $67,000.

[4:43:21] So between 2023 and 2029, the savings will be $351,000. Councillor? Thank you, yes. And I just want to reiterate, I will be supporting this just again for the environmental reasons, but then also the financial reasons as just mentioned. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins, I will add you to the speakers list, but I have Councillor Ferrell next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. And through you, I have one question and then one comment.

[4:43:56] So the first question, I know that we receive our confidential agendas in paper form. I opted for the digital copies only myself, but I still get them in paper form. So I just wanted to know, are we still receiving that through paper if this were to be approved? Yeah, so how do the confidentials come to council? Thank you, and through the chair, the confidential agendas would not be produced in paper. Thank you. So password protected digital delivery means? Yes, through the chair, we would work through the clerks to determine that distribution.

[4:44:33] Okay, thank you, Councillor Ferrell. And just my last comment, just to keep it quick. So like I said, I opted for the digital agendas myself, but I’m still, I always try to stay away from paper and be digital, but I have been finding myself issues, just trying to figure out a good productive way or a good platform that I can keep it all digital. So just knowing that I am actually trying to be digital and I’m still finding myself going to the paper agenda. And I do see other colleagues, they do want to keep it with paper. I will be not supporting, oh no, I will be supporting this budget amendment.

[4:45:07] Okay, thank you. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Lewis, Councillor Hopkins. I’m sorry. Yeah, I know you inverted your, what do you be supporting, but thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have one comment and one question. My comment is as a new Councillor learning, everything is fast and changing, and I’m not, I’m get to get up to speed on the technology. I’m voting against this in the need for just keep them something simple as I get up to speed.

[4:45:44] My question is, the vast majority of this decrease over future years is in labor. So it’s $55,000 a year in labor, which is employment for people. So that is a concern for me. And also in not having a print room, does that mean we don’t have the same access that we do now to all of our other printing needs out of council? Okay. Yeah, I would also say to ward printing mailouts, does that affect any ability to do those things in house as well?

[4:46:18] Thank you and through the chair, the print room would not cease to function. We would just cease to provide this service by paper printing council agendas. Thank you. Councillor Stevenson, a follow up. So can you just clarify the loss of $55,000 a year in employment then or labor? Does this cause us any employees? Is that a direct question? Councillor Stevenson, do we lose any employees or employment from this? Yes, thank you and through the chair, the employees in the print room are contracted through a terms of service agreement with RICO.

[4:46:53] So it is likely that there would be a decrease in complement through that contract once that contract concludes in 2024. Thank you. Councillor. A final question then. So we might have a printer but no staff to use it. So just clarification on other printings. Currently, I guess our print rooms normally staff from the day, but sometimes late at night if we go silly late, they might not be there, we gotta pay them to stay over. Would that leave the print room closing during normal business hours if somebody needs something?

[4:47:29] Yes, thank you and through the chair. A couple of questions there. The print room would remain functioning with its current hours when we look at the cost savings. There’s also a cost savings of $4,000 each year and that’s a reduction of the technology as well. So you’ll note that the technology and the labor both reduce in 2025 connected to the contract, the aforementioned contract. Thank you. Councillor, last quick question then. So then this full cost including labor is strictly for the council agendas?

[4:48:08] Through the chair, correct. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, you’ve raised the point already but I’m gonna underscore it. We’re provided technology at the start of our terms and all of us are capable of pressing a print button on a document and sending it to the printer if you wanna pay per copy. Like Councillor Frank, I will be supporting this both for the cost savings and for the environmental savings, not to mention maybe a few less chiropractic visits ‘cause I don’t have to lift all those agendas and bring them down with me.

[4:48:48] Your staff, our councilor staff are also wonderful about helping you connect with other technology like an Apple pencil so that you can use those iPad you were provided to make notes on your PDF agendas. I would encourage colleagues to go ahead and get the training that you need to use those if you’re not comfortable with them yet. There is a learning curve. I will say it took me a good two solid months to get used to writing things on my iPad with a digital pencil instead of a regular one on paper. But I’m very thankful that I made the change and I think in terms of, you know, it’s really important to underscore that the print room’s not closing.

[4:49:27] There’s not one staff person there. There is more than one. Things like worldwide mailouts, public notices, all of those things that still have to go out for planning applications and everything else we do will still be happening. So for me, this is about value for our dollar and about us as councilors personally taking on some responsibility to provide for ourselves what we need through the technology that the corporation has provided us. So I really do encourage people to support this. The transition from paper to electronics is something that can take some time, but we’re all able to do it if we just devote a little bit of time to getting used to the changes.

[4:50:08] Thank you. I have Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Troso to finish off my speaker’s list before calling the question. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I will not be supporting this reduction. I appreciate it, but you’ve just mentioned Deputy Mayor. But I think if we keep this 8,000 in, we still here on council have an opportunity to opt in and out. And I know during my time on council, I have reduced the paper, I’m converting over. I do my technology.

[4:50:41] For me, it’s all about how we do our work and we all do our work a little bit differently. And if I can give an opportunity to another colleague of mine to allow them to do better work, read their reports, have the public come to our gallery, which we don’t see as often as we used to, and have reports and read them as opposed to trying to do it through an iPhone. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried reading an agenda up in the gallery.

[4:51:15] I have kind of difficult to follow along. Sometimes that piece of paper on the side really creates a little bit more engagement, communication. But for me, the biggest part is allowing each and every one of us to do the work as efficiently as possible, as much as I would recycle on my paper. I don’t see it as this reduction creating a problem in the environment. I really, really strongly think it’s more important that we do the work, that we do ourselves in our own individual way.

[4:51:58] And I will never take that opportunity away from anyone, especially the community. Councilor Troso. - I really want to support this, but I do have a couple of nagging issues, which I’ll start by asking through the chair. What is the unit cost for printing out something from our computer in the office, compared to the unit cost at the printer? Like just per page. - Per page, black and white? Yeah. - Ish?

[4:52:31] Yes, thank you through the chair. Per page, black and white printed on the multi-functional device in the counselor’s office is 8/10 of a cent. That compares to 5/10 of a cent for the same product in the print room. Thank you. I’m really glad that you had that sort of, so it’s really not that much. I’m just worried that some counselors are going to want to continue to, at least for the time being, and I totally agree with Deputy Mayor, Frank, we need to be getting away from the paper.

[4:53:04] And libraries have been having this discussion for years, and it’s still not resolved. Talking about libraries, do we lodge other paper copies of agendas with the public libraries and the branches? To staff. Through the chair, that is not information that I have readily available as it relates to the public library. Are there paper copies of our agendas or minutes housed anywhere in an archive versus digital? Is that adequate, Councilor Troso if someone has that question?

[4:53:38] Well, the current practice is to lodge the copies in the library, it would defeat the purpose to tell patrons then that they have to get on a computer, which is increasingly easy to do in the library, and either take notes which would run into their time limits or start printing stuff out. And if there would, it’s just a question I have, ‘cause I wouldn’t want to cut this service to the library out because there are people that don’t have the same access to digital technology.

[4:54:12] I’m not aware of the library printing copies of our weekly and committee agendas and storing it. Just our budget documents are available there at the libraries for public viewing. This was like powers, do you want to? Thank you, through the chair. Prior to COVID, agendas went to all public library branches at the same time that they went out to the Councillors and they were provided in hard copies to the libraries. To my knowledge, that has not resumed since the libraries were closed initially, et cetera.

[4:54:50] We do still provide bound copies in archive formatting, but that’s at your end. Thank you. So my next question would then be, is it possible to compromise here and say we’re not gonna do this now, but we strive to move in this direction. We will do it next year, but let’s give people notice that we’re doing it. And my other minor concern is, well, it’s not minor, but the confidential stuff, I don’t think, if we can keep the confidential communications out of the email system, it’s less trouble later on.

[4:55:30] And there’s not that much, there’s not that much. So Councillor Trussell, just for clarification, are you moving an amendment that this be sent to the multi-year budget process that we discussed for future changes versus a change in 2023? Yes, actually, that’s well put, yes. Okay, seconded by Councillor Van Merpel. That we refer this item to the multi-year budget processes ‘cause it then, that if this is the direction where he had going, it gives people a chance to learn new technology before their paper goes away.

[4:56:06] That, okay, so just Councillor, yeah, you and Paula are best buddies today. So moved by Councillor Trussell, seconded by Councillor Van Merpel again, hoping for not much discussion on deferring this to the multi-year budget process. And just for IT, if Councillors do wanna start learning how to save in the cloud and using their special pencil, if they haven’t got one, then how to order one, IT’s available to support Councillors who wanna take on that technology, jump.

[4:56:41] Through the chair, ITS is always here to help. Thank you. Excellent, okay. So speaking specifically on the amendment to put this, the multi-year budget process, which means we will discuss it again in the future, but it gives those a chance to look at how it would affect their work and do things differently. I do have Councillor Van Merpel and Councillor Roman. Specifically on this amendment. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to make the point that, okay, so we leave the 8,000, we leave it in, we leave things as they are.

[4:57:14] And even from a cost perspective, it starts to ramp up in 2024 anyway. That’s where the real savings are. So it makes perfect sense that this be referred back to the multi-year, so I’m happy to second that. Yes, I’m assuming we’re probably in the middle of some service contracts with labor that we would have to honor. Through the chair, that is correct. Thank you. Okay, Councillor Roman, thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if we considered options like board books, if just an online software so that you can get rid of paper lists.

[4:57:47] So London Hydro uses it and I’ve had a chance to use it and it’s fantastic to be able to read online agendas and to be able to make notes and do things like that. Just wondering what technology we’ve explored in this process, thanks. Yes, thank you and through the chair. Online agendas have been available for close to 10 years now. So that’s been available to Councillors. ITS is certainly willing to review different interests. And if there is a product that you have used in the past that is particularly helpful, I am always willing to do a review on the options associated with that, thank you.

[4:58:32] Okay, and just a reminder, E-Scribe is available publicly. So the public already has it, though it doesn’t fix the issue if people don’t have access to the technology. It doesn’t matter where it is, they can’t get to it. So just a closing statement then, and this is the, I’m going to look from the mayor, but right now you are the last speaker on my list. Thank you and through you. Yeah, I will say I was inclined to support this, but hearing from my colleagues that concerns they have around not having this available to them, I too, would like to make it accessible and easy for them to get to as well.

[4:59:10] But I do hope that those that can take the option to go paperless, thank you. Okay, so the amendment on the floor is strictly to refer this to the multi-year budget process, in which case it’ll come back to us with the same information and things will stay the same in printer, printer. It’d be a paper copy. So call on the question. Closing the vote, the motion on the referral is passed.

[4:59:55] 11-3. Thank you, item P14 has already been dealt with. P15, it’s the neighborhood strategic initiatives and funding increase the neighborhood decision-making program. I’m going to start with Deputy Mayor Lewis as he has a motion for you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this is a really simple motion. This is a motion to refer this to the multi-year budget process. This is a program that, well, let’s first see if there’s a seconder for that and then I’ll offer my rationale.

[5:00:33] A seconder to refer this to the multi-year budget process as it covers multiple years of NDM. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, please proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair. I love the neighborhood decision-making program. It’s fantastic. There’s been some great projects in ward two that have come forward. I know there’s been some great projects in wards across the city. I don’t think now is the time when we’re trying to absorb some inflationary pressure from the public to go with an expansion. And when this came before the last council, I know myself and some other members of council shared some concerns we still have about the fairness and equity of the program as well.

[5:01:14] And I’m not entirely sure that that has been fully addressed. I think staff have made some good progress on some of those items. I still have some concerns, you know, and as much as schools in my own ward have benefited, I still have some concerns about the fact that we are backfilling for the school boards in terms of playground improvements. So I think that there’s an opportunity to send this to the multi-year budget process. So we don’t throw away all the work that staff has done in bringing this forward at our direction, or at the previous council’s direction, by the way. So we can keep that work, but it also gives us an opportunity to give it some more detailed consideration before we decide whether or not to enact it in terms of accessibility for neighborhoods, equity, whether or not we should be funding things that are not on city property, those sorts of things.

[5:02:03] So I hope there’ll be support for that referral. Okay, so you have a seconder on it. If we’re discussing referral, in which case, we’re gonna be discussing this again in a few months. Anyways, after we’ve set our strategic plan, I’m asking that we really try not to have too much discussion on this since we’re gonna be discussing it again. And it gives you also some opportunity to look into staff can connect you Ms. Ms. Department with past programs and award winners of this program that was in your ward. So you have a chance to dig in to actually see who’s applied for funding and who got it. So it gives you a little bit more time to do some background research as you’ve been extremely busy right now.

[5:02:37] So calling the question. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one. Thank you.

[5:03:18] I’m gonna ask that we do one more item before break as you’re doing wonderful. And we also have two people on joining us virtually for the Hamilton Road BIA and just that lets them not have to wait for us while we’re on break. So looking for a mover and a seconder for case P16 being the community improvement BIA funding for the Hamilton Road BIA to get this on the floor. Councillor McAllister moves it. Councillor.

[5:03:50] I’ll move to the other side. Perfect, the magical voice from the ceiling. Councillor Cudi seconds it. Councillor Cudi, did you wanna speak to it to start? Just to you Chair, no thank you. It’s just how we move it along. Thank you so much. Starting my speaker’s list, I will start with Councillor McAllister. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I would ask Councillor to support this request for funding, the Hamilton Road BIA is in its infancy.

[5:04:29] It has only existed since about 2018. As any business owner you talk to these days, it has been a struggle through the last few years. Hamilton Road is trying to revitalize itself. It is a main artery to the city. I know on the call, I believe it’s Carolyn Luisto, who is the executive director. If you have further questions in terms of the business case and what they intend to do with that money, I would ask that you refer them to her ‘cause she definitely knows this better than I do. But I would ask support in this matter. BIA’s are integral to our business community across the city.

[5:05:04] I know a number of us sit on those and I look for your support in this matter as it will make a huge difference in terms of revitalizing that area for the business community. Thank you. Looking to see if there’s other speakers on the list. My speakers list will go Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Troso and just conferring, is anyone from the BIA on the call yet? Okay, so nobody’s on the call just yet. They’re getting them. And then, so if you maybe just have questions specific to staff about processor, how this works, your general comments will take those.

[5:05:38] And then if they’re specific to the staff, we will circle back around those. Councillor Stevenson, did you still want next or do you wanna wait? ‘Cause I have a list, so no worries. Okay, so I have Councillor Troso then and then Councillor Hopkins and then we’ll circle back when your staff comes on. My question is very simple through the chair. You don’t have to convince, well, I don’t need to be convinced about the value of the BIA’s, but typically aren’t those funded through sources other than the, yeah, the tax levy? So I was wondering why that was the situation here.

[5:06:15] Staff wants to give a general overview of how that money normally comes to be from BIA’s as they are a unique entity for us. Thank you through the chair, yes. As a general rule, the funding for BIA’s is collected as a levy on the members, special levy on the members of that specific BIA area. So you, for those of you who are part of Corporate Services committee, you would have seen the BIA budgets come forward earlier this month, actually, that laid out the 2023 budgets for all five BIA’s.

[5:06:53] So by and large, the BIA’s are funded by that levy on their members. The only exception being the Old East Village BIA, which receives a separate grant funded through the property tax levy. That is approximately $141,000 a year that they receive from the city on top of the levy that is collected from their members. So that is the only exception to the rule currently. Just for further context, I guess, as it relates to the Hamilton Road BIA, their levy amount that they levy their members.

[5:07:33] It has been set at $70,000 for 2023. Councillor. Yes, and this is to anyone through the chair. I wanna support the BIA’s, I always do. Well, I have Corporate Services, but I need more convincing on this one since it’s coming from the general fund. And I need to understand why there’s something here that’s different that we should ask taxpayers from around the city to support.

[5:08:10] Okay, thank you. I will note that one member from the BIA has joined and we’re just waiting for the other one. Okay, so I’m gonna go to Councillor Hopkins next and then I have Mayor Morgan. And then once we’re able to stop, we can go back to Councillor Stevenson’s questions and the convince me question from Mr. Trossa. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry, Councillor, apologies. I think my thought process is very similar to Councillor Tross.

[5:08:42] So I’m wanting to get a little bit more information. I understand this is an extra $100,000. I’m hoping that members from the BIA may be able to answer some of the questions. And one of my questions is around why 100,000, why not 50,000, just having a better idea of the need in the community. I do wanna support it, but I’m also needing more information. Thank you. We do have Mr. Paniero from the BIA.

[5:09:16] I’m not sure if you wanna answer this question or wait for Carolyn to join us. Rick, I’m not sure if you can unmute yourself. Mr. Paniero. Okay, I’ll pause with Councillor’s question then. I’ll go to Mayor Morgan.

[5:09:50] So hopefully I can help Councillor Trossa with this one ‘cause I certainly feel the same way as him. I think what we have in our cities, we have some BIA’s that are capable of financing themselves. The Hyde Park BIA, the Downtown BIA, even the Arigal BIA have a business capacity and membership that are able to generate the base amount of funds needed to make the BIA viable. It is very difficult to hire a staff person and do programming on a budget of $70,000 with the Hamilton Road BIA. So I think from time to time we may need to support the BIA’s ‘cause it is Council who has authorized the creation of this BIA in this area where we know that the capacity of those businesses are limited.

[5:10:33] What I would like to see though is I’ll support this, but I do think for both the old East BIA and the Hamilton Road BIA, the ones that are being subsidized by additional taxpayer money, that those subsidizations should be revisited, say every five years or perhaps at the start of every multi-year budget process with the exclusion of the one we’re about to enter into ‘cause we’re already there. And I’d be happy to move an amendment to have it reviewed say four to five years from now to ensure that this is not a permanent addition of levy dollars for the BIA’s, but it is meant to support them until they’re in a position where they can become self-financing like the other BIA’s ‘cause I certainly recognize it is difficult to do in Hamilton Road specifically.

[5:11:18] As I said, the programming activity and have actual staff that you can pay a respectable amount for the job they’re doing on 70,000 a year. So I’ll support this and I would also support making an amendment to have this reviewed say four years from now and then on an annual or on a multi-year budget cycle from that point moving forward. So the multi-year budget cycle after the one we’re just starting? Yeah, whatever. Whatever year that is, it’s gonna be great year. So if that makes colleagues more comfortable, I think that would set a regular review. It sets the expectation for the BIA’s that this is not permanent funding, but they would need to justify the continuation of this subsidization and I think is a nice compromise, hopefully.

[5:11:58] Okay, so that amendments moved by Mayor Morgan, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. So it’s just an amendment that should they get this funding that they are required, that it’s not in perpetuity, that they have to come back at not this multi-year budget cycle, but the one that happens after that to remake their case, the money would automatically stop and it has to come back and be approved again. I apologize just one more time. So the amendment is that it’s not a one time 100, it’s that it’s for this and four years where we’re talking about it in the multi-year budget.

[5:12:37] Mayor Morgan. So I would like to review these at the start of each multi-year budget cycle, but I would say they’ve just made their case now, they’re not gonna be in a different position one year from now, so that’s why my suggestion is they will get it annually as suggested here, but we would start the review when we start the, what would it be, the 2027 to 2020, whatever multi-year budget. So in preparation for that budget, that’s when we would do the review. So gives the organization a runway to try to boost itself up to a self-sustaining level.

[5:13:15] May I ask you if my question’s prior to the amendment or? The amendment’s moved and on the floor right now. So technically it’s just the amendment we’re speaking to at the moment. Okay. But we have, I think we still only have one person from the BIA, would they take your question to the BIA if they answer? I do have a question on this as much as I’m a full supporter of small business and BIA’s. I have a few concerns about this one. And my concern is that my understanding with the oldest village is that the reason they get the 100,000 is they bear the brunt of the city’s social services agencies.

[5:13:56] So this is, you know, a unique situation and my understanding is that’s why they were getting the 100,000 and it wasn’t just that the BIA was new and needed some support. Their tax revenue is only 40,000. So they only get 40,000, they get given 140 by the city. But again, they are dealing with situations that are far different than any other area, particularly in that they don’t have the levies because of the social service agencies and nonprofits don’t pay the levies into the BIA.

[5:14:34] And they have a lot of them. They have the Palace Theater, you know, there’s a lot of nonprofits. And so my concern here was that it wasn’t a one-time thing because they’re looking at needing to pay the executive director. And again, I guess as council, maybe we get to look at that, are we gonna start to have BIA’s pop up all over the place that are gonna need funding for an executive director? I feel that because of the social service agencies in oldest village, it’s a unique situation.

[5:15:08] And so I’m uncomfortable with this one. Okay, Mr. Panhero, seeing as you are with us and your mic seems to be unmuted. If you can just give us an overview of the questions earlier before you arrived, we’re essentially why $100,000 and what you’re doing with the money in addition to Councilor Stevenson’s questions that you just heard. Hello, sorry. Mm-hmm. - Yeah. Please proceed.

[5:15:40] Thank you, Council Police. And my name is Carolyn and I’m the executive director for Hamilton Road BIA. I’m sorry about this. I had an issue connecting with the internet and hand some lead into this conversation. So answering to your question, as I look at the operation budgets, we are on par in terms of the population, in terms of the vulnerable population that’s along Hamilton Road area. We are on par around Dundas East when we’re referring to the vulnerable population that’s in our area.

[5:16:21] I have a hard time when people are saying that they’re not having enough security around the core area and we can’t budget that for. So with this budget, it will enhance the security in that area and also enhance our social media in terms of what is required. We wanna be just as in par with the other organization with the BIA and we wanna be able to have that opportunity if given that chance.

[5:16:54] And I do echo what the Mayor Morgan is saying. We struggle to have those costs on par if you don’t have it. So that support for that four year plan would be greatly appreciated. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. No doubt there’s lots of areas in the city dealing with the vulnerable population. And I can’t think of a small business in town that wouldn’t like more security.

[5:17:28] So my concern is we’re funding it in this one area and we have small businesses all over the city that are struggling. And so why this area and not other areas? And I think the situation is unique in all these village and that the social services agencies are there. And that’s what makes it unique versus the other areas of the city which are all facing similar issues. And so my question is how much of this 100,000 is going to the executive director’s salary because that’s also asked here as well as versus security patrols and the other things.

[5:18:16] Would the BIA be able to provide a response? Ms. Luistra? Thank you very much. With those budget that we’re asking covers certain programs that we cannot afford at the moment. And so in terms of the covering the salary, it will not go towards the salary. It will go into a lot more programming to enhance the businesses.

[5:18:53] In terms of the support and social services, we have a few, you know, my sister’s place in terms of the coffee homes is along Hamilton Road. And then also the Crouch Neighborhood Resource Center is also there. So my aim is to partner with them to ensure that there are a safety and also the wellbeing, not just the neighborhood, but also the businesses. I have a hard time when somebody’s saying that there’s someone who is, for the lack of the better word, human species right in front of their businesses.

[5:19:38] I have a hard time hearing that in terms of, there is not adequate in terms of support. And you, I believe that that is something that is also a concern, not just at the neighborhood level, but at business level. Okay, thank you. So just for clarification, within the documents providing to us, it says the amount is enough to cover the BIA’s administration, grant assistance, participation and so forth. So for clarification, it’s not going to pay for any of the staff administration costs.

[5:20:14] The administration would cost would have to cover some of that administration costs, marketing programs, events, security controls, and member support and services. Okay, thank you. Councillor Stu this one more question, then I have Councillor Pervall right after you. Thank you. It states right here, and in offering a competitive wage for an executive director, they’re insufficient funds. So I guess we’ve already been clear then, none of this is going to executive director salary then, that goes against what Mayor Morgan was saying, that it was needed to be an administration to support the BIA.

[5:21:00] If it’s going to security and those kinds of things, I really think we need to look at this as a citywide issue, and I would like to look at that in the multi-year budget as to how we can support small businesses with those other areas, and I’ll be voting no. Councillor, just for clarification, what page are you reading the executive director salary on? Oh, I apologize. It is on page 190, under additional details, amendment drivers about halfway down. Thank you, Councillor Pervall and then Councillor Raman.

[5:21:38] I will also not be supporting it, even though I was more into yes, and the reason for it is again, what was already said, the salary, and then when the person’s story spoke on the behalf of the BIA, when I heard the security downtown, we have one large member who is by themselves spending over $100,000 for security, and if we were to go ahead with this, we would have to address the other BIAs as well, and I don’t think they would be fair, so I will not be in support of it. I do, I love the line in terms of get them on track.

[5:22:11] I think this is gonna be a tremendously difficult year for small and medium-sized businesses in London and Canada. You got the first year of no subsidies, and every small business applied for $60,000 Canadian grant, and by the end of the year, they’ll have to pay 40. I think it’s gonna be challenging if this was built for this year to get them on track. The specific marketing initiatives, I would be very much in support of it, but based on this, I would not be supporting it. I don’t know if there is any room to help them out, that to get the business in, to track, support them, but again, only on the marketing initiatives, how to get them to the better, how to better them off, but not based on this.

[5:22:52] Thank you. Councillor ramen. Thank you, and through you, I too will not be supporting this amendment, and again, it goes to page 190, and the lines around staff retention, and then the additional funds just being used for beautification and security. Again, I do see this as something that other BIA’s are struggling with from a security perspective as well, and I do think that that should be considered across and for all BIA’s.

[5:23:25] I do also note that there is a new staff person that is also on board with the city for BIA’s, and getting a better sense of what their role is in supporting BIA’s as well, and whether or not we, within that staff, we can provide perhaps some of the supports that are being looked for here when it comes from a staffing perspective and supports marketing communication or other things. I know the person’s in planning, but I do see some other ways that we can look at helping the BIA. Thank you.

[5:23:59] I have Councillor Troso, and then Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then Mayor Morgan, and then Councillor Frank. So one, the amendment, if I understand what you said, that would be the 2029 to 2032 for your budget, this would go to, through the chair to the mayor. I think it starts in 2028. I just, there’s a lot of finance people nodding. 2028. If we were going to be taking up the 2028 budget, we would be reviewing this anyway.

[5:24:43] So what does the, really, I want to understand is what does the amendment add that we wouldn’t otherwise already be doing? A lot for clarification as the purpose of the amendment versus if we just did it as it came to us. Yes, as the current budget amendment in our binder states, it would be an addition of $100,000 forever every year. And given, given my comments, I thought for people to be more comfortable, whether you support the original business case or not, you’d have the ability to review this at a point in time to decide whether or not you want to keep it.

[5:25:23] Obviously, you could always review any part of the budget at that time, but this would force a review of the taxpayer-subsidized funding of BIA’s without us having to make a decision about it in the future. Okay, so putting aside the staff and security, it was some of the agencies that are in the Hamilton Road area were mentioned, would it be possible? I guess I want to go through the chair to ask staff, is are there other off, like we did before, off forms of funding that could be used as one office for programs that these particular very, very worthy agencies in the Hamilton Road area wanted to put on?

[5:26:07] Yeah, so to staff an outline of any other grants or facade improvements, that would be available to the BIA members. So through the chair, the way that this is presented, it’s presented as a base budget amendment, noting that it’s going to be for a significant period of time. So that’s going to be an ongoing cost. Certainly, there could be other things that could be potentially explored, but because the BIA’s separate entity from the city of London, it would be a grant specifically because they’re doing the work as part of their budgets. And as Kyle had mentioned earlier, their budgets were submitted approved by the most recent council meeting that had come forward with the intent of what they’re doing.

[5:26:49] So this budget amendment would then add to their base budget and they would be doing using that grant to supplement their operations as they’ve described in the business case. So certainly we can bring forward future reports to create a review such that council would provide direction as they wish to continue or not. But it’s definitely an ongoing cost and doing it any other way would undermine the integrity of the funding source. Okay, Mayor Lewis or Deputy Mayor Lewis. Man, everyone’s getting upgraded today. I’m sorry, I should have done break before this.

[5:27:24] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to know if the temporary promotion comes with Mayor’s pay for the day as well. I didn’t get it, so you don’t get it either. Fair enough. I’m listening to the things that folks are saying. And I have to tell you, I’m disheartened. When we talked about sidewalk accessibility, we talked about applying an accessibility lens and applying an equity lens. Well, I want to tell you, all BIA’s are not created the same.

[5:28:01] Hamilton Road does not have the advantage of the big box stores paying into the levy that Hyde Park or Argyle has. It does not have the sheer volume of members that downtown London has. If you want to get a plane off the ground, you got to put a little fuel in the tank to start the engines. And I think that that’s exactly what this amendment is proposing. Right now, the Hamilton Road BIA is this little worn down old Cessna plane that needs a refurbished and needs some fuel in the tanks.

[5:28:35] Compared to the Argyle BIA, which is one of those air buses that shuttles people back and forth to London. Hyde Park, which is running like a 737, Don has got doing great things out there and there’s lots of positive energy. We got different planes in the fleet of BIA’s here. This one needs a little bit of help getting off the ground. We will not, when we’re putting it in the base budget for now, we will review it five years from now, or the council at the time, we’ll review it five years from now in that multi-year budget cycle.

[5:29:11] I can tell you my Argyle BIA forks out money for security because it’s needed. And because we’re just not in a position right now with the policing resources that they can do without that. Hopefully someday we will be, but we’re not right now. BIA’s invest in different ways and different things, but this one needs help just getting started. And when you want to talk about an area that has been socially disadvantaged, that Hamilton Road corridor is one of those areas in the city.

[5:29:43] So with all due respect, I got to tell you, if you voted for winter walk maintenance because it was an equity issue, well, it’s an equity issue for this BIA too. And I really, really encourage you to support it and give them the five years they need to really get up and running, do what they can do, and we will review it, or the council of the day will review it. And either they will see value for the dollar or they won’t. And the BIA may be in a position where it doesn’t need that subsidy anymore, because it’s been able to grow the businesses, it’s been able to grow its levy.

[5:30:16] But unless we provide them with the support to do that work, to support those businesses and grow that levy, they will never get to the point where they’re self-sufficient on their levy. So let’s give them a chance to show what they can do. Mayor Morgan. I just want to emphasize to colleagues that the only thing before us right now is the amendment that I propose. So whether you want to support the main motion or not, if you want to have some accountability in the future for this, I would say support the amendment. Let’s have a debate on the merits of it, but this would add an additional level of accountability beyond the reporting through corporate services committee on an annual basis on their budgets.

[5:30:54] It would essentially trigger an automatic review of the tax-supported funding of BIAs in the city, which at that point that council of that day could decide whether to continue it or not. So we’ll have the debate on the main motion afterwards about whether or not we give them the money, but if you’re having any doubts about giving them the money, you might want to just add this level of accountability and support the amendment. Hey, I will note that we, yes, are on the amendment, but seeing as the presenters were not here for the questions about even what is their BIA and what they want with the money, I did allow extra leeway in the conversation ‘cause they weren’t here, which I think most people would have voted no for right up the bat if we had no explanation, period.

[5:31:31] So I do have a further speakers list of Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins looking to see if your questions are on the amendment. If you’d like to ask them now or hold them to her back on the main motion, I am at your purview. Is that now? Okay, so Councillor Frank now and Councillor Hopkins now. Okay. Yeah, I just wanted to share that I’ll be supporting the amendment and I’m supporting this business case in general. As a previous executive director, I understand how hard it is to seek funding and I think to get to Deputy Mayor Lewis’s point, to get started is one of the most important things that we can do and the leveraging as we talked about with Humane Society being able to go around and leverage the funding that the city’s providing them to other partners.

[5:32:11] That is incredibly important and I don’t think that there’s a monopoly on struggling communities. So I do think that this group really warrants and deserves and needs this funding. Keeping in mind our small, medium-sized businesses are some of the backbone of our economic system locally. The money stays local, the staffing is local, the purchasing is local. So I can only see benefit to improving the economic experience of the Hamilton Road BIA. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I’ll be supporting the amendment and I’ve really appreciated the conversation ‘cause I’ve been back and forth so many times here.

[5:32:46] I’m making myself dizzy but I have to go back to what I usually have done on council. I support BIA’s and the difficulty is when you pick and choose in a support over here and not support over there, you have to have really good reasons. And without getting too much into the weeds, the Hamilton Road BIA does great work. I’ve had them come out to the Lambeth community. We don’t have a BIA. BIA’s can do, create lots of improvements and they have shown that they have improved in the area.

[5:33:26] I think it’s really difficult for us to get too much into the weeds but to me, it’s a matter of do you support BIA’s or not? I’m glad we’re gonna have a review. I’d like to probably see it a little bit earlier but I can understand we’ve gotta get them going and supportive. Thank you. The amendment on the floor is there, if you go to the current item, that it was just that they’ll get their funding now until the multi-year budget comes up in 2028.

[5:34:01] They’ll have to come back strictly on the amendment as I’m really called the question and then we’ll go back to the main motion and anything that strictly on the amendment, Councillor Troso. Through the chair to the mayor, could you like, was just suggested, could you move that up a year or two? I mean, there’s no reason why, there’s no reason why a review couldn’t happen in the term. Okay. So is it a friendly amendment to the amendment without doing official amendments to just shorten that time period that they have two to three years grace period halfway through? Don’t have a strong preference.

[5:34:36] I think it should be reviewed for all BIA’s. I was trying to give them runway. So people want that to be three or four years. I’m fine with that. I don’t have a strong preference but you got to give them at least some time to help make the businesses viable. So, you know, four to five year time period seemed reasonable to me. So if colleagues want to amend that to something else, I’m not looking for the amendment to tank because I’ve picked one year off one way or the other. Okay. So three year, okay, I appreciate that we’re trying to get as much buying as possible.

[5:35:12] So when we get to the main motion, we can just vote on it and move on. So we have a friendly suggestion of three years as the ward representative, Councillor McAllister. Yeah, I appreciate through the chair, I appreciate the opportunity. I’ve just been bouncing around the room, like I’m dying over here trying to get back into the conversation. I realize we’re talking about the amendment and I understand the discussion about accountability and I am in agreement, but to your point, Councillor Tressa, and to Mayor Morgan, they need the runway.

[5:35:46] And one of the things I want to speak to with this and Deputy Mayor Lewis pointed to it as well, we have to acknowledge in London that there are economic disparities and what breaks my heart, especially in my ward, even if you just look, there’s a community improvement plan that you can look up as well, but it doesn’t prosper the same way that other parts of the city does. There was a time when it did thrive, but it’s been hurting, it’s been hurting for a long time and they need this infusion from us. They can’t do it on their own. And I would really ask that we support this because they need that runway, as I pointed out, I understand the concerns about if we give it to one that the others will, but I like that we’re putting that accountability in there because it gives them a chance to prove themselves.

[5:36:27] And that’s really what they’re asking for in this, is they can’t do it alone. There aren’t enough businesses to support a higher levy. They’re really struggling. And when I hear from them all the time, and I know we all hear this as well, but they just don’t have the capacity to do it on their own. And I am asking Council to support this with the accountability in place, but they do need assistance from us because this part of our city will not thrive if we don’t support it. Thank you. Okay. Strictly on the amendment, Councilor Pribble, keep it tight.

[5:37:02] I hope it’s strictly to the amendment. I’m all for it. As I said, marketing initiatives, fantastic, great, help them out. I just have a issue with the security because of other BIA’s that are having, and if I talk about downtown, big issues, they feel city is not doing enough. They do want help. They are paying a lot already. And honestly, I was in support of it till I heard the security and that’s where they lost me because if we build it, I don’t know if we can put into the motion that it’s going to be based on the marketing initiatives.

[5:37:35] I’m all for it in terms of the security. We’ll have all the rest of the BIA’s on the table next week. One, I appreciate that. As we heard some concerns about staffing as well, but realizing they’re new and they do have their own board, maybe just one of those hands-off things. I’m growing weary of the cross back and forth as we’re already past break, as this has gone on for longer than anticipated. You’re fine with, Mayor Morgan’s fine with three years. Are you, maybe not? Okay.

[5:38:07] How about as the compromise before the end of this term of council? So that it’s this group who gets to review it again. So 2026, early in 2026 seems like a reasonable spot that way we can review it and give our advice to the next council. Deputy Mayor Mart, you get to be both. The hour grows late. Sean, are you good with this? Yes, so I’m not getting his pay today. I’ll follow his lead on this one. Okay, so that allows for this council, if he’s approved, it can have a report back of what they did with security to get any better.

[5:38:44] Have you stabilized your staffing? And have you made an impact? And we know the facts going in and can send them up for success of whoever’s on our seats and the next term at council is for use, we’ll go quickly. I’m seeing head shakes, calling the vote on strictly the amendment that this will be the timeline of now to early 2026. They will come back whichever committee is appropriate and they can come and present a business case and present to us. We’re just fixing the typing adding in 2026.

[5:39:57] Closing the vote, the amendment is passed, 14 to zero. Paint does the finance team need any time to fix numbers, what we’ve done? I’m seeing no’s. Okay, so everything’s back on the floor, keeping your questions as tight as possible as we’ve been on this for over half an hour. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. I find myself in a weird place here ‘cause as I said, I am so pro-business, but if we’re gonna talk equity, again, what about all the businesses that don’t have a BIA?

[5:40:30] Is it, or even to defer this to the multi-year budget? Because this is not a business case before us to say how the money’s gonna be spent and what value’s gonna be created. It is, this is not a good business proposal in front of me here for this. I’d be interested to see one, to see the runway and the take off they have had four years already. This is the last year of their CIP. If we’re gonna give out money based on need, it’s an interesting precedent to set.

[5:41:05] Any further speakers? Okay, just strictly a closing statement as he knows the, as you think, no. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just letting you know, like, I’m passionate about this, I’m passionate about my award. So, you know, I’ve gotta just finish on a high note for them. I’d also note that if you’ve sold something, don’t unsell it. Yes, I know, and I’m not trying to do that. I’m just trying to give them a chance, honestly. My speaker’s list is now growing, just to let you know.

[5:41:38] Okay, so as I reiterated on the amendment, I just wanted to say, we need to give this BIA a chance. I appreciate that we’ve now put in the accountability, but, and I, too, Councillor Stevenson’s point, I understand there are still some questions. The four years they had, though, I can’t imagine putting a business in the worst starting position, ‘cause I feel like they were handicapped from the start, starting through COVID. They’ve really struggled during that time. They’ve done their best with what they had, but they’ve pretty much just been able to keep the lights on and function on a skeleton crew. This gives them a starting point.

[5:42:10] They’re starting now. I think it’s unfair to say they started in 2018, ‘cause they had some things to work with, but they didn’t have the tools. And I think we need to give them this tool to actually be effective and be able to prove and build the business in that area. Thank you. Councillor Preble. I’m so happy that we gave them the tool, and I hope this tool is gonna help them off, take off that airplane, and it’s gonna be based on the marketing initiatives that is gonna help help their members. Thank you. Mayor Morgan. When I encourage my colleagues to support this, when you look at the recent budget that came before the Corporate Services Committee for the BIA, they have 40,000 budgeted for salaries, 10,000 budgeted for rent.

[5:42:58] So they don’t have a lot of money to work with. And it was council’s support of the proposal. Like we decided to create the BIA. We decided to create the special purpose body. So if we’re not going to give it the runway to become a flourishing BIA, where it can become self-sufficient down the way, the purpose of the creation of this BIA when we first created it was, there was a very depressed business environment along Hamilton Road that needs its help building itself out. This is a specifically targeted area. I understand that we have lots of areas of the city that could use support.

[5:43:31] But a BIA is a very specific tool that is being deployed in this area by decision of council and we should support it. If we need to support others areas of the city for different reasons, we have other tools, including the creation of new BIA’s, that we could consider. But this is something we decided to do. And I think we should back it up, give them the ability to get to the place where they need to. I like the accountability we built in annually, their budget and you’ll be able to see exactly how they spend this money that we give them at the Corporate Service Committee and we’ll all get a chance to vote on it. We’ll all get a chance to ask questions. So I would encourage colleagues to support this.

[5:44:05] We’ll see how it works out. We’ll have a lot of accountability and we’ll give them the opportunity to become a self-sustaining BIA. Thank you, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motions passed, 11 to three. Looking to move, okay, so one I will also note that was 40 minutes on a $100,000 a year thing.

[5:44:52] So the only item I have flagged after this is obviously P-17 after that. If there’s anything else in the water, wastewater, treatment, and other where we put our debt and operating capital money stuff, let me know ‘cause staff is plugging in those numbers so we can be prepared to vote. And it usually goes quickly once we enter that back half. So staff’s available. I’m moving a 10 minute break. There should be something in the counselor’s lounge before you do what you need. So come back at 3.16, all in favor of, I’m doing that, sorry, mover.

[5:45:30] Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor McAllister. Hand vote, all in favor of coming back at 3.16. Motion’s carried. Thank you. If everyone could just take their spots, please.

[5:57:57] Okay, we’re ready to start, please. Well, no one brought me snacks. So maybe that’s why you got the look. Okay, we’re moving on to business case P-17. This is the capital financing reduction to previously approved for consideration business cases, infrastructure gap, RF contribution. Looking for a mover and a seconder to put this one on the floor.

[5:58:30] And then we can start with questions and comments. Moved by Councillor Raman, seconded by Councillor Layman. Looking for questions or comments on this item. Okay, seeing no questions. I’ll wait to the last few Councillors come in. Item P-17 is on the floor. And it’s just questions or comments before we call the question. Councillor Frank and then Councillor Ferrera. Thank you.

[5:59:05] Through the chair to staff, I was just wondering what the implications were, if you could kind of walk us through of reducing this $950,000 contribution to the infrastructure gap. I know the budget case is laid out, but I’m just wondering to get a more false understanding about future implications are for future councils. Thank you. Okay, to staff. Thank you through the chair. Just in terms of a little bit of context, it’s part of the 2020 to 2023 multi-year budget. Council approved multi-year budget business case number four. There were two parts to that business case.

[5:59:40] There was part A, which for 2023 represents a $1 million contribution to our infrastructure gap reserve fund. Part B of the business case has a contribution currently planned of $1.9 million for 2023. The business case or the budget amendment in front of you today is proposing to cut in half the amount of funding going to the infrastructure gap reserve fund, $950,000.

[6:00:17] So the implications of doing so really is lesser, I guess, savings for future infrastructure renewal needs to put some numbers to it, I guess. By making this reduction, that would mean that our infrastructure gap as a percentage of the replacement value of our assets would jump from 3.04% to 3.07%. So not a huge move but a small increase in the infrastructure gap as a percentage of the asset replacement value.

[6:00:49] Okay, I’ll take a moment at this point and ask staff to put up, now that we’re all back, to put up the updated chart of where we’re at in the projected tax levy and with this consideration on the floor of what that would do to change it. Thank you through the chair. So where we currently stand is a 3% tax levy increase for 2023. The average for the four years is at 3.4%. In terms of the rate payer impact, the 2023 increase of 3% translates to $95 for the average residential tax payer and the four year average increase sits at $102.

[6:01:42] So that’s where we currently stand, thank you. Thank you and the consideration before us would change it, how? So the impact you can see on screen here. If we cut in further cut in half, the plan contribution to the infrastructure gap reserve fund for 2023, that would push up the tax levy increase for 2023 to 3.2%. Councillor Frank.

[6:02:18] Thank you, a follow-up question to that. I’m just wondering, again, given the increase in climate change related weather events and our aging infrastructure, if I know that this has been brought to council by staff as a cost-saving measure and that you’re trying to kind of turn over every stone, but I’m just wondering long-term, if not putting money into this infrastructure gap funding, given, again, the probably high likelihood that we’re gonna have more and more issues with climate change, if this is like, I don’t wanna say really recommended by staff, but if it is something that the financial or legal team would support without any caution.

[6:03:02] And just a reminder, this is for consideration, not staff recommended. Components, Ms. Barboon. Thank you through the chair. So I was just gonna note that, yes, this is an item that we put forward for consideration. It was also an item in the previous year that we had put forward. This is the, there were two business cases as Mr. Murray had mentioned before. This was the additional incremental amount that was put forward. So right now at this time, so we have a couple of different ways that we’ve been saving towards supporting the infrastructure gap. We are currently in the midst of completing our asset management plan for the in preparation for the multi-year budget.

[6:03:40] So what we do know at this point in time is that just based on the inflationary factors alone, the asset management, the infrastructure gap was expected to increase based on just the existing things that our maintenance and support of our infrastructure going forward. The other layers that they’re putting on as they move forward through the asset management plan will take into account some of the additional things related to climate change and infrastructure renewal as well, also other things that will come through our budget. So when that asset management plan comes forward, which will be brought forward through the next couple, somewhere in the summertime, I believe, in advance of the multi-year budget, there will be, it’s quite a significant plan when we do the update that will give a significant amount of information on every single area of infrastructure in the city of London in terms of what the risks are and all of the assumptions that go forward and to identify what that infrastructure gap will be in the future.

[6:04:36] So this business case currently helps mitigate the infrastructure gap we’ve projected at this point. I do expect through this update all things being equal and what we know that it will in fact grow. So if this is there to support it, it will certainly help mitigate what we’re seeing currently, but there will be another business case supporting the multi-year budget and I suspect additional asks incrementally into the future as we continue to chip away through this. And it’s trying to find ultimately what that level of investment the council feels comfortable with to try to mitigate the gap and try to help not have it grow at such an increasing pace.

[6:05:17] So we’ve had a number of success with the support of council to see it slow and that growth has slowed. So it’s definitely made a difference. As Kyle had noted, those increases are minimal with a reduction proposed, but certainly we expect to see it grow through the completion of the updated plan. I have Councilor Freire next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis and I remember working. And thank you Madam Chair and through you. I’m particularly concerned just with some of the language that was appointed out in the budget amendment, particularly the negative impact to equity deserving vulnerable groups and how it might affect our city’s goals for the 2050 emissions targets.

[6:06:01] But at the same time, I’m also thinking along the lines of I’d like to lessen the financial impact and burden to the taxpayer as well. So I was wondering and I feel like Councilor Frank alluded to this just a little bit, but instead of the 950,000 proposed, there is some middle ground that we could, we don’t have to go for the full 950,000. We could go let’s say half and maybe consider that as well. So I just wanted to throw that out there and just see what everyone else thinks. Thanks.

[6:06:32] Okay, can I just let that sit there as a comment for people to contemplate as we continue our speakers list and then we can come back? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you Madam Chair and through you, we’ve had a couple of these reductions in past budget debates and in at least one instance, I can recall the saw off between former Councilor Halmer and I was that it would be a one year. So now we’re back dealing with it again. I’m gonna be supportive of this and I wanna share why. This is a savings contribution.

[6:07:07] So it’s not a spending issue right now. And I think we can all look around any of our awards probably and see infrastructure projects that are behind schedule that didn’t get completed on time. And that’s not our staff’s fault. That is the reality of a labor market and a supply chain that is still working out its pretty significant post pandemic kinks. And well, I agree with Councilor Frank’s comments about the need to invest in some climate change mitigation in the future.

[6:07:45] I wanna see what that looks like through our asset management plan before committing. So for me, in savings, this is like your foot on the gas pedal. We’re not hitting the brake. We’re still gonna put some savings away. But we don’t have the pedal to the floor. We’re not going full speed. And I really think it’s important and I learned this myself four years ago that for a long time, a lot, almost no savings were being put away and there was a significant ramp up in savings in the 2014 to 2018 Council.

[6:08:25] And since then we’ve eased our foot off the gas a little bit but we are still putting money away for future projects. And I think that that’s the important piece to understand is even if we say yes to this, which I intend to do, we’re still gonna be putting money away. And we may hear from our staff this time next year that we actually are gonna have to bump it back up. But that’s the importance of contributions to a reserve fund is that we can accelerate and decelerate those contributions as needed as we get new information as circumstances change.

[6:09:02] And to Councilor Ferreira’s point right now to me is the time that we should be absorbing some of those pressures that are out there. We’ve got the opportunity to do that through supporting this business case. Perhaps a year from now we will find the economy in a little bit better state, lots of forecasts. Predict 2023 will be a year that we will start to see inflation rates fall again. So I think we should take this approach today and see what the next year brings before we make a decision on changing the rates again. So I hope folks will support this one.

[6:09:35] Thank you, Councilor, just testing the water. If it was half the amount versus the full amount, would you be any more or less likely to decline to ever so briefly? Well, Madam Chair, I am always cognizant of that number we received early on in the budget presentation that it’s about $700,000 to make a point one difference. So I wouldn’t want to go beyond that number if we’re going to reduce it. I think we want to reduce it in a way that the residents of London see it on their tax bill. So I would want that 700,000 level at best.

[6:10:12] Thank you. I had Mayor Morgan followed by Councillor Hopkins. Or did I, I already, I didn’t already do you, but if you don’t want the list, I have Councillor Hopkins. Oh no, I’ll take a spot on the list. So I want to add some context from what our staff said about the original business case that ramped up the investments in the infrastructure gap. Part A of the case was the staff recommended piece. And part B was like you see before us, an option for Council to consider at the time.

[6:10:46] Council decided to take that option and add additional investments into the infrastructure gap reserve fund. But I want to also note that this is not the only way we put money into, into infrastructure gap and lifecycle renewal. Our surplus policy would also direct money into the space and certain assessment growth business cases over the years have also put money into the infrastructure gap and lifecycle renewal components of the corporation. So I think Deputy Mayor Lewis is right. If you think about this as either a gas pedal or even a lever, this is the piece that we have like a lot of flexibility on.

[6:11:23] As was said, you can choose the number, you can decide to pull it back some years, ramp it up others. But from that original business case in the last multi-year budget, even with this reduction, we’re still a net positive contribution to putting money aside for the infrastructure gap even in the tax supported budget, let alone the amount that we are able to put aside in future surpluses and assessment growth possibilities, although those would be by a business case themselves. So I think this is one where I’m also open to hearing what people think about the number and the magnitude of this request.

[6:11:59] I’m supportive of making some savings here for taxpayers given the climate we’re in, but I’m also flexible on the amount that people want to consider. I just wanted to add that context about the other places that we actually fund the infrastructure gap from and the other tools we have at our disposal on this piece. Okay, thank you, Councillor Frank? No, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Frank. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just following up on the mayor’s statements, I’m really pleased and glad that staff are finding ways of putting money away to deal with the infrastructure gap.

[6:12:42] I do have a question since there’s usually, this comes to us quite often through the budget process, the conversation around infrastructure gap and an opportunity to reduce it. This is not the only time that this has come forward. So my question through you, Madam Chair to staff is just better understanding where we are with this gap. And so just reading the notes, we have quite a large amount of infrastructure.

[6:13:18] And what is the percentage that we have already invested in the value to replace the infrastructure that we have? I picked up some numbers. I just want to make sure I’ve got them right. So $666.9 million. And then we’ve got a 3% value that we’ve already invested to replace that amount. I just want to make sure I’m reading these numbers and have a good idea. Thank you to our finance team or upstairs.

[6:13:54] I have a lineup. Okay. Thank you very much to you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the question. Maybe I’ll provide a bit of clarification on what the infrastructure gap is to for those that may not be familiar. So what the infrastructure gap is representing is the required level of funding that you need to maintain current levels of service. So the investment in those assets, they’re required versus the what’s in your capital forecast to actually be put aside for that. And so that’s the spread between the two. By 2030, it will be at based on our last estimates at $667 million, which is 3% roughly of our total replacement value of all city assets.

[6:14:30] So hopefully that provides some explanation for the Councillor. And we will be coming back with a further update with the asset management plan, which will involve a comprehensive financial strategy for the consideration. With the finance team, like to add anything on to that? Okay. Councillor Hopkins? Yeah, I really appreciate that confirmation. So it really isn’t very much. And even though we’re putting a lot in investing, and like I said, this item always comes up at budget time where we can reduce and create savings for residents without a doubt. But I think we’ve heard here from staff that the assessment management plan is gonna come to us and we are going to be expected to do increases.

[6:15:11] We’re not gonna have a choice. And getting back to Councillor Frank’s comments around climate change and the challenge is going forward in the future. The needs are gonna be greater. And not only in dealing with severe weather, but also how we build and the costs there. So I will not be supporting this reduction. I wanna be consistent. It’s coming back all the time to us and we’ll probably come back ‘cause there’s a bit of flexibility.

[6:15:43] And I appreciate the comments where the Mayor mentioned about the investments that we are making, that we are definitely nowhere near the amounts that we will be needed. So thank you. Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes, enjoying this discussion. I did ask staff to look at half of the 950. So at 475. So I’m not sure if they have the number with the other numbers if we could see what that would break out to at the end of the year. Break it into the tax percentage of, would it break it down to 3.1 or where would it be?

[6:16:21] Mr. Murray, when you’re ready. Thank you through the chair. I was just doing some math on my end. A $475,000 reduction instead of $950,000 reduction would put us at 3.1%, a 3.1% tax levy increase as you see on screen. Councillor? Thank you. And through the chair, how much more would you have to shave off to get to three?

[6:16:57] I have not to say she’s splitting hairs, but $5.50, 100. Let’s round down. Through the chair, my understanding is to achieve a 3.0% tax levy increase, it would require a $780,000 reduction instead of the current 950. Okay, so the Councillor’s contemplating some math.

[6:17:35] I will just have, I guess, either a question or a comment. As we discussed the infrastructure gap, Councillor Hopkins already stated what a large number it is. I haven’t supported this in the past. I heard loud and clear from Londoners that they want affordability, but they also don’t want, now that London’s growing, that they’re really concerned about, they take the savings now, but it makes it even harder for their kids to stay and afford property taxes, ‘cause they be deferred things and put their burden on the future generations of Londoners and our city. So that’s my comments and helping going. Ms. Barbone, did you have a comment?

[6:18:09] Just checking our math through the chair and it’s a little bit more than 780, so we’re just trying to confirm what that exact number is for you. I will also know that there’s one more business case after this one to be still considered as you’re asking staff to use their magic ball or prediction that it also depends what we do with the following one as well. Mayor Morgan. Yes, and our staff can comment on this, but I also wanted to mention, with respect to the infrastructure gap, that is also a function of our policy decisions as well.

[6:18:47] The types of capital and services that we anticipate in the future can change the size of the gap. If we decide, for example, and I hate to use sidewalks, but a decision to have sidewalks on both sides of the street would obviously increase the infrastructure gap in areas where we don’t have the service. One side of the street has a different function. So one piece of this is putting away the amount of money to fund our needs on the infrastructure gap. Another piece is for us to look at our policy decisions down the road, and I believe roads is a major component of our infrastructure gaps.

[6:19:20] So the way that we approach transportation in the city is an important component of the infrastructure gap and how big it is as well. So I don’t want colleagues to include the site of, there’s the piece that we have to decide on how much we set aside to close the gap, but there’s other policy tools we have at our disposal to approach the infrastructure gap as well from the type of infrastructure that we provide in the city and how we approach it. So, and I like when Mr. Yeoman nods when I talk, ‘cause that means he’s a very smart man, and means I’m on the right track. So I just wanted to have that context here. Yeah, I’ll come back with an infill and Sproul also affects that in the provincial government of urban growth boundaries and what we’re allowed to do and not as we plan on a reduction that might be potentially, I like the drum roll, thank you.

[6:20:01] It’s the first one today. I didn’t even get a drum roll for a hot lunch for you guys. So looking to see if there’s, I have no one on my speaker’s lift is that there’s interest, pound surfer area in moving something. I don’t know if you and Councillor Frank want to discuss behind the mayor. Hey, no fun without us. So what have you decided for us? Through the chair, I’m just wondering, is it like it might, their final number for the getting to 3% might influence our suggestion.

[6:20:40] So I don’t know if we have much longer to take. I’m not trying to put any pressure on you. I know I’m asking you to do a lot of math on the fly. You still have one more business case after this one too that would need to go down or be accepted. And that’s the community improvement BIA streetscape master plan for Dundas Street with another 100. Oh, there’s no tax levy impact. Okay, so we need staff’s excellent catch. So final magic number to get us to Councillor Fanks. Prediction, yes.

[6:21:44] Thank you, through the chair. So to achieve a rounded 3.0%, a reduction of instead of $950,000, a reduction of $910,000 would do it. So it’s not a substantial change. Thank you. I’m not sure if you wanna just predict go for 3.1 then or you’re just gonna. Through the chair, I’d love to make an amendment of having it to 475. I know that would make us at 3.1, but I think getting to three maybe defeats the whole purpose of this exercise.

[6:22:22] So I would like to put on the floor an amendment to drop it to 475. Okay, so moving that proposed 950 to half of that, seconded by Councillor Ferrera, preferring a limited discussion on the amendment, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. It’s tempting to it’s tempting when we’re trying to be cognizant of keeping taxes reasonable, especially in this economic environment when people face inflationary pressures.

[6:23:00] We do that with reserve funds as well. However, infrastructure is critical to the success of the city. So I think this is a good compromise. We are still contributing to that gap, which is, as we all know, is imperative that we close. So I’m comfortable with the compromise. And I think we’re still working hard to keep our taxes at a reasonable rate. So this works for me in short order. Okay, so looking for that.

[6:23:35] When we’re a little bit, when no one’s quite 100% happy, I think that’s when we hit it, right? So Deputy Mayor Lewis. So having not spoken to the amendment and in the spirit of keeping it brief, I’d like to call the question. Perfect. No, I thought we were allowed to do that. Not a committee? Oh yeah, it has to be done in council. Okay, so Deputy Mayor Lewis, though happy with the original ones happy with this and ready to call the question. Anyone else feel the erger need to focus on this amendment? No, calling the question.

[6:24:35] Closing the vote, the amendment is passed, 13 to one. Phew, so now the motion on the floor is as amended to take staffs for consideration of a reduction of 475,000. We’ve discussed this quite thoroughly. Am I okay to call the question, calling the question? So as the clerk’s typing, after this, we move on to the last item for consideration for which is item P18.

[6:25:23] And when we get to that, I’ll need a mover and seconder before the read to start discussion. Okay, the vote is now open.

[6:26:51] Councilor Pribble? Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 13 to one. Thank you. I’m looking for a mover and seconder for case P18, the Community Improvement BIA Street Skate Master Plan for Dundas Street, Argyle BIA. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Layman. I’ll start my speaker’s list with Deputy Mayor Lewis and then I’ll go to other colleagues. I’m gonna do this one really fast. No tax levy impact, this is a capital cost.

[6:27:26] It’s being advanced by a year to, and I will give thanks though, take a moment to thank Ms. Share and her team for the preliminary work they’ve done on this. This is to allow the scoping of the streets Skate Master Plan and the benefit of moving it up a year will allow us to help coordinate it with some of the infrastructure work that will be happening in 2024 in the area as well. So I’m hoping colleagues will support this one so that we don’t have to come and ask you for this money again next year. Thank you and Leonard has always asked, we can coordinate between departments and projects so that they’re disrupted less in their travels and for any construction that needs to happen.

[6:28:03] Is there any other questions or comments on this item? Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to ask if staff could comment on other transportation program areas which will manage through the deferral of other work, what other work that might be specific to you. Thank you, Ms. Share. Thank you Madam Chair. This would be largely some of our internal study work and it won’t have any public facing impact. We’re able to absorb this work within our existing staff resources. Any other further questions or comments?

[6:28:38] Councillor van Mirbergen. Thank you, Chair. I thought we heard not too long ago that this particular BIA was a 747 or something that was capable of flying not only transcontinental but across oceans. So I’m just wondering why now this beautiful entity requires taxpayer funding. I’ll go to staff, Madam Chair.

[6:29:14] The purpose of this is to determine the public realm improvements that can occur along the corridor as upcoming construction projects are developed for the area. Right now, as those projects come forward, we do not have the opportunity to change the streetscape because we do not have a design nor property acquired. Essentially, this would give us a multi-year, potentially multi-decade depending on this piece of the projects plan that staff would work to. So this is really about change in the cities that’s on the public right of way. Okay, so that’s nothing internal to the BIA of staffing, marketing and whatnot.

[6:29:49] It’s strictly the city owned property within the area of the BIA. Okay, yes. Thank you. Further a wrap up. So I’m gonna look to see if there’s any other question or comments before Councillor Lewis gives his thanks for your support. Yes, and just through you, Madam Chair, in follow up for Councillor van Mirbergen, the BIA is putting funds in as well to streetscape improvements on private property. This is with regard to the public property piece. And thank you for your support. Okay, calling the question.

[6:30:42] Closing the vote in the motion passes 14 to zero. Okay, looking to our budget team now, is this the point that you want eight minutes? Okay, so congratulations to colleagues. You have let’s call it a 10 minute break. So I’ll need to move for a second to refer to that. As you see the upcoming, it’ll be moved by Councillor Hopkins in one moment, seconded by Councillor Ramen in one moment. But what is happening next is you’ve made it through your business’s cases. You’re doing excellent. You’re on pace to get done today. When you come back for your 10 minute break, we will, I will look for a mover and a seconder of anything from 4.5 to 4.10.

[6:31:24] I have no notice of anything being pulled in there. While you’re on your break, where you see those lovely X’s in the report, staff will actually tell us what those magical numbers are. The clerk will put those into the system so we can vote on the proper numbers. So you have a 10 minute break, and if for some reason you want anything pulled in there, please let me know. If not, I will look for a mover and a seconder for all of items 4.5 to 4.10 when you get back. All in favor be a hand vote of your 10 minute break. Motion passes.

[6:31:58] Thank you. I will see you back at, let’s say two minutes after. Thank you. We’re ready to get started again.

[6:44:12] Hey, I’m going to ask staff to start off with the update of where we’re at as we go into this as the numbers are just finishing being populated to know where the tax rate is at. Thank you very much. Sorry, just a second. A couple of counselors are just really loud. So I will ask you to put on the screen our tax rate, walk us through where we’re at, as well as tell us what the average tax increase will be for 2023 for Londoners and overall. Thank you and through you.

[6:44:46] So where we sit as we wrap up work on the property tax supported budget for 2023 is a 3.1% tax levy increase for 2023. This translates into a $98 increase for the average taxpayer. The four year average comes in at 3.4%, which translates into a four year average annual increase of $102 per year. Looking to colleagues to see if there’s any questions on where we’re at before we go into accepting some of these numbers.

[6:45:28] Seeing none, it is suggested. You can always do as you want, but I’ve had no questions to pull anything different of item 4.5 through to 4.10. Everything else, after that we’d part up differently. So just items 4.5 to 4.10. Those updated numbers are being currently still put into eScribe, but we’re gonna do a mover in Councillor Layman, a seconder in Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I’ll start a speakers list of any of those items of 4.5 through 4.10.

[6:46:21] That last break really did you guys in? So I have nobody on my speakers list. We’re gonna move through this quickly as individual votes. It’s just easier for the clerk as numbers go in different places. So is the mover and the seconder fine with being the mover and the seconder on all items? I see a thumbs up, we’re good with that. 4.5 is the reserve and reserve funds overview.

[6:47:10] Okay, so looking for any questions or comments on 4.5, seeing none in one moment, I’ll call the question, we’re almost there. Calling the question. Councillor Frank, you’re just in time to vote. We were just calling question on 4.5. Only there was no questions or comments, we’re just doing it individually to help the process. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[6:48:00] Thank you, 4.6, we’re using the same mover and seconder being the debt overview that it’s received for information, seeing no questions, calling the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Thank you, 4.7, reconciliation of the draft property tax budget, the public sector accounting board budget, being received for information.

[6:48:41] I have the same mover and seconder, seeing no questions, calling the vote. Opposing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Thank you, the next one’s the operating budget. I’ll just ask, okay, just asking the finance team to check the numbers in the system to make sure that nothing’s been transcribed wrong.

[6:49:24] They should be in an e-scribe as well. I don’t know if they’re on that screen, I can’t see. Okay, I have the same mover and seconder for that one. Looking to see if there’s any questions. Okay, finance team has given the thumbs up, so calling the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero.

[6:50:27] Thank you, 4.9 is our capital budget, same mover and seconder. And this is part A and B that the 2023 capital budget be re-adopted and the 2024 to 2029 capital forecast be approved, looking to the finance team to make sure that these numbers are correct before we call the vote. And looking to committees, once again, to see if there’s any questions. Okay, I have a thumbs up for the finance team and no questions from colleagues, so calling the vote.

[6:51:22] Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Thank you, 4.10, I have the same mover and seconder. This is the bylaws regarding tax levy operating capital budgets. And that’s the big directive to bring them forward for us that confers the consideration at council. Looking to see if there’s any questions or comments from colleagues, saying none, calling the vote. So Louis.

[6:52:18] Do you want to vote verbally? I’ll be waiting for my mic. Those screen refreshes when I click my vote. Closing the vote, the motions carried 14 to zero. Thank you, this moves us on to 4.11, review of recommended water budget amendments. We have budget case A and B. I have not been given notice to have anything dealt with separate.

[6:52:53] So looking for a mover and seconder to move them together. Councilor Hopkins moves, seconded by Mayor Morgan. Looking to see if there’s any questions or comments. I’ll start my speaker’s list with Councilor Hopkins. You know, I just want to make a couple of comments on the massive work that’s going on with these projects. And really want to thank staff or the changes that are needed to keep these projects going forward. So many thanks to staff and happy to support the two amendments. Thank you, anyone else?

[6:53:36] Seeing none, calling the vote. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Okay, 4.12, water reserves, reserve funds overview that this is going to be received for information.

[6:54:22] Looking for a mover and a seconder. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. Looking for any questions or comments on this item. Seeing none, calling the question. Councilor Lewis.

[6:55:03] Still having problems with the screen refreshing. So I’m going to manually yay and then we’re going to log out and log back in. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Thank you, 4.13, which is reconciliation of the draft water budget to the public sector accounting board budget. You’ve received for information. Looking for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councilor Van Merbergen, seconded by Councilor Ferra. Looking for questions or comments on item 4.13. Seeing none, calling the question.

[6:55:42] Yay, while I’m getting logged back in. Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Okay, item 4.14, okay, the numbers have been sent to the clerks for updating them and dropping them into the sheet as required.

[6:56:20] This is our water services recommendations that we re-adopt the different numbers in A and B in that water services be approved in principle. The 2024 to 2029 capital forecast. I will need a mover and a seconder for these. Deputy Mayor Lewis is moving. Councilor Frank is seconding. Looking for any questions or comments to staff in regards to this item, okay, it’ll just be a moment.

[6:58:41] The vote is now open. Okay, and just for clarification, the budget team has given their— Councilor Ferra, thank you.

[6:59:28] Closing the vote, the motions passed 14 to zero. Thank you, item 4.15, review of recommended wastewater and treatment budget amendments. Case A is for the Mud Creek E’s branch phase two. Looking for a mover and a seconder. Moved by Councilor Layman, seconded by Councilor Ferra. Starting my speakers list. I’ll start with Councilor Troso. For this to be pulled.

[7:00:01] Not because I have a long series of questions or opposition or an amendment. I mostly want to thank and acknowledge— I want to thank and acknowledge Kelly Share and Shona Chambers for spending a lot of time with me explaining this because when I first saw this, I had a lot of concerns. And they very carefully walked me through it. And I just want to mention a few things. It stated that it stated in part A, this critical project should move forward in 2023 and should not be delayed based on commitments made to developers in this area.

[7:00:46] Now, what that’s referring to is a very large parcel that’s north of Oxford Street in between Cherry Hill and Proudfoot, which is in Ward 6. And I understand that there has been a lot of flooding on Oxford Street and other places. And this is designed to ameliorate that. That language kind of bothered me a little bit because I was wondering what the commitments were. And it was explained to me that there— and you please correct me if I’m wrong. But it was explained to me that there weren’t any and that probably could have been written a little differently.

[7:01:22] Is my doing OK so far? The staff, the Councilor’s on point with his synopsis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Councilor Troso. Yes, we don’t have a legal commitment to any developers in the area. This has been in the official plan since the ’80s. So there has been a strong expectation this work would move forward, but we do not have some sort of binding agreement with respect to that. And in retrospect, we should have used it. We’re more aligned with expectations. Thank you, Councilor.

[7:01:54] Please continue. Thank you. So my next question was along the lines of if this is necessary for the perfection of a particular project, why is this coming to us as a separate item, and it was pointed out to me that all of the work that’s being proposed in WWT1 is indeed South of Oxford. And the work that I’m worried about, which is North of Oxford, is yet to be determined and there are a number of things that are going to have forth for that. And while I do have some concerns about the number of trees that are going to be taken out and someone else might want to talk about that, I have no reason to pose this.

[7:02:39] I want to make it very clear that while I am very concerned about what is eventually going to happen north of Oxford, that is not a reason for me to be opposing this at this point. And by truthfully supporting this, I just want to make it clear that I’m certainly reserving all of my objections to what may come later when we get to the point of developing the parcel north of Oxford. And a number of those things would not be relevant to today’s discussion, but I had a fruitful discussion with staff.

[7:03:18] But I’m not even going to raise some of the other things. So that’s it for me. And again, thank you very much for so patiently explaining this to somebody who really didn’t understand what was in here, and now I do. So thank you. Thank you for those comments. And for doing that before today’s meeting, that you had those answers that you came to us with for a passionate conversation in realizing those things will come back to us. Did anyone else have comments on Mud Creek, Councillor Lehman?

[7:03:53] Thank you. And I share comments made by Councillor Drossow. Mud Creek does touch— there’s a sliver of my ward that is actually on the east side of Wonderland and runs along Mud Creek, along Riverside there. And yeah, there was a considerable loss of trees along that area, which is very concerning to those folks that lived in there. However, it was a necessary evil because the flooding concerns along Oxford and then north of Oxford, it’s a very low point. And we talk about climate change and mitigations with flooding concerns for sure that are here now and will continue.

[7:04:40] It was good that we got this project underway. I know it was in the works for a long time. And it’s a big one. This project was a big engineering feat. So we’re well down the road here. Thank you to staff for working with those people impacted through neighborhood meetings, street meetings, et cetera. And the reforestation that’s occurring in the areas that were affected very much appreciated. And this is a very, very important project.

[7:05:14] So I encourage your support here. Thank you, looking to committee for any other questions or comments, regards to this item before us. Seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to 0.

[7:05:50] Thank you, 4.16, wastewater and treatment reserves, reserve funds overview that for 2023, the multi-year budget for B.C. for information, looking for a mover and a second to remove by Councillor Van Merbergen, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, looking for discussion on this item. Seeing none, calling the vote. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to 0.

[7:06:30] Thank you, 4.17, reconciliation, the draft, wastewater and treatment budget of the public sector accounting board budget for B.C. for information. Mover and a seconder, moved by Councillor McAllister, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis, looking for discussion on this item. Seeing none, calling the question. Voting yes.

[7:07:27] Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to 0. Okay, 4.18, wastewater and treatment services, looking to the numbers for this one. Okay, we’re just populating the numbers into 4.18, as it has a section A, B, and C. Looking for a mover and a seconder of this item though. Moved by Councillor ramen, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Looking for any questions or comments, discussion on this item.

[7:08:24] I like that Councillor Stevenson’s optimistic and seems to have put their code on. I see no questions, so it’ll just be a couple more moments before we open the vote. I will make note in case you’re using an old agenda that there is on the new added agenda and an item under 5.1 to turn your attention to next. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to 0.

[7:10:12] Thank you, that officially concludes the portion of our 2023 budget update. Excellent job everyone. You got that done in one day with 29 minutes to spare. I appreciate that. Yay! Now the drum roll, we can do the drum roll now. Excellent job to everyone. Realizing for a lot of our colleagues around the table, this was your first budget update. Multi-year budget will take longer and will be more passionate as you’ll be fighting for what you feel you have proverbial skin in the game for, as it’s your ideas that you’re fighting for that maybe you can’t paint on, matter to you, as where you believe the city should be going or what you’re hearing from residents.

[7:10:51] Under deferred matters and additional business, I’ll also note Valentine’s Day, we’re together. That is where the budget gets finalized at our council meeting. Ideally you did your discussion here, not saying I don’t love you, but doesn’t mean I want to spend in the entire evening with you. So any questions that you need in advance that you’re not satisfied with, you want to dig into from conversation today, please connect with staff ahead of time. In regards to item four, 5.1, this is an added from the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. They had two things in it.

[7:11:25] One, they were making us aware that they supported the request for budget funding to the London Humane Society, which we did, so they should be pleased hearing that, and that they’re requesting that civic administration attend one of their next meetings, which they just need permission for us to send the proper staff to them. So looking for a mover in the seconder of item 5.1, moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Ferrer, looking for any questions or comments on that item. Seeing none, calling the vote. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to zero.

[7:12:13] Thank you. For matters and additional business, we do have one more, Councillor Hopkins, and then Councillor Van Merbergen. Yes, I just like to thank the Chair for guiding us through today and keeping us focused, and especially on time. Many thanks. Well done. Thank you. Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. There’s a wild rumor floating around that you’re buying everybody drinks. Is that correct? (audience laughs) So, thank you.

[7:12:46] Okay, this one. You know what they say about rumors. You can’t trust them, and hopefully you had coffee earlier, ‘cause that was the drinks I was buying, and it was bring your own additive to any drinks you needed to endure the day with us. Mayor Morgan. Yes, I wanna add what Councillor Hopkins said about thanking you for your work as Budget Chair. And I wanna elaborate a little bit, because you said we had 29 minutes. No, I am still timing. But for those who may be tuning in at home, and those who don’t know, the work of Budget Chair isn’t just chairing this meeting, it’s engaging with each and every one of us throughout the process, working with our staff to ensure that the day is well organized, the motions are lined up, the information is available, and I think we can all appreciate the work that you’ve done to not just at this meeting, but in advance to this meeting to engage with each of us, to ensure that we’ve, for the most part, listened to you in bringing and forwarding motions and conflicts ahead of time.

[7:13:41] And I think you did a phenomenal job, and I look forward to your work on the multi-year budget, which, as you said, will be a very significant piece of council’s work as we turn the strategic plan, which we’re working on into that budget process and the pacing and timing. And I think we’re under, in good hands, in your leadership through that process. So thank you very much for offering to do this. It can be a thankless job at some points, except for today when we get to thank you. So thank you very much, Councilor. Thank you, I will note that as you settle into your council ship that you realize that sometimes thank yous are far and few between from colleagues or residents alike.

[7:14:20] And the work that you see as budget chair and many of the positions, even as Councillors at UC, it’s the tip of the iceberg is what the public sees and all the work is underneath that people go largely unaware of. So thank you for everyone today to following the process ‘cause I can only coordinate what you allow me to in coming and following the advice given, multi-year budget. Like I said, today sometimes you had things that you voted for and you were really passionate about supported that failed or digging the support, and this is your opportunity to work with those community groups or staff to develop those business cases. So this is when your work starts, getting yourselves prepared for the multi-year budget.

[7:14:53] And as always, our staff and myself are here to help as is the mayor and deputy mayor. So thank you for today. And I will need a motion to adjourn if you wish to part waste. Moved by Councillor Van Merbergen second. Double seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. A hand vote is in order of all those who wish to part waste. Thank you so much. And tomorrow is now your day to reallocate as you wish. Thank you kindly.