February 21, 2023, at 12:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 12:00 PM.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.9 BE APPROVED, with the exception of item 2.8.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   Amendment to the Service Manager Administration Agreement for the 2016 Social Infrastructure Fund By-law and the Investment in Affordable Housing Program (2014 Extension) Agreement By-law

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Amendment to Service Manager Agreement

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken:

a) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A” to amend By-law No. A.-7431-196 being “a by-law to approve the Service Manager Administration Agreement for the 2016 Infrastructure Fund (SIF) with the Minister of Housing and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on March 7, 2023 to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute reports required under the Agreement; and,

b) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “B” to amend By-law No. A.-7181-333 being “a by-law to approve an agreement between The Corporation of the City of London (the City) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for the City to administer the Investment in Affordable Housing Program (2014 Extension); and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council Meeting to be held on March 7, 2023 to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute reports required under the Agreement.

Motion Passed

2.2   Appointment of Hearings Officers to Conduct Hearings under Various City of London By-laws

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Appointment of Hearings Officers to Conduct Hearings under Various City of London By-laws

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A” being “A by-law to approve the appointments of Hearings Officers in accordance with By-law A.-6653-121, as amended”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 7, 2023.

Motion Passed

2.3   Contract Award: Tender No. RFT-2022-247 - Solarwinds Orion Network Performance Monitoring System Licensing, Warranty and Technical Support Services – Irregular Result

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Contract Award Tender No RFT 2022 247

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That on the recommendation of the Director, Information Technology Services (ITS), and with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken with respect to the Irregular Result RFT-2022-247-Solarwinds Orion Network Performance Monitoring System Licensing, Warranty and Technical Support Services single bid award recommendation, as per City of London Procurement of Goods and Services Policy Section 19.4 “Only One Bid Received”, that;

a) the Request for Tender (RFT 2022-247) submitted by Softchoice LP for an initial cost of $103,738.87, excluding HST, for perpetual licensing and for a one (1) year term of software support, with ongoing annual software support in the amount of $1,909.70, excluding HST, BE ACCEPTED;

b) the funding for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A”;

c) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all administrative acts which are necessary in relation to this project; and,

d) the approvals hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

2.4   SS22-284 Single Source Personal Computing and Services

2023-02-21 Staff Report - SS22-284 Single Source Personal Computing and Services

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Director, Information Technology Services and with the concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken, with respect to desktop computing and related technologies:

a) approval hereby BE GIVEN to enter into a three (3) year Single Source contract with an optional two (2) additional, one (1) year extensions for Personal Computing Devices and Services from CompuCom Canada Co., 1830 Matheson Boulevard, Unit 1, Mississauga, ON, Canada L4W 0B3 at a planned cost of $991,841.64 in 2023, $1,368,025.42 in 2024 and $1,091, 680.00 in 2025;

b) the financing for this project BE APPROVED as set out in the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A”;

c) the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 7th, 2023 to:

i) approve the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between CompuCom Canada Co. (the “Supplier”) and The Corporation of the City of London (the “Buyer”) for the “RFB Agreement #14952” for Personal Computing Devices and Services, forming a part of the By-law and attached as Appendix B; and

ii) authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Agreement;

d) the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this matter;

e) the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating the maintaining of satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with CompuCom Canada Co. to the satisfaction of the Director, Information Technology Services and the City Solicitor’s Office and subject to future budget approval; and,

f) the approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

2.5   Cemetery Assumption - Scottsville Cemetery and North Street United Church Cemetery

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Cemetery Assumption

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, with respect to two cemeteries known as the Scottsville Cemetery and the North Street United Church Cemetery, in the City of London, County of Middlesex, the following actions be taken:

a) the subject cemetery property located at 5190 Colonel Talbot Road, shown as Property Number One on Appendix “A” as appended to the staff report, known as the Scottsville Cemetery, BE ASSUMED by The Corporation of the City of London;

b) the subject cemetery property located at 5825 Colonel Talbot Road, shown as Property Number Two on Appendix “B” as appended to the staff report, known as the North Street United Church Cemetery, BE ASSUMED by The Corporation of the City of London; and,

c) that all administrative acts BE APPROVED to allow for the assumption of each of the two subject properties, inclusive of a future land transfer, on an amicable basis as prescribed by legislation informed by the Bereavement Authority of Ontario (BAO).

Motion Passed

2.6   Licence Amending Agreement - Heritage London Foundation - Elsie Perrin Williams Estate 101-137 Windermere Road

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Licence Amending Agreement

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, on the advice of the Director, Realty Services, the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 7, 2023, to authorize and approve the Licence Amending Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Heritage London Foundation (HLF), for the licenced use of the City-owned lands known municipally as 101-137 Windermere Road, in the City of London, and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the Agreement.

Motion Passed

2.7   Single Source Procurement SS-2023-031: Cognos Modernization Phase Two

2023-02-21 Staff Report - Single Source Procurement SS-2023-031 Cognos

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, and with the concurrence of the Director, Information Technology Services, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken with respect to the Cognos Modernization Phase Two:

a) the single proposal submitted by Newcomp Analytics,161 Bay St Suite 2700, Toronto, ON M5J 2S1, for Cognos Modernization for a total cost of $554,640 (excluding taxes) BE ACCEPTED in accordance with section 14.4 (e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b) the funding for this procurement BE APPROVED as set out in the Source of Financing Report as appended to the staff report dated February 21, 2023 as Appendix “A”;

c) subject to approval of a) above, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to undertake all the administrative acts that are necessary in connection with this contract;

d) the approval and authorization provided for in a) above, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract or having a Purchase Order, or contract record relating to the subject matter of this approval; and,

e) the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to the actions set out in a) above.

Motion Passed

2.9   2023 Accessibility Compliance Report

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 2023 Accessibility Compliance Report

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the City Manager, the report dated February 21, 2023 with respect to the 2023 Accessibility Compliance BE RECEIVED for information purposes.

Motion Passed

2.8   2023 Tax Policy Expectations

2023-02-21 Staff Report - 2023 Tax Policy Expectations

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2023 Tax Policy:

a) on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated February 21, 2023, regarding the 2023 Tax Policy Expectations BE RECEIVED for information; and

b) the Mayor BE DIRECTED to continue advocacy to the Province, on behalf of the City of London, with respect to Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) and the freezing/unfreezing of tax class valuations.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Items for Direction 4.1 to 4.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

4.1   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - International Francophonie Day

2023-02-21 Submission - Proclomation - Francophonie Day

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That based on the application dated February 7, 2023 from Carrefour Communautaire Francophone de London, March 20, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED International Francophonie Day.

Motion Passed

4.2   (ADDED) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Save Soil Day

2023-02-21 Submission - Proclomation - Save Soil Day

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That based on the application dated February 16, 2023 from Conscious Planet, March 21, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Save Soil Day.

Motion Passed

4.3   (ADDED) Application - Issuance of Proclamation - Trans Day of Visibility

2023-02-21 Submission - Proclomation - Trans Day of Visibility

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That based on the application dated February 16, 2023 from the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC), March 31, 2023 BE PROCLAIMED Trans Day of Visibility.

Motion Passed

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following: 

6.1 Land Acquisition/Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice/Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to any Negotiations

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

Motion Passed (5 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:50 PM to 1:53 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 12:57 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 (1 hour, 2 minutes)

Good afternoon everyone, welcome to the fourth meeting of the Corporate Services Committee. It being 12 p.m., I’m going to call the meeting to order, and I will begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, Nalene, Peiwok, and Adarwanderan peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people today.

And as representatives of the people of the City of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. But I’d also like to share that the City of London is committed to making every opportunity to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact csc@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489 extension 2425. Colleagues, I’ll begin the meeting by looking for any disclosures of pecuniary interest.

I see none. So when we move on to the consent agenda, I’ve not been made aware of anything that colleagues wish to have pulled. Of course, we can ask lots of questions and comments for that, for anything on the consent agenda. But does anyone wish anything pulled to be dealt with separate?

Councilor Trussow. I have a number of questions about 2.8, so it might warrant pulling it. We can deal with 2.8 separately. Anything else?

None. Then I’ll look for a mover and a seconder for the balance of the consent agenda. That’s 2.1 through 2.7 and 2.9, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Ferrera. So that is on the floor.

We’ll look for any speakers to that. Councillor Trussow. I just wanted to acknowledge that I had some questions about consent item 2.2 and Mr. Shulteis, and answer those as well as I think can be done at this point.

One of the things I did request, not an emergency, but a list, if at some point we could get a list of everybody who is currently in that pool working for us. What does it look like a dozen people? And just through the chair, and I will share that a list was circulated by email this morning for the current appointees. We’ll see if the clerk has anything to add to that.

Thank you. Through the chair. That’s correct. I did circulate a list this morning.

Currently we have five members. One member has indicated that he cannot continue. So there’s currently five appointees. Thank you.

Any further questions on this item? My further question, and I’m not going to raise it as polling this today, but at some point in the future, I’m wondering if this could be referred to governance for us to look at the overall relationship between these appointments and other appointments we make, particularly as an equity lens might be coming out of the governance committee for our appointments in general. And again, I’m not going to put this on the floor now, but I’m just through the chair indicating that that’s something I’d like to discuss in the future. Thank you, Councillor.

I will just share that meetings can always refer some direction to the governance working group. I think that we can also perhaps get a comment from the clerk in terms of, because I just believe, and I want to be clear on this so that it’s there for the public as well, that city staff are already applying our equity, our anti-oppression and anti-racism lens when they go through their recruitment process for any vacancies. But I will go to Mr. Scholfis to give us some clarity on that.

Thank you, and through the chair, one thing that I should note that was not included in the cover report is that pursuant to the hearings officer by-law, the hearings officer shall be appointed by Council on the recommendation of the city clerk. Just in response to the equity and inclusion lens, it was a very significant aspect of the targeted recruitment that the individuals have both a record of community service and a strong commitment to diversity and inclusion. Thank you. Councillor, we’ll go back to you.

Yeah, one more question through the chair. How do we let the public know that we’re doing this recruitment, or that you’re doing this recruitment? And we’ll go to the city clerk. Thank you.

And through the chair, as I indicated, it’s a targeted recruitment. So we’re using existing networks. We’re reaching out to specialized parts of the London community that may possess those types of skills. Thank you.

Looking for any further question or comment, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair. Are you just curious why this process looks different from all of our other committees and boards? It just feels a little different.

You did indicate it’s a targeted and still curious why there isn’t a pool that we vote on or that it looks similar to the others. And we’ll go through to the city clerk for that. Thank you. And through the chair, our hearings officers occupy a particular role where they need to be neutral.

They’re applying administrative law principles. They’re applying a number of principles to make decisions in a third-party arms-length relationship with the city. They’re not employees of the city. They are hearing these hearings and they’re adjudicating.

So they’re a quasi-judicial function. So they are slightly different from, say, an advisory committee where that’s more of a community engagement aspect and they’re advising council directly. Here there is no relationship between the hearings officers and council. Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you. And I was thinking more of the Committee of Adjustments, like comparing it to the Committee of Adjustments. And then I just wanted to confirm there is no remuneration. This is a voluntary thing.

To the clerk. Thank you. Through the chair. I’ll speak to the remuneration.

Currently it’s $100 that is out of alignment with a lot of other municipalities as $100 per day. That is out of alignment with other municipalities. And that is currently under review. I can’t speak to the Committee of Adjustment that falls in a different set of legislation.

So I can’t speak to that. That’s not something that the clerk’s office oversees. Thank you. Looking for any other questions or comments on the balance of the consent agenda.

Seeing none, then we’ll get the clerk to open the vote on that. Closing the vote. The motion pass. 4-0.

All right. Moving on. The agenda is 2.8, the 2023 tax policy expectations. Councillor Trussell, you did ask for this to be pulled to be dealt with separately.

First I’m going to just look for a mover and a seconder to get the motion on the floor. And then we can frame our discussion around receiving this report. Moved by Councillor Stevenson. I will second that.

And now we will open the floor for questions and comments. Councillor Trussell. Yes. Through the chair.

I’d like to just request that since this is our first time through this process, you could give us a little bit of an overview in terms of what the what the parameters are of our decision and how far can we get into using different categories. And if we make a decision in one direction, how does that play out in the other direction? Just an overview. Thank you.

Councillor Trussell. That actually is a good suggestion. And we’ll go to Ms. Barbone to give us an overview on this.

Thank you through the chair. So today’s tax policy expectations report is not one that we typically do. It is one that we do because it is a new council to give some great deal of education information and kind of one-stop shopping related to tax policy. So we’ve included the presentation that gives a bit of an overview of the entire process and how the assessment works and how then that is taken and translated through the budget into tax policy.

So today’s not necessarily any decision that is actually required, although if there is a specific direction that the committee and council would like us to go through, some direction would certainly be helpful. So really what this is setting the stage is is ultimately now that the budget has been set the amount of revenue from taxation has been determined through the budget process. So the tax policy is how those that total amount of revenue is going to be essentially how that pie is split up and divvy between the various classes. So that’s what ultimately the tax policy decision is that you will make in April.

So in April, once we’ve received, typically it should be the first meeting in April provided we have all the regulations received from the province, which we anticipate will happen this year at this point, and that with that information, we take the education rates, we take the tax revenue and we determine how based on the assessment those tax ratios are put forward and the actual tax ratios are approved at that April meeting. So really today what we’re trying to do is to provide an overview of how the policy shifts. So ultimately the guiding principle with respect to taxation is that depending the pie will always be the amount determined by the budget, the ratios will divvy up how big a particular class will pay for the share of that revenue. So all things being equal because there is no reassessment this year, if the tax ratios are not changed, the taxation rates will be the same, the level of increase will be the same across all of the classes from a percentage perspective.

So at this point, given that there is no reassessment and that we are looking to equalize and maintain some of that equalization between particularly residential and multi-residential, we’re not recommending that there has to be a particular change in the strategy made, although if there was a particular objective the council wished to meet such as to start to reduce some of the commercial and industrial ratios, that could be something that could be entertained if they wanted to rejig how that pie is sliced. So from a decision perspective today really is about trying to ask questions if there’s anything within the report that you’d like to understand, but if there is a particular direction we’d be happy to ensure that when we bring forward the report in April, that we bring that forward with the expectation. Notwithstanding that, the way we’ve done it the last couple of years is to show various alternatives and what the ultimate changes would be in the tax rates when we bring forward that April report so that even if you were to give a direction now, that will not preclude council or committee taking a different direction in April once you see what the actual tax rate increases would be from making any changes at that time. So we would do a table where we would say if you change the residential, if you change the multi-residential or the commercial or industrial rates, what the impact of that would be so that council can make a very informed decision.

And we do that also after the inclusion of the education taxes because with some of the changes in, because the reassessment hasn’t happened, London has typically had a lower, we’ve been able to take advantage of some of the changes that have occurred with the small business tax education tax being taken off, which has actually been very, very helpful in terms of mitigating some of those tax rate increases that we’ve seen. So that’s been a very positive change over the last number of years. So that hopefully this will set the stage, but certainly no decision is required. And if there’s something or a particular scenario you’d like us to bring forward, we’d be happy to make sure that we include that in the April report.

So hopefully that gives you a brief overview of what it is we’re trying to achieve today and happy to answer any specific questions further to that. Yes, through the chair, I do have a few more. So the last sentence in the conclusion just confused me a little bit because it looked like you were, it looked like you were asking for a specific motion there. So should council agree with the suggested approach, a motion to support this would be appropriate, we don’t have to make that motion today.

Is that correct? Ms. Barbara. Thank you through the chair.

So no, you do not have to make that motion. If there was a particular area that committee really wanted us to ensure that we were starting to move in that direction, a motion would be in order. But if the committee would prefer to see what the changes would be with different tax ratios when we bring the report forward, that motion would not be necessary. Really what we want to make sure is that if there was a direction that committee or council wanted us to go, that we would ensure that that was there and a motion would be in favor to make sure we bring that forward.

But if there isn’t a compelling area you want us to go, then a motion would not be required. Thank you. That’s helpful. So my next question focuses on the residential properties.

To what degree, you know, I’ll ask this to the chair, to what degree does council have any discretion to create subclasses within residential property? For example, owner occupied versus — no, no, no, owner occupied. Ms. Barbone.

Through the chair, residential class, there are not subclasses available regardless of the ownership type. So if that’s what you’re — I believe that’s the question that you’re looking at. Thank you for that. Councilor Trussow.

Yes. That’s exactly what I’m looking for. I’m trying to — I’m just trying to understand if there’s any possible way we could provide some further targeted relief to homeowners who are living in their house as a principal place of residence. And I took that as a no.

That’s correct. The answer to that is no. There’s no subclasses available. The next question I want to raise deals with in multi-residential properties.

If there’s a large increase, and if it’s over a certain amount, the owners would, based on the provincial rules of getting an above guideline, increase be able to apply to the board for an increase. However, in the other direction, is there an obligation for landlords to — this may be something outside of the city’s power, but if it’s lower, does it work in the other direction? Do tenants get any of that relief? Well, I’m going to see which of Ms.

Barbone’s team wants to take that one. Through the chair, yes, there is a process each fall where we look at there’s a threshold currently at 2.49%. So if the assessment has been reduced by that threshold or more, then we send first a letter to the landlords identifying the percentage of decrease that is required for their tenants, and then field questions from the landlord. Once that timeline is passed, then we send notification to the tenants that they can expect a reduction based on that calculation.

Thank you for that. One final more precise question. I understand that in many situations, residential buildings that are going to be tenant occupied are marketed and sold in a condominium format. I’ve seen a number of these in my area, and I’m familiar with the fact that it’s a financial product that the real estate industry likes to sell to investors in terms of owning the condominium, but not living there.

Is there any disadvantage to the city in terms of the taxes that we bring in from that property when this format is used as opposed to it being characterized as what it really is, a multi-residential property? So through the chair, we did see a fair number of conversions from multi-residential to condo when prior to the implementation of the new residential class, which was brought in in 2017, the new residential are considered new for 35 years, and they are taxed at the residential rate. So with that implementation, there’s no benefit to them converting, not as much of a tax benefit at least, to convert to condo, so we’re seeing more increase in the new residential class. There’s not specifically a condo class, because they would be termed residential once they go to that, but we also keep track of the condos in terms of the rent reduction required each fall.

Thank you for that. I guess I’m asking through the chair, is there a difference in the aggregate tax role in a particular building from situation A, it’s owned in condo form, and there are 30 different owners, or situation B, where it’s owned by the landlord is one owner. Is there a difference in the aggregate tax tax role? Okay, so Councillor, trust out, I’m going to have staff answer that question, and then I’m going to go to other members of the committee, because I have a full speaker’s list.

If you have other questions, we’ll come back to you. So can we get an answer from staff on the aggregate tax role question? Thank you through the chair. I’ll start, and Mr.

McMillan can add to it. So a few, trying to think how many years ago, we were starting to see a number of older buildings that were starting to convert. And the primary change when you see some of that happened is there’s a valuation difference between how MPAC assesses those type of versus a residential versus a multi-residential property. So the challenge is, from our perspective, is we don’t know what the difference would be because the valuation would be valued under a different methodology to be able to compare, and that’s not something that MPAC would do for us.

So it’s really hard from our perspective, based on that we get the valuation from MPAC, it’s determined by them, and we know what the tax revenue will be from that. But alternatively, when it is changed and goes to a different route, that valuation will be different because it’s not valued in the same manner. So from our perspective, we don’t know what that other valuation would be to be able to assess whether the difference in revenue would be there. The owners are essentially doing that analysis before they build as to whether approach they might feel is different, and whether they want to potentially change the valuation by converting it to say a condo.

Now given the new class, this would be prior to the class because now with the new multi-residential buildings class, that is now they’re all valued consistently in the same manner and taxed as a residential property. So there’s a bit of an inequity in the system that was created when that new class of property assessment was created because they’re not all valued the same way. But that’s ultimately where we’ve used to see many would take the gamble to try to convert them to condos. We have seen that slow down quite considerably since that time.

So there has clearly been some impact with the new multi-residential valuation class through its creation to try to mitigate some of that inequity. And did Mr. McMillan want to add anything or did that cover everything? Yeah, that covers the valuation difference.

The main difference in revenue would be between the multi-residential rate and the residential rate. And that would be even if at the same value, the revenue would be lower from those buildings and then shifted to other classes. Thank you for that. I’m Mayor Morgan on the list and then I have Councillor Ferrera.

I also have Councillor Pribble as a visiting Councillor. So Mayor Morgan, you are up next. So thank you colleagues. And I came today because I couldn’t possibly miss a discussion on tax policy having sat on corporate services for my entire term on council.

I would say this is probably one of the most important but also most complicated matters that we deal with and I think you catch that from the Q&A. So what I want to articulate is a concern that I have not with the report before us but with the general situation that we’re in across the province relating from the impact valuation freeze. So as you know, the valuations of the different tax classes have been frozen for a period of time and so as time progresses obviously the market valuations have changed but the impact valuations have not. As the Treasurer and Deputy City Manager mentioned, we control the budget pie.

Who pays for that is a function of our tax ratios as well as the changes in relative valuation across the different tax ratios both for the pie slices themselves and even within the pie across individual properties within the same tax class. So here is what we don’t know. We do not know how valuations have changed. We can speculate.

We can say we think we know but we don’t know how valuations have changed in appreciation over time over the period of this freeze. When I met with the Finance Minister at our AMO delegations last fall I raised this concern and I said what I would like to see is impact run the valuations across the system, share that with municipal partners so that we can see where the potential shifts of taxation would occur across the classes before there is a move to unfreeze the valuations. So that we can provide some suggestions to the province on mitigating any dramatic shifts between who would pay for the tax classes. It could be putting a heavy burden on residential payers, it could be putting on a multi-residential, it could be a benefit to the commercial.

We don’t know because we don’t know how the relative values have appreciated over time. Why that would be important is because we may think that a three or three point whatever tax increase is reasonable but when you layer in the changes in valuations some people may be facing a 10% increase and some people may be facing a minus 2% increase because we have no control over that. We could mitigate the shifts in valuation through the adjustment of our tax ratios if we knew how the properties had appreciated. The challenge we have with that is we may need some provincial flexibility because some of the classes have restrictions on the directionality that we can move the ratios including the commercial class.

So we have to move the commercial class within a certain corridor and I think almost every municipality if I’m wrong is above the current allowable corridor so there’s really only reduction that you could make. So our ability to smooth the budgetary, the cost of the budget across the different tax classes is limited until we know what the valuation changes look like and then we engage with the province on any sort of strategy that they would have to mitigate those over time if they were dramatic in some way. So all this to say there’s two reasons why I came here. One is I think we should be very cautious about changing our tax policy in the absence of knowing where everything has changed over a period of time and two I think it would be helpful to have the support of the committee verbally or otherwise to continue the advocacy that I would like to make in engaging with the province to say you need to have a very thoughtful and thorough discussion with municipal partners on how valuations have changed before you unfreeze the valuations so that we can provide feedback and suggestions to you on strategies to smooth that tax rate increase if it’s dramatic across different tax classes.

A concerning piece that I heard was AMO has carved out a potential new advocacy position to say it’s been a long time let’s unfreeze the valuations in my early discussions with them. I don’t think they’re thinking about that kind of first step in the process and let’s have impact run the valuations, share them, get some policy feedback from municipalities and then move to unfreeze them with a plan if necessary valuations of dramatically appreciated dramatically different rates so that’s what I came here to say and share with colleagues a concern that I have so one the caution of making any dramatic changes before we know that and two getting your support for that continued advocacy position that I’ve been making on engaging with the province in the way that I’ve described. And as the data let us provide feedback before you make any dramatic changes to the valuation freeze. I don’t know if our staff need to comment on that or colleagues have questions I’d be happy to try to answer but I think that this is an important point in time for us to understand tax policy and also understand what the valuation freeze has potentially done to the future shifts in who pays the taxes in the city.

Thank you Your Worship. Well you did open the door so I will go to Ms. Barbone and see if she has anything to add to the comment she just provided. Thank you through the chairs so his worship is correct we do not know what those impacts are going to be and certainly if that is something that they would be willing to share we would be happy to provide comments as to what those impacts could be and potential options that the municipalities could consider for whether it’s phase in etc.

The province has typically always provided us with tools for flexibility through reassessments in the past so we hope that that will continue in the future. Certainly with our recommended approach we’ve suggested that to keep everything equal and not significantly altered them now is what our recommendation was for the very reason that his worship had mentioned was to provide as much flexibility to the council down the road not knowing what that valuation change would be so we would absolutely support that position of trying to receive that information and hopefully inform them as to what those potential options are in ways that we might mitigate them and that they might be able to roll out across the province. Thank you for that so before I go to our next speaker on the list hearing the mayors wrap up unless there are any members of the committee that are objecting to it and I don’t think we need a specific direction on this I think that the committee is generally would share a consensus that you should continue that advocacy work your worship and that you should you know of course get information from staff that you can share with our provincial counterparts as you go along and do that work through AMO and through the big city mayors caucus so do we have general consensus from committee that we can proceed that way? Councillor Truss.

Yes I’m wondering if it might not be what I’m wondering if maybe we should try to draft a more precise it being noted and further being noted so it’s on it’s on the record. I think there’s a general agreement and we appreciate you I appreciate you coming here and saying that but I believe that the city is being I believe that municipalities in general are being put at a disadvantage in that we’re not capturing the full value of the amazing run up in property values and I think that that’s a lost increment and I’d like to start recapturing that as soon as possible so I’m just wondering if maybe you have a better sense of this but is there some language that we could offer as an amendment? So the clerk has been working quickly to draft something up for us Councillor and certainly as the seconder I would see this as something we can just add in that the mayor be directed to continue advocacy to the province on behalf of the city of London with respect to impact and the freezing, unfreezing of tax class valuations and I see Councillor Stevenson nodding and indicating that she’ll support that as an addition to the motion that’s on the floor too so we’ll include that as some specific direction. Your worship.

Just so I’m clear the way that I’m interpreting that is the advocacy will be to the province share data with us on how property appreciations have changed so that we can provide feedback before the province makes any significant change in direction so that would be the position that I would be going to advocate for. Great. Thank you for that. Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you and through you. The mayor actually answered a lot of my questions. I had two questions and the first one was really the inherent risk associated with kind of adjusting the tax ratios and not having the impact assessment comes through yet. So I see all that you did speak about the fact that we’re kind of at the limit, almost at the limit of the industrial and commercial tax ratios already and I did see that the report spoke a lot about flexibility and I thought it was pretty clear, you know, if we max that out our flexibility is really down from that point so I do see that.

So I do like seeing just to see what the impact assessment does come up and I do like the motion or how it’s been amended so far with the advocacy just to see what the assessment will look like and just to see how much property tax evaluations or the valuations of everything would kind of change. So I guess I would kind of just reform my first question a little bit and ask is there any way that we could kind of put like some type of number or a marked or a threshold if we were to have some type of property kind of significantly increase in their property valuation as per impact. Is there any way we can, you know, with the phase in process for the property tax or anything like that to kind of mitigate the original impact that that would have if it were to be significantly kind of off the charts, is there anything like that, that would be my first question and I have one after so I just want to know if staff could just maybe point on to that one. Thanks.

Thank you, Councillor. Mr. McMillan, did you want that one? Yes, thank you through the chair.

One of the announcements made by the province for 2023 is that the tax ratio of flexibility will be permanent and that wasn’t clear prior to this announcement. And what that means is since we are below the threshold of 1.95, or 1.98, which is the provincial threshold for commercial and industrial, we are 1.91 currently. So we could adjust our ratios upward in the case of seeking revenue neutrality, which is avoiding those tax shifts that may occur. So we have quite a bit of room there compared to some other municipalities.

However, if there is a significant spike that revenue neutrality won’t be able to mitigate, then we may need to seek some, because of this long-term freeze, seek some powers from the province to do a one-time exception to that threshold. Thank you for that, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, and through you. Okay, I like that answer.

I was just kind of wondering about that because I feel like because we have had such a freeze for such a long time, I wouldn’t be surprised if we had something significant. Probably had multiple properties come up, so just planning ahead. And my second question, not necessarily for what we’re speaking to now, but when I first saw that we were kind of talking about this, I was like, oh, that’s good, because I would like to, you know, I hear a lot of people speaking about the multi-residential property tax and how it’s higher than residential, and it’s not necessarily fair to tenants specifically or any type of occupants in multi-res buildings, looking at the chart here, it does look like London is around the average, but my question would be, like, if we were to reduce, let’s say we come to the decision that we do reduce the tax ratio for the multi-residential property tax, is there any way that we can ensure that the tenants would actually see this impact on their rent or anything like that, is there any ways that we could actually ensure that any type of reduction in the property tax for a multi-res building would actually be seen by the tenants themselves? Thanks.

And I think we’ll go back to Mr. McMillan, I think you answered that in part at least earlier. Well, for existing tenants year over year, sorry, through the chair, then we could ensure that anything over the 2.49% threshold would result in a mandatory reduction. However, for any new tenants, there’s no guarantee that that reduction will be passed on to them.

Councillor Ferrera. Okay, I don’t have response right now, let me think about that, but thank you. Okay, I have Councillor Stevenson from the committee on the list next, and then Councillor Preble. Councillor Stevenson.

Okay. Thank you, and through the chair, I just wanted to say thank you for giving us this information ahead of April, and I also, in response to what the mayor said, is it possible to share that advocacy public so that groups like community associations, business associations, that kind of thing can also support that advocacy, because I think it’s good to let the people know that we are doing that work and how they can support. And my question to staff is, and you don’t need to answer, but I’m just wondering, best guess, what are our concerns that, what class, say residential, we’re worried that that one might take the brunt of the tax increase, and commercial might be the one that, you know, when the mayor said 10%, minus 2%, do we have a best guess as to who would get the hit and who would get the benefit? So I think what we’re going to do first is, I know it might be slightly unusual, but in terms of the public piece of the advocacy question, I’m going to go to Mayor Morgan to perhaps elaborate on what parts of advocacy are more in-camera items, and what parts are more public.

Yeah, so an advocacy approach that we would traditionally take is we have a support from our RGR folks. We have external organizations that we raise with, whether it’s AMO or Ontario big city mayors, FCM on federal issues. So we would bring those positions to those organizations and try to craft out basically a larger coalition or a larger position. I’ve already raised this initially at Ontario big city mayors with a lot of nods on the screen when I express the concerns that we have.

As for sharing it out with the public to gain support, I don’t see any harm in sharing the advocacy position on tax ratios, except for the fact that it’s probably very boring and complicated for many. That’s what I could do is endeavor to, as we craft out those positions to share with our partners, is share that information with members of council, and they could share it with the relevant community organizations who they think might have the interest in being involved in something like this. At the end of the day, too, to the question that I know the chair will go to answer. I’m not sure staff is going to be able to give a clear answer to that, which is exactly why I think we need the data on how things have shifted.

You could guess that the residential class is appreciated quite well, and the commercial class is not that there would be a shift between those two, but there’s also valuation differences in the way that impact values those different classes, and even the way that they value different multi-residential under the new class and the old class. Really, it’s the impact data that really drives the answer to your question. Everything else might be a little bit of speculation given the length of time that it’s been frozen, which I think is back to 2016 is the current date that it’s frozen to. Thank you for that, Your Worship, and I was going to go to staff to answer the second part of that question.

I think you may have answered most of it for them already, but I will go to Ms. Parbonne to see if she has any additional comment in terms of what her crystal ball might be predicting, because I will be very clear with all members. We’re asking staff to speculate here, and that’s very tough for them to do. Thank you, through the chairs.

I will not speculate because we do not know, but what will be critically important in trying to estimate whether that what class might have an increase is what the date of the valuation will be, because that has not been decided yet, so it was supposed to be 2020, but we do not have any confirmation of what the date of valuation will be. So, depending on the date of valuation, the values could swing quite dramatically between 2016 and what that time is, and from year to year there could be a dramatic swing as well, so it really, I think that’s why looking at that information would really help us to understand what swings could be anticipated, because they may not be what we might be expecting, but depending on the date, they may substantially change that as well. Thank you, Ms. Barbone.

Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. And like I said, this really has been helpful. I thought of this when we were doing the budget, what the impact of this was going to be, because we have a video out for the public to see, assuring them that the market rate increases or the property valuations don’t affect their property taxes, and yet there is this piece that does, and I think although tax policy is not very exciting, the thought of 10% or -2% is very engaging for people, because there are some that are struggling with 3.1, and I think it will be good to be proactive with people, that it’s not necessarily 3.1 equally across the board, and that we may or may not have impact in exactly how that is divvied up, and I think being proactive in that is going to help.

Thank you, Councillor. And I didn’t hear a specific question in there, just more commentary, so. Yes, just comment, and yes, please, as a Councillor, anyway, requesting that information that I can share it out. Absolutely.

We’ve got Councillor Pribble next on the list, Councillor, thanks for visiting our committee again. My pleasure, as always, through the chair to the staff, just one quick procedural question, when the council is presented in April with the various scenarios, is the assumption that night will be voting on 8th and decision-made, or there will be some time to think about and discuss, or that night will be the decision-made? Thank you. Well, Councillor, just to be clear, it will come back to this committee first, and then to council, but we’ll go through to Ms.

Barboon to provide an outline on that. Thank you through the chairs. So, certainly, if we are able to bring it earlier, rather than later, then perhaps there would be time, but the general expectation is, based on the timing, that particularly with respect to the council meetings, there isn’t opportunity to have multiple meetings to decide what that is. So, our standard process would be we would bring forward our report to the April Corporate Services Committee, and because there’s only one council meeting, we do need to have it approved before the end of the April, such that we can have enough time to get the tax bills out, and to meet our fiduciary duties as part of the municipal act to allow enough timing for those receipts.

So, the expectation is that, of course, there’s a week time between the almost not quite a week when it’s released on the Wednesday for Councillors that there are questions in advance of the Corporate Services Committee, and then it would go to that following council. So, we did put in a special CSC meeting just in case where we’ve had some issues in the past where the province did not provide us the information we needed until the very last minute, so that we couldn’t actually meet the committee deadline, so we did put a special meeting in. So, if there is a requirement that council couldn’t make a decision, or the committee wanted to see it again, before it went to council, we do have a special CSC meeting that has been slotted in just before the final council meeting in April that could be utilized if council wasn’t able to make a decision, or the committee wasn’t able to make a decision because it is within the same council committee cycle. Thank you.

And if there is a chance to receive it earlier or for you to complete it at present to us, it would be greatly appreciated and helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Trussau.

One last question. Could London decide to move forward with a vacant unit property tax, which subject to certain conditions, we would have the ability to do under provincial law with the ministerial approval. That would be something separate and apart from this whole discussion, and it would not figure in to any of these calculations, it would be, yeah, that’s my question. Ms.

Barbara. Yes. Thank you, through the chair. In fact, that would be separate and apart from any tax policy decision.

That tax, the way the vacant residential tax works is it is levied on top of the current taxes that are owed and it’s a surcharge on top should that be implemented. Thank you for that. All right. I have no, oh, Councillor Ferriero.

Sorry. I got to remember to look both ways. No worries. You’re looking over.

Everyone’s over there. So. All right. And thanks.

I have, actually one more question, or two more questions actually. Just, I wanted to know, like if we did decide to maybe move some of the tax rates, would there be unintended, like right now before the impact assessment, would there be, is there a possibility of having an unintended, unintended consequence of impact assessing after our moves? Is it like, could we trigger something like that if we were to adjust the tax ratios now? Ms.

Barbara. So through the chairs, so if we were to adjust the tax ratios, you would know the impact now, but at the only risk with that of a potential unintended consequence would be that it may limit your flexibility to change the tax ratios, say next year, if the reassessment were to go through. So by attaining them now, as Mr. McMillan had mentioned earlier, we have a great deal of flexibility.

If they were to change slightly, it may impact your flexibility, but we would not know that until the reassessment was completed to know for sure. Councillor Ferriero. You know, that answers my question, and I’ll stop it there. Thanks.

Okay. I have no one else on the speakers list, so we’ll get the clerk to open the vote on this. Opposing the vote, the motion passes 5 to 0. Thank you, colleagues.

Moving on, we have nothing on item three for scheduled items. On item four, we have three items for direction, two were added, all three are proclamation applications. I will just share with committee that I have checked to make sure that each of the three has a London connection, so I don’t feel that any need to be pulled if we wish to deal with all of these together, or we can deal with them all on separate votes. So I’ll look for some direction from committee on how you like to proceed.

Councillor Stevenson. I’ll put a motion forward for all three. Okay. So we’re going to move all three together, seconded by Councillor Ferriero, any comments or questions on these?

Seeing none, then we’ll get the clerk to open the vote. Bear with us for just a moment while she bundles those three together. The vote should now be open on your screens. Seeing the vote and the motion passes, five to zero.

Two colleagues moving on. We have nothing on item five deferred matters in additional business, but we do have one confidential item under section six, and this is in regard to property acquisition. So we’re going to look for a motion to move in camera, moved by Councillor Truss on, seconded by Councillor Stevenson, and we will get that vote open. Closing the vote, motion passes, five to zero.

All right, colleagues, give us just a moment to secure the chambers and shuffle the Zoom chairs. Recording stopped. All right, welcome back to the public session from Corporate Services Committee. I am going to call on Councillor Truss, I was vice chair to report out on our in camera session.

Yes, I’d like to report that the committee considered item 6.1 pertaining to a land acquisition matter for proposed, or pending acquisition of land by the municipality. And I can report that progress was made on this matter. Thank you for that, Councillor. And that concludes our agenda items, colleagues, so all that is left is looking for a motion to adjourn.

Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Ferrera, and we can do this by hand. All those in favor. And that motion passes. Thank you, colleagues.

We stand adjourned. And for those who haven’t had enough committee work today, planning and environment committee starts at 4 p.m.