April 18, 2023, at 4:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 4:00 PM; it being noted that Councillors P. Van Meerbergen and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Consent Items 2.1 to 2.3, inclusive, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.1   Update - Whole of Community System Response Implementation

2023-04-18 Staff Report - Update – Whole of Community System Response

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that the Update - Whole of Community System Response Implementation Report BE RECEIVED for information purposes only.

Motion Passed

2.2   Operational and Community Implications of the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (formerly known as Bill 23)

2023-04-18 Staff Report (2.2) - Operational and Community Implications of the More Homes

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the report, entitled “Operational and Community Implications of the More Homes, Built Faster Act, 2022 (formerly known as Bill 23)” BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   Financial Implications of the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022 (formerly known as Bill 23)

2023-04-18 Staff Report - Financial Implications of the More Homes

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports and the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the following actions be taken with respect to the More Homes Built Faster Act, 2022: 

a)    the report, entitled “Financial Implications of the More Homes, Built Faster Act, 2022 (formerly known as Bill 23)” BE RECEIVED for information;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to monitor Development Charges exemptions and discounts arising from the More Homes Act and identify interim funding sources to address 2023 costs as required;

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to incorporate direct and indirect costs associated with the More Homes Act in the 2024 – 2027 Multi-Year Budget; 

d)    the deferred completion of the 2025 Development Charges Background Study BE ENDORSED, with a revised planned effective date of January 1, 2028 for the Development Charges By-law; and,

e)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update cost estimates for Development Charges-funded growth projects to be incorporated into the 2024 – 2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Civic Administration will continue to assess the health of the Development Charges reserve funds through annual monitoring, with any concerns being addressed through the Growth Management Implementation Strategy (GMIS) Update (completed during the first half of each year) and/or an earlier update of the Development Charges By-law.

Motion Passed

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget

2023-04-18 Staff Report - 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget:

a)    the Multi-Year Budget Policy, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED for information;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED of the Council desire for Civic Administration to bring forward a draft 2024 to 2027 Multi-year budget with an average annual tax levy increase in the range of approximately 2.9% – 3.9% as identified to maintain existing service levels as well as additional investments of an additional 0.5% in funding for additional investment, for planning purposes;

c)    the Civic service areas and the City’s agencies, boards and commissions BE REQUESTED to develop their 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budgets in accordance with the direction provided by Council and the associated planning assumptions outlined in the City’s budget guidelines document;

d)    the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget timetable, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “C”, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the tabling of the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget is planned for December 12, 2023 at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 25, 2023 to formalize the budget submission deadlines and requirements for the City’s agencies, boards and commissions; and,

f)    the preliminary public engagement plan, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as  Appendix “E” for the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE ENDORSED; it being noted that this public engagement plan has been incorporated into the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget timetable noted above.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the SPPC recess at 6:13 PM, for 20 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Strategic Priorities and Policy recesses at 6:13 PM, and resumes at 6:39 PM.

The following motion is withdrawn, in accordance with section 33.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, with the joint consent of the mover and the seconder and with the permission of the standing committee.

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That part b) of the motion BE AMENDED to read:

“b)  the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward a draft 2024 to 2027 Multi-year budget with a maximum annual tax levy increase of 4.9%, for planning purposes;

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That part b) BE AMENDED to read as follows:

b)  the Civic Administration BE ADVISED of the Council desire for Civic Administration to bring forward a draft 2024 to 2027 Multi-year budget with an average annual tax levy increase in the range of approximately 2.9% – 3.9% as identified to maintain existing service levels as well as additional investments of an additional 0.5% in funding for additional investment, for planning purposes;

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by A. Hopkins

The motion, as amended, BE APPROVED, as follows:

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget:

a)    the Multi-Year Budget Policy, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “B” BE RECEIVED for information;

 

b)    the Civic Administration BE ADVISED of the Council desire for Civic Administration to bring forward a draft 2024 to 2027 Multi-year budget with an average annual tax levy increase in the range of approximately 2.9% – 3.9% as identified to maintain existing service levels as well as additional investments of an additional 0.5% in funding for additional investment, for planning purposes;

c)    the Civic service areas and the City’s agencies, boards and commissions BE REQUESTED to develop their 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budgets in accordance with the direction provided by Council and the associated planning assumptions outlined in the City’s budget guidelines document;

d)    the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget timetable, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “C”, BE RECEIVED for information; it being noted that the tabling of the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget is planned for December 12, 2023 at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee;

e)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as Appendix “D” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting on April 25, 2023 to formalize the budget submission deadlines and requirements for the City’s agencies, boards and commissions; and,

f)    the preliminary public engagement plan, as appended to the staff report dated April 18, 2023 as  Appendix “E” for the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE ENDORSED; it being noted that this public engagement plan has been incorporated into the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget timetable noted above.

Motion Passed (13 to 2)

4.2   Request for a Shareholder’s Meeting - London Hydro Inc.

2023-04-18 Submission - London Hydro Shareholder Meeting Request

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc.:

a)      the 2022 Annual General Meeting of the Shareholder for London Hydro Inc. BE HELD at a meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on June 20, 2023, for the purpose of receiving the report from the Board of Directors of London Hydro Inc. in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration and the Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16; and,

b)      the City Clerk BE DIRECTED to provide notice of the 2022 Annual Meeting to the Board of Directors for London Hydro Inc. and to invite the Chair of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer of London Hydro Inc. to attend at the Annual Meeting and present the report of the Board in accordance with the Shareholder Declaration;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated April 3, 2023, from C. Graham, Chair, Board of Directors, London Hydro Inc., with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.3   Consideration of Appointment to the London Police Services Board (Requires 1 Member)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the appointment consideration to a member of the London Police Services Board:

a)  interviews BE CONDUCTED with the following individuals:

  • Michele Anderson

  • Gita Canaran

  • Stephen D’Amelio

  • Ryan Gauss

  • Joseph Wabegijig

b)   the above-noted interviews will be conducted at a special meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee, at the call of the Chair; it being noted that the members will be canvassed by the City Clerk to determine an appropriate date and time for the meeting;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received communications from the following individuals regarding this matter:

  • a communication dated April 4, 2023 from Chief J. French, Chippewas of the Thames First Nation;

  • a communication dated April 3, 2023 from Chief T. Cornelius, elected Chief, Oneida Nation of the Thames; and,

  • a communication dated April 17, 2023 from V. Van Linden

it being further noted that training opportunities available to the members will be provided in advance of the interviews.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Additional votes:

Consideration of appointment to the London Police Services Board

Majority Winner: Gita Canaran; Joseph Wabegijig; Ryan Gauss; Stephen D Amelio; Michele Anderson

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Request to Update London Hydro Inc. Board of Director Recruitment, Interview and Nomination Process

2023-04-18 Submission (5.1) - London Hydro

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the following actions be taken with respect to the communications dated April 11, 2023, from the Chair of the London Hydro Board, related to Board recruitment and appointment process, and the impending Board vacancies:

a)     the impending London Hydro Board vacancies, as outlined in the above-noted communication, BE ADVERTISED using the most recent approach of a broader recruitment process, as appropriate; it being noted that applications will be considered by the Municipal Council, as the Shareholder, at the Annual General Meeting;

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to provide to the London Hydro Corporate Governance and Risk Management Committee the applications received in the recruitment process, noted above in part a),  for review and consideration (which may include interviews conducted by London Hydro) with a recommendation to be submitted to the Shareholder for consideration of appointments at the Annual General Meeting; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to take the necessary steps in order to provide for a future amendment to the Shareholder Agreement to formalize the above-noted new process.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

5.2   (ADDED) Request a Governance Working Group Meeting

2023-04-18 Submission (5.2) - GWG Meeting Request

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to call the first meeting of the Governance Working Group no later than May 18, 2023 and the following matters BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for discussion and for potential recommendation(s) back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:

a)    discussion related to the management of In Camera items at the Municipal Council meetings; it being noted that the current practice requires that the Council Chambers be vacated by the public immediately following the Call to Order of the Council meeting;

b)    discussion with respect to potential changes and/or clarification of the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, specifically related (but not necessarily limited) to permitting a Councillor to host community engagement and/or community building events that include recreational and/or social components at City-owned and operated facilities and other civic spaces;

c)    consideration of the development of new Council policies related to:

i)    participation requirements for individual Council members related to the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, and compensation incentives for ‘uneven’ workloads and standing committee participation expectations by individual Council members, including a requirement that members rank all committees in terms of preference; it being noted that any associated change may require an update to the Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards and Commissions;

ii)    establishment of an appointment of Budget Chair Policy that would include a recommended additional stipend for the role;

iii)    establishment a new Council Policy related to formalization of a training and onboarding process for new Councillors at the beginning of the term; 

d)    consideration of revisions to the following existing Council policies:

i)    the Appointment of Deputy Mayor Policy to add formality to certain job duties for the position and to consider additional compensation (or stipend) for the position of the Deputy Mayor;

ii)    the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy, to provide for the establishment of a new full-time compensation model for Councillors, for the start of the 2026 Municipal Council term, as well as a draft terms of reference for an independent task force to review and consult with the public with respect to same; it being noted that this may require additional revisions to associated Council Policies, such as Discussion of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Individuals Appointed by City Council to serve on its Committee or a Local Agency, Board or Commission Policy;

e)    undertake a review of the appointment process for Boards, Agencies, and Commissions, with regard to the filling of vacancies during a council term including but not limited to:

i)    the potential for ABCs to review and identify recommended candidates based on their skill needs;

ii)    providing an evaluation matrix tool to assist Councillors in reviewing applications; and,

iii)    consideration of an interview process.

Motion Passed

Voting Record:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve parts a) and b):

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to call the first meeting of the Governance Working Group no later than May 18, 2023 and the following matters BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for discussion and for potential recommendation(s) back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:

a)    discussion related to the management of In Camera items at the Municipal Council meetings; it being noted that the current practice requires that the Council Chambers be vacated by the public immediately following the Call to Order of the Council meeting;

b)    discussion with respect to potential changes and/or clarification of the Council Members’ Expense Account Policy, specifically related (but not necessarily limited) to permitting a Councillor to host community engagement and/or community building events that include recreational and/or social components at City-owned and operated facilities and other civic spaces;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by S. Lewis

Motion to approve parts c), d) and e)

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to call the first meeting of the Governance Working Group no later than May 18, 2023 and the following matters BE REFERRED to the Governance Working Group for discussion and for potential recommendation(s) back to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee:

c)    consideration of the development of new Council policies related to:

i)    participation requirements for individual Council members related to the City’s Agencies, Boards and Commissions, and compensation incentives for ‘uneven’ workloads and standing committee participation expectations by individual Council members, including a requirement that members rank all committees in terms of preference; it being noted that any associated change may require an update to the Selection Process Policy for Appointing Members to Committees, Civic Boards and Commissions;

ii)    establishment of an appointment of Budget Chair Policy that would include a recommended additional stipend for the role;

iii)    establishment a new Council Policy related to formalization of a training and onboarding process for new Councillors at the beginning of the term; 

d)    consideration of revisions to the following existing Council policies:

i)    the Appointment of Deputy Mayor Policy to add formality to certain job duties for the position and to consider additional compensation (or stipend) for the position of the Deputy Mayor;

ii)    the Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy, to provide for the establishment of a new full-time compensation model for Councillors, for the start of the 2026 Municipal Council term, as well as a draft terms of reference for an independent task force to review and consult with the public with respect to same; it being noted that this may require additional revisions to associated Council Policies, such as Discussion of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Individuals Appointed by City Council to serve on its Committee or a Local Agency, Board or Commission Policy;

e)    undertake a review of the appointment process for Boards, Agencies, and Commissions, with regard to the filling of vacancies during a council term including but not limited to:

i)    the potential for ABCs to review and identify recommended candidates based on their skill needs;

ii)    providing an evaluation matrix tool to assist Councillors in reviewing applications; and,

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

5.3   (ADDED) 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2023-04-18 Submission (5.3) -DIACAC Report

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from it’s meeting held on April 13, 2023:

a)  the creation of a sub-committee of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee (DIACAC) to review the Municipal Council’s appointment process, BE APPROVED; it being noted that the intention of the sub-committee work would be to make recommendations to the Municipal Council for potential improvements to the processes of recruitment and appointments to the City’s Agencies, Boards, Commissions and/or Community Advisory Committees; it being further noted that the DIACAC is committed to offering advice to the Municipal Council in relation to improving equitable and diverse representation; and,

b)  clauses 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1 and 4.2 of the 4th Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Adjournment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 9:10 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 (5 hours, 20 minutes)

Okay, colleagues, I’m gonna call the 14th meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee to order. I’m gonna start with a land acknowledgement. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran. 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 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. Further to that, also, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact SPPC at London.ca or 519-661-2489-Extension-2425.

I’ll start with disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, seeing none, I’m just one thing before we start the agenda. There is an event today, and we don’t usually do recognitions at committee, nor do I wanna start that process, but I know that our committee meeting may go long and we won’t be able to attend. So with Council’s indulgence, I just wanted to say a few words.

We recognize today is Yom Oshoah Holocaust Remembrance Day. We reflect on the horrors of the Holocaust when the Nazi regime systematically murdered 6 million Jews and millions of other innocents, including Roma, Sinti, Slavs, persons with disability, LGBT Q2 plus, Q2S plus individuals, political dissidents, and many others. We stand with the Jewish people in the city of London, Ontario, and throughout Canada, and around the world in grieving one of the darkest chapters in our history. We honor the memories of the victims, we embrace the survivors, we commit to keeping alive the promise of never again, and ensuring that London is a welcome and community promoting tolerance, fighting anti-Semitism, and discrimination in all its forms.

As for today’s agenda, we have a number of consent items that I believe colleagues will want to discuss. If we don’t have any scheduled items, we have items for direction, and I’ll just make a note. One of the items under items for direction is related to the multi-year budget. I’ll be having Budget Chair Ploza chair that section of the meeting, and then we have a number of addeds just to draw your attention to on the agenda.

I can tell you today’s meeting will not be 18 minutes as yesterday’s was, and I appreciate Council’s indulgence for my absence at that meeting. Yesterday, we had an excellent meeting with the premier and members of Cabinet on our health and homelessness work, and I thank the City of London team and our partners for coming down and spending their time on that. There will be more to update on that in the future, but it was an excellent meeting, and I appreciate the work that you were doing. Well, we were doing there.

Certainly, we’ve got a divide and conquer approach, and I think all worked out very well. With that on the consent items, there are three items. I wanna ask if colleagues would like anything dealt with separately, so that’s 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. Nope, okay, then I’d look for a motion for all three of those items, and then I can take discussion.

I see Councilor Ploza willing to move, Councilor Cuddy willing to second, okay, discussion on any of the first three items under consent. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, and through the chair, I just had a couple of questions on the update on the whole community system response, and one is just a confirmation that no money’s been spent yet, and I don’t see a projection for any money being spent here, and the other is, I didn’t see anything in here on sort of an update on what happened with the governance. I’ll go to Ms.

Livingston, and Mr. Dickens is also in the room, but I’ll start with you, City Manager. Yes, Mr. Mayor, and through you, no funds have been spent.

As we indicated at the last meeting, we would bring back a business case for the LCRN funding, so we’re not yet in a position to do that. That’ll be through a community process, and the report does provide an update on what occurred at the last meeting in terms of the community is in the process of defining what the implementation framework will be that work began on March 27th, and continues over the next couple of weeks. Okay, thank you. Any other questions on this or the other items on the consent agenda?

Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. Your worship, I do have a question on item, or a consent item number. I guess it’s 2.3, just a question for you to staff on the financial implications of Bill 23, and as we move forward and how we, not only at committee here, try to understand the implications, but also how the public is gonna understand these implications going forward, and I wonder if I could ask staff what would be, what would those conversations look like with the public going forward and also with us?

Thank you. Mr. Yeoman. Thank you through you, Mr.

Chair. So what we have before you tonight is a bit of a roadmap on some of the financial impacts associated with more homes act that are coming forward. We’ve laid out a number of the potential financial implications that have been identified by staff at this point. We will have a number of reports that are coming forward.

Those are articulated in the community and operational impacts report as well. One of the key ones I will be coming for you quite soon is the recommendations related to funding the metro exemptions and discounts that are contained in the more homes act as well. From there, there will be a number of opportunities to have discussions with the multi-year budget process, and we’ve sort of hinted about what some of those items might be that’ll be coming for you at that point. In terms of the public, the multi-year budget will be definitely a process to be participating there.

We also have a dedicated website though that we’ve identified in the report related to the more homes act, and it’s tied as well to the housing targets report and the pledge that was made as well by council. So we’re gonna continue to package all these items together so we’re telling a good story to the public about information and so it’s available for all of you to relay to your constituents as well. Yeah, thank you. I think it’s really good to know ‘cause I think the conversations will need to be done further down the road.

I would hope that right now we’re not deciding on anything, and then if there are decisions to be made down the road, that will eventually come to us. And I do know that the public is also interested in knowing what those implications will look like as well. So glad to know that we have a dedicated site there for them to get that information. So I think for now I’m happy to receive the consent items.

So thank you. Councilor Raman. Thank you, through you. So I had similar questions about 2.3.

So Councilor Hopkins covered some of them. But there was one thing I was hoping to better understand that was on page 28 and it relates to the following. It says, “Finally, council retains the ability “to accelerate the deferred date of the DC study “should funding concerns offset the benefit associated “with the delayed approval of a new by-law.” I’m just wondering if you might highlight or explain how, excuse me, we might make that change based on what concerns are raised. Go ahead.

Through you Your Worship, I’m happy to help unpack that. So what we are recommending as part of the report that’s before you, Tony, is the deferral of the development charges background study that we had intended to bring forward for an approval date of 2025. Changes with the more homes act of actual out of the city to benefit from some flexibility to push that period off, which allows us to delay some of the costs that we might have actually into a future multi-year budget. With that, though, we’ve provided some sensitivity analysis that’s in the report as well to give us a level of comfort that we think that there’s not going to be a huge implications associated with the minor deferral that we’re looking at.

Council, though, does reserve the ability, though, to initiate a background study earlier than that date. So if we’re looking at our revenues that are coming in and project cost estimates that are above, the actuals are above the estimates that we had, then we’ll come before you with a recommendation to actually tighten that up. With that, though, we have the growth management implementation strategy that probably some of you are familiar with. That’s our annual infrastructure staging strategy that we run in conjunction with the development community, looking at making sure we’re making timely investments and investments that we can afford as well based on the revenues that we have.

So that’s a decision point that you have as well to be really nimble with the changes that we’re seeing. Councilor Trossa. Councilor Trossa. Yes, I have a few questions on report 2.3 through the chair.

Thank you very much for this report. It really should be read by all members of the public to really understand the magnitude of the challenges that we’re facing. And I thought this was particularly illuminating and well-written. I do have a few questions though through the chair.

At the bottom of page 22, it says the city is fortunate in that it has a degree of flexibility. Is that only because other jurisdictions had retroactivity that we don’t have or are there other reasons for that? Ms. Chairman.

Through you Mr. Chair, some have to find clarification on that, that’s correct, Councillor. So the way the province introduced the more homes act changes in relation to the DC rate phase and also the in eligibility of land and studies, it was actually retroactive to January the 1st, 2022, even though the bill was actually approved and became an act of November of last year. So there are a number of municipalities, especially in the GTA that actually have DC bylaws that have an expiration date, which is forcing them to update, or they have one that is coming up this year as well too.

So given that our bylaw doesn’t have the five year expiration date, we have flexibility to go to the new 10 year period. So that’s why you’re seeing a lot more aggressive advocacy coming out of the GTA and why we’re making these recommendations to you tonight. Okay, the next question to the chair is on page 24, under DC exemptions and discounts, the last sentence in the first paragraph. Importantly, these incentives are provided to the development proponent and there are no control measures afforded to municipalities to ensure that the cost savings are passed on to tenants.

I guess my question is, can the city, does the city have the ability to enact any, if they wish? Mr. Chairman. Through you, Mr.

Chair. So the answer to that is unfortunately no. So the act is pretty prescriptive in terms of what the required exemptions are in the discounts that apply to all municipalities and given that they are provincial exemptions that are articulated to the Development Charges Act, Council does not have the ability to vary them to try to refine them as you would through a CIP grant, for example. Sir?

Yeah, thank you. That’s not the answer I wanted to hear, but I guess we’ll have to think about that. My only other question is in page 28, the paragraph that starts by based on the sensitivity analysis. It says, a modest deferral of the DC study can be accommodated without the need for a significant amount of additional debt financing or project deferrals.

And whenever I see the words projects deferrals, I get worried about the time deadlines for any particular project. Are we talking about a different species of deferral or is that the issue here? Mr. Allen.

Thank you through you, Mr. Chair. So that’s speaking to infrastructure projects that we have that are growth funded. So as I mentioned, every year we go through the GMIS process, looking at our various infrastructure projects and the timing, there are a number of upward pressures and downward pressures that are articulated in the act that are tied into, or sorry, in the report that are tied into that sensitivity analysis there.

And so based on what we’re seeing, we anticipate that should they all prove out relatively equal that we can afford the modest deferral without the additional debt or without major deferrals. And those will all be discussed with the community and they’ll be before consideration if there is decisions that are required. Finally, why does the committee itself need to be posted? Is there some, would there be some use in having the committee continue to have the option of meeting without having to reconstitute itself?

Mr. Allen. Through you, Mr. Chair.

So the committee will continue until the development charge of study in BILAR actually approved by council. So while we’re suggesting in here that there’s probably a period given that we are pushing it off for an extended period of time, we’ll have a bit of a hiatus. So the committee will not have a lot of activity that’ll be underway because there won’t be a lot of discussion points. That doesn’t mean that our discussion with community stakeholders don’t continue.

We have a number of city initiatives that we can engage with. We can also reconvene the community at any time to have further conversations. Thank you. I have myself next on the speakers list and then I’ll add others.

So I’ll just speak from the chair ‘cause I’ll be brief. I just have comments. I think excellent questions so far from my colleagues. I support the direction that staff is proposing in the report.

I think we’re lucky that we have some flexibility in the way that we can do our development charges review. I will say one of the things that I want us to be conscious of is any financial impacts related to this legislation. The minister said clearly in a written email are written correspondence to municipal councils that we would be made whole, but we do not know what that means yet. I know the Ontario Big City Mayor’s group, this is a focus of our discussion and we’ll be meeting for our AGM and the idea is to engage with the minister on exactly what that’s going to look like.

As you know, they’re engaging in a series of audits of some municipalities on their DC funds. I don’t anticipate they’ll give the answer to what made whole means until they complete those. But it’ll be very important for us to track the financial implications of each and every decision related to this bill so that when we have the opportunity to make the case for being made whole, we’re not short-changing ourselves on any of the costs that are associated with decisions under this particular act because we don’t know the parameters yet under what will be included in making municipalities whole. I know my definition is, I’m not sure if that’s the definition that it will land on, but I wanted colleagues to know that those discussions are ongoing with the major mayors in the province and an engagement with the province on this matter.

But I don’t anticipate us knowing the answer to that until they’ve completed some of their audits and review of the municipalities that they’ve chosen to do so. What our job is and what it’ll emphasize is let’s make sure we track every single dollar related to this legislation that is cost to us so that we can make the best case we possibly can for getting each and every one of those dollars back into the municipality so that we can provide the infrastructure necessary to build the housing that’s needed in the city. So those are my comments with that. I’ll go to the next speaker, which is Councillor Frank and then Councillor Layman.

Thank you and through the chair, I think your comments triggered a thought in my mind and I’m wondering, moving forward, if we aren’t made whole, I’m wondering if maybe through the chair to our colleague who sits on AMO, if there’s potentially been some discussion throughout the AMO advocacy docket about municipalities across Ontario having a provincial property tax levy applied to property tax bills and if that has been maybe discussed moving forward at AMO and if not, I perhaps would love to entertain maybe that being added to potential advocacy efforts. All out Councillor Hopkins is the AMO representative to answer that, go ahead Councillor. Yeah, thank you and thank you very much for that question. It is a conversation that we are having at the AMO board about trying to have municipalities whole again and part of that conversation has been really around the infrastructure that is needed to make things happen.

I’d be happy to bring forward some other proposals about looking at provincial tax levels but right now we are just advocating solely with the provincial government addressing the need for all municipalities to get support with infrastructure projects. So that’s where we’re at. We haven’t heard anything. We are keeping our fingers crossed but that is the advocacy for now.

Councillor Fray. Good, thank you, yeah. That’s very helpful because I think again, if we are made whole that’s wonderful and if we aren’t then there are some potential advocacy efforts we could be moving towards. I did have one question to direct towards staff regarding this and I was wondering in regards to the DC by-law deferral, sorry, kind of switching pace again but I noticed that there’s some mention about I think it was storm water reserve fund was one that was looking a little tight and I’m just wondering how confident and I know you kind of did answer it but I’m wondering actually specifically about that one, how sensitive the estimates are if they’re very close or if they’re like margins of like a million or five million just to get a sense of how confident you are in the estimates knowing that it seems to just mostly be a cash flow issue and just try to understand that a little bit better.

Way to see who wants to get over Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So I really appreciate that question ‘cause that’s a reserve fund that we’ve been tracking for a number of years to the GMIS process. We’ve gone to a point where we’re almost not receiving enough income that’s or revenue that’s coming in to actually make our debt payments let alone pay for new projects with cash. So it is something we will continue to monitor very closely. It’s part of our GMIS process that’s underway right now.

In terms of level of confidence, we have a level of comfort that we’ve articulated here and as I mentioned with the various factors that are influencing that it’s hard to have a clear forecast but we believe that there will be a good circumstance and if not we’ll be able to respond if there are issues that arise. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, I’d just like to ask some questions regarding the deferral of our development charges review. My understanding is the deferral is being sought to wait until we know exactly what we’re seeing with the More Homes Act, is that correct?

Ms. Chairman. Through you, Mr. Chair.

So the deferral’s coming with sort of two parts to it. So the one, as you can see articulated in the report under section three, there are actually a number of, should we not have had the bill 23 financial implications, we still probably would be coming for you with the new ability to defer the study because there’s a number of studies that are actually underway that are quite influential to the DC study as it comes forward. So for example, we identified the Dingman Stormwater EA that’s underway, the Mobility Master Plan, the Comprehensive Review for the needs assessment for the London Plan, the Parks and Rec Master Plan, the Fire Master Plan. So a lot of these are really key decision points that flow into the development church’s background, the rates that we actually set and recover for.

So that’s factor one. Factor two, of course, then is the financial implications associated with the More Homes Act, in particular, the rate reductions that we’re looking at with the rate phase in, which would be very sizable to the municipality. And then the loss of studies and land, which is another piece. So the province is fully articulated that growth studies are out and they can’t be recovered for now.

They have to come from alternative sources of funding. Land is still unknown, and that’s gonna be prescribed through regulations that haven’t been released yet, so we are still waiting for that. So again, just as you said, it gives us a bit more flexibility and time to make adjustments. Through you, Mayor.

The three reserve funds we’re talking about in the mid-highlight, our stormwater, wastewater and roads. I was a little concerned when I read the quote here, “The greatest risk associated with the deferral “the D.C. study is the ability of the D.C. reserve funds “to have sufficient funding available to pay for the project “identified for completion prior to the import state “of the new D.C.

by-law. “Can you expand on that? “Can you tell me why this is the greatest risk “and how much risk are we looking at?” Go ahead. Through you, Mr.

Chair, maybe if I could just clarification, was that related to the roads reserve fund that you’re speaking of? Reading from 3.0. Dale in about four paragraphs, and I quoted, starts with the greatest risk associated, and I wanna drill into that a bit more, what is meant by that, essentially. That’s right, thank you.

So, the big risk that we have articulated is related to, of course, the inflationary pressures that the community is facing and our infrastructure projects are facing. You’ve noticed that there are a few that have come before Council there is some discussion on that with the budget. What we have right now though is that we have master plan consultants that are engaged for all the services that we recover D.C.s for, and they’re actually able to update all the cost estimates based on updated unit costs as well. So, the timeliness of that’s really helpful, that will help inform the multi-year budget, and if there are any decisions that need to be made based on that, but based on what we’re seeing, we did an inflationary adjustment to that sensitive analysis that you have here, and that’s again, providing us with that level of comfort that we should be in a good shape.

So, one more question, Mayor. And would you describe those three reserve funds to be currently in a healthy state, and the upward trend that I see in the next four years? Has that been forecast with potential changes, or is that as if the world stays as is? Through you, Mr.

Chair. So, I would characterize them as being healthy right now. We actually did not defer any projects with GMIS last year. So, we do think that there are, there is some risk, as I did mention, that we’re continuing to monitor, but they are in good shape that we don’t need to make drastic actions right now.

With the lines that you’re seeing that are increasing, what you’re starting to see there is, normally during a DC study, we’d actually do a comprehensive update of all of our growth needs. We’d look at potential additional infrastructure that might need to be decided and factored in. So, that’s where a bit of that spread is. What we are doing though, is we’re working with our internal partners throughout all various service areas where we collect DCs to identify if there are any projects that they think might be required, and we’re trying to include some flexibility for council to consider that going forward, so we can really be nimble to respond to the housing target that we’ve articulated as we move forward.

Thank you. That’s a ramen. Thank you. I just wanna move back to the comment in the report, attributed to the minister around we would be made whole.

And I know that this is supposed to, in a way, provide us with some reassurance as to how this will all settle out. In the end, I think one of the challenges I’m having is that, and one of the reasons why I appreciate how we message this to the public as well, is that I think it needs to be very clearly understood by people that this is not all within our control, and therefore for us to be made whole requires a very solid partnership between many different players and partners in order to then have the city receive this money. And I think, however it is that we articulate that, I know I’m trying to wrap my head around that myself, because I think it’s a really important thing to communicate. I just wanna go to page 33, where you talk about the limited funding tools available to provide affordable housing needs, arising from population growth.

Not only do we have what’s going on with Bill 23 and this new act, but we also have the Housing Accelerator Fund at the same point in time as a competing interest, let’s call it, where we’re, our staff have to look at how we are able to fit within all of these different opportunities. Do you see opportunity, and it says without new federal or provincial funding, but do you see opportunity on the horizon with some of these opportunities perhaps through the Housing Accelerator Fund? And I guess I also then have a follow-up question to that, so I’ll let you go from there. Through you Mr.

Chair, so we’ll definitely be seeking any ability to avail of senior level funding for any of our various projects. I’m not overly familiar with that program in particular, but what I will stress here is that when we’re talking about loss of DC, we’re covering for affordable housing, that’s for affordable housing related to the growing city, which is something we really haven’t considered heavily in the past, and that’s why council gave us the direction to take a look at this, and that’s why it’s unfortunate that this tool has actually been removed for municipal consideration going forward. So housing can be a bit of a challenge when you look at affordable housing, there’s the growth in the system, which means people are shifting through the income spectrum and the housing needs spectrum, but then there’s also the population growth, which then generates affordable housing pressures associated with that too. So we’ll be looking at both as we move forward.

Thank you, yeah. So I think where I’m challenged is around how do we plan effectively for our affordable housing needs, the changing population growth. And so when I look at page 32 and the additional staffing request, I see that in order for us to really make sure that we’re working through this target, make sure that we’re meeting those targets, but also some of the pressure I think that’s going to come with the federal housing accelerator fund and those needs on that side, this need for additional staffing. And so I’m personally thinking about that as we look at the multi-year budget as well.

So I’m just wondering if you can speak to that particular portion on additional staffing and the pressures that we’re facing. Thank you through you, Mr. Mayor. We are actively looking through the accelerator fund.

Just that’s the lead that Scott Mathers is undertaking for the city, primarily because it affects planning building and the areas within his area. In terms of the fund itself from what I understand, it wouldn’t apply to staff funding. It would only apply to infrastructure type projects and continuous improvement type projects. That’s what I understand from a high level perspective.

And we would be looking at the multi-year budget for staffing. Okay, thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you Your Worship for recognizing me again. I really do appreciate some of the comments coming out of from my colleagues that got me wanting to speak again and just following up on Councillor Ramen’s comments around the communication piece to the public.

I think that is a really important part because as I’m trying to struggle with what does this all mean, I’m sure the public is very maybe not even aware or how do we explain it to them? Growth no longer pays for growth, which was always my go-to way of thinking. But I’m not sure if that applies anymore, but I just want to emphasize again, that piece, that communication piece. But following up on what Councillor Frank said about the costs that we may be incurring down the road with the storm water, I would assume there’s some road projects too.

Would we be informed as a council, or will we be making that decision on those increases? I’m not saying that they’re going to come forward, but if there are going to be increases down the road of unexpected projects or who knows what goes on, that we will be making that decision. And then we’ll take the next steps just through you, Your Worship. Through you, Mr.

Chair. So happy to provide a couple answers actually to that. So there’s probably two options or two abilities for a council that are coming forward. The first is the report that I had mentioned that’s coming forward in the next few months about the response to the DC exemptions and discounts.

But that will be articulating a framework on how the municipalities suggested to approach that for funding going forward. So that will be a way for council to decide and what the implications will be for that and then how that will roll into various other plans that we have, as well then with the annual GMIS update that comes forward, that provides another opportunity to know what infrastructure projects are being impacted, that may need to be adjusted related to what we’re seeing with our DC revenue levels. So there’s a number of good decision points for council that are coming up related to this to manage it as it goes along. Yeah, and just to follow up, I’m really pleased and want to thank staff for all these great opportunities that already exists for us to make sure that we’re on the right track there.

So thank you for that. Okay, thank you. That’s all I have on the speakers list. Just a reminder, we have all of the consent items on the floor, lots of discussion about one of them, but I look for one last call for any discussion on any of the consent items.

This is already moved and seconded. I don’t see any of the discussion, so we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Okay, we have no scheduled items on items for direction.

The first item is related to the multi-year budget, so I’ll turn the chair over to budget chair blows up. Thank you, Your Worship, and a pleasure to start the multi-year budget process with you. You did very well with the 2023 budget, and this is, that was kind of like your intro to the 2024, 2027 multi-year budget. The process officially starts tonight as we finished our strat plan last evening.

Tonight’s order is staff are gonna do the presentation, then we’re gonna do a discussion. The layout that we’re proposing is very similar to what we did for the 2023 budget, so you had a process of if you liked what you saw, we can ask any questions tonight, recognizing agency boards and commissions, also need to report in for the finances for this, and then we’ll look to any motions as staff is looking to us to see what kind of tax range they want us to focus in on, just for they can bring forward projects specific to that range, and we can focus staff’s time. So at this time, I’m gonna ask staff to begin their presentation for us, and then we’ll dive into a discussion, and I will do a speakers list as always. Thank you through the chair.

So we had provided the presentation as part of as an appendix. We hadn’t actually planned to go through it unless the committee would like us to. I think really the intent was to have a reference document for the council to be able to refer to, and to summarize what the key points of a fairly lengthy budget direction report. So I think realistically the expectation that we have today is we’ve kind of laid out the components of the report, and there’s a couple of different pieces in it, but essentially the direction we’re seeking today is that based on our very preliminary estimates at this point in time, noting that there’s lots of uncertainty with some of the provincial regulations and particular to our just recent conversation about what does municipalities being made whole means.

So that’s where you look at the range of what we’re estimating right now for maintaining our existing service levels. If you add nothing new, we’re anticipating that that would be somewhere in the range between 2.9 to 3.9, noting the inflationary pressures and the other things that we know. That is typically a larger range than what we would see, and that just reflects the uncertainty of where we think we might be. We hope we’ll be on the lower end, but certainly that will give us a little bit of time over the couple of months to see what additional provincial direction is and hopefully receive a little bit more clarity.

So in addition to that, there are a number of new investments that are a part of the strategic plan that Council just approved. So we’re looking for, and we’ve provided some examples there as to, based on a percentage point as an example, if Council wished to have some room to also invest in some new investments. And then if you take all of those two parts together to look out what a tax levy would provide us some sort of a target range to try to then go back and do the work as part of the multi-year budget and bring forward business cases. And essentially a multi-year budget with numerous options for Council consideration, but also that would then give options for Council consideration, depending on what rate ultimately you want to do.

At that time, one of the things, and I think you would have seen this through the 2023 budget, is that’s where the tax model that we have, where we’ve been able to do some of that interactive, based on the discussion at the committee, was very, very helpful, so that through the budget discussions, as we present the business cases and Council has all of the full information, you’re able to look at some decisions and see what the impact is fully to be able to provide that guidance. So that is really the most primary part of tonight’s discussion, is to look for what that direction would be from the committee, so our subject to Council approval, so that we have a clear direction on the work that we will do over the next couple of months, to table a budget in December. We’ve also provided as part of the report, a couple of other keep timing with respect to the budget timelines, the engagement plan that we’re looking to proceed to do, which will provide a number of opportunities for education, and then discussion throughout the multi-year budget process. And we have also provided a bit of a process, and to formalize the existing process that we have with our boards and commissions that are also part of this report that would set a process going forward.

So that in a nutshell is the report, and really I think the key point is that, certainly there’s still a great deal of uncertainty, but there is, I think, ample room within the strategic plan, where Council has laid out its current priorities. Now with this target, the staff would be able to go and do the work and look at bringing forward through the pacing of those investments, the business cases for Council’s consideration to support the priorities, and where Council would then be able to outline their priorities through the implementation of the approval of the business cases and where you’d like to fund those cases going forward to set the tax lobby for the four years. So I’m happy to answer any other questions directly from the committee. Thank you, I’ll note that on page 48 of your agenda package is the timeline that we’re on, that we’re doing the target setting.

Now in April and having this discussion, essentially our summer vacation is spent getting the budget ready for you when you return. So that’s what my summer is, and we do touch base every couple of weeks as we have questions and two-way conversations with the agency boards and commissions, and other Councillors, as you continue to meet people and do festivals over the summer, they will no doubt have questions and ideas for you of just how to bring those back efficiently. In December, you’ll see the budget, and then on page 56, it breaks down our timelines, ‘cause we keep going until March. So essentially, this is almost a full year.

Great budget season, or the year of budget for the budget chair. I guess I’ll start with a couple questions last comments. Was meeting with some community members, and they are excited about some sections we’ve talked about in the strategic plan. They do belong to an agency board or commission, and they’re asking what is the most appropriate way to bring their feedback forward for our consideration?

Do they just email all council? Should they write someone on the budget team of is this being considered? Realizing specifically, this one is more waste collection at LTC bus stops that spans multiple wards, but ties into a climate plan and a clean, safe city. So they’re just asking for the community, where would they bring information like that to?

The most efficient way for council to consider more community feedback. Through the chair, there might be a number of ways to be able to do that. Certainly through the Councillors, through the current committees, maybe the most prudent way, there is a budget email address as well that if there’s just questions or comments that they wish to provide through the normal engagement portals that we would have available is another alternative. And I’m trying to think depending on what it is, if there’s other alternatives through some of the additional conversations that we might have, if it’s after the tabling, that might be another, many of the public participation sessions as well as the other avenue, depending on what that timing is, that they’re looking to provide that feedback.

Thank you and certainly realizing as first term Councillors, you’ve now had a year of finishing off someone else’s budget. This is our legacy into the next term of council as they start finishing what plan we started. So looking to a speaker’s list as well, agency boards and commissions, someone did ask, some of the things within our budget is mandated that we do such as police, fire, health unit, conservation authorities. How will that be broken out and indicated in the budget when it comes back for consideration?

Is it the same as we’ve always seen of these ones you need to do or highly recommended in versus consideration? Just to help us know how much money we actually have to work with when it does come time for council decisions. Thank you through the chair. So we present the budget through the services.

So most of those services are going to be very much detailed in the submission that will itemize exactly what those services are so it will provide. So conservation authorities are shown separately. Most of them are shown quite separately. Land ambulance is another good example where they are broken out specifically on their own line.

So it’s very, very clear. I’m just looking at in the pandacy as well, we’ve provided some of that detail just to give a bit of a sense in terms of what the services are that we do have as well. So that level of detail is generally all there and there is also some of the high, as part of the information that gives a little bit of a high level on each area and what it does regard and with respect to there was a document that we had done earlier as well that provided a little bit of context to the municipal council on where there were specific regulations on through our city solicitor as well where things are legislated versus non-legislated. So most of that information will be readily available within the budget document and then if there’s additional information required, we can certainly provide that.

Perfect. So fully transparent for residents and us as we move forward saying what we are legislated to do and where that information can be found. So I’m gonna start a speaker’s list. I’ll time it as five minutes is always realizing we’re also at committee.

I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis with his hand up first. You, Councillor Frank and I think Councillor Troe so you put your hand up so that’s gonna be my speaker’s list and we’ll start with that order. And at any point if you have a question about the order and the procedure, please ask and we’ll address it as we go. Deputy Mayor Lewis.

Thank you, Madam Budget Chair. And I think I’m just gonna dive right in with motion because I think it’s important we frame this discussion or we could be here for many, many hours. I did circulate some language ahead of time. I’ll just read it out.

I believe I have a seconder and Councillor Layman once he confirms that then I’ll speak to the motion a little bit more, but the motion would change part B, which is where we’re providing direction, that a 2024 to 2027 multi-year total average annual tax levy increase not to exceed 3.9% be endorsed for planning purposes. It being noted that this would provide funding for additional investments between zero to 1%, assuming the tax levy increase required to maintain existing service levels is in the range of 2.9 to 3.9%. And so I’ll confirm my seconder with you before I speak further to this. Councillor Layman, is that accurate?

That’s accurate. Okay, so Councillor Layman seconds. Councillor Lewis, you can introduce if you’re interested in your item. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So we’ve put a lot of things in the strategic plan. And I said many times through the strategic plan, we weren’t going to be able to pay for all of it and some tough decisions we’re gonna be made while those tough decisions start tonight. We have to, the number one thing we all heard on the campaign trail, whether it was related to housing or other issues that people were raising with us focused on affordability in our community. Every one of us knows from our own personal lives what the experience is like out there right now going to get groceries and the prices are paying.

Not to mention fuel or transportation costs that you’re dealing with and everything else that the inflationary pressures have added. Certainly I’d like to see us come in at 2.9%. And then the staff working on a 3.9% average would still have up to 1% to dedicate towards new investments from the strategic plan. Obviously, as Ms.

Barboon highlighted, there are a lot of unknowns and Bill 23 that we talked about earlier is only part of them. There are inflationary pressures, although those seem to have stabilized somewhat. And we have early indications from the Bank of Canada that they might start decreasing a little bit. We have labor negotiations out there that are going to add costs to our operations.

All of those things are factors. But what we cannot continue to do is say, well, somebody in my ward can afford it and ignore the fact that others can’t. For a senior on a fixed income on CPP and OAS right now, adding $100 this year might be manageable, but you’re not just adding it this year. You’re gonna add another 100 the following year and another 100 the following year and another 100 the following year.

You have to keep that in mind when you’re talking about average annual increases. So I think this is the prudent approach. And I did have, and through you, Madam Chair, I hope you’ll entertain just a little clarification ‘cause I had a good conversation with the Mayor just before the meeting started. And so I want to go through you, Madam Chair, to staff and be sure that when we are putting not to exceed a 3.9, that does not preclude you from bringing forward as you have in the past, business cases that are recommended, administrative recommended business cases, which fit within that cap.

But that other business cases for consideration, but not recommended would still come forward. That might put us over that cap and where Council would then have to choose if something is going to come out of the recommended to bring something not recommended in. So through you, can we get staff’s understanding that they would still be bringing forward some not recommended, but for considerations? So staff, Ms.

Barbone? Thank you through the chair. So the Deputy Mayor’s correct, that absolutely, when we set to bring forward a budget, typically we would bring forward a recommendation that would be in keeping with Council’s direction. Further to that, as laid out in Council’s strategic plan, there are numerous other things that are clearly Council priorities that there has been work that we will seek to do.

Those would then still be brought forward as business cases. Typically the way we’ve done it in the past is we’ve done the recommended and then through the last multi-year budget, we had a number of business cases that because they did not fit within that direction, we put forward for Council’s consideration so that Council and Council at that time chose a number of those to invest in based on the tax levy calculations and through the use of the model so that they could see what that impact was. So absolutely that information would all come forward and we would provide as part of the business cases what that tax levy impact would be and what that would look like so that Council has the full information to make its budget decisions. Councilor Lewis or Deputy Mayor Lewis?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll answer to Councilor or Deputy Mayor. Just don’t call me late for dinner. I will and I appreciate that you’ve arranged for dinner at six.

So I just want to follow up on staff’s response to that because I think it’s really important for colleagues to understand. There will still be options to add things into the budget. There will be items for consideration that are not recommended. But what staff will bring forward recommended is something that comes in at 3.9, something that given the current inflationary pressures out there, we can’t avoid a tax increase.

And I’ve said this to my constituents today through social media. We have inflationary pressures too. We have to pass those along because we have to legally run a balanced operating budget. But we have to be careful about passing too many things along to our constituents at a time when they are themselves struggling with the price of groceries, with the price of transportation, with the price of everything else.

And make no mistake, we had a lot of discussion in the strategic plan about the affordability of housing, about the affordability of rent in this city. There continues to be media articles about the rental increases that we’ve seen as recently as this morning in our local paper. Those property tax increases get passed along to tenants. Make no mistake, the landlords are not going to absorb those.

They will get passed along to tenants. And we will make housing even less affordable than it is currently if we go with the 8% that was outlined to do all the strategic plan or another number. So I think it’s really important that we are responsible and reflective on the fact that well, some members of our community may be in a position to make additional contributions, not everyone is. And we have to think about them as well.

So that’s why I think that this 3.9% is a reasonable place to start. And then if we go over that, the responsibility will be on us, not on our staff, on us for having added to the costs beyond that 3.9% target if we add in not recommended cases. Thank you. Thank you next on the speaker’s list with Councillor Frank and then Councillor Trosto.

Thank you. And I too had a motion to circulate just in advance of this meeting but have not been able to get on the floor. So we’ll see where this motion goes. And maybe some friendly amendments, but I’m not certain we’ll be able to get those out.

And I do remember Deputy Mayor Lewis saying many times during this strategic planning process that we weren’t going to be able to pay for all of it when we were doing this job plan. And I took that to heart. But with this proposed amount, I doubt we’ll be able to pay for practically any of it. And I think that moving forward, we’ve heard from people when we are canvassing time and time again that homelessness and housing was the number one issue that we need to be addressing.

And I think that we are hearing demands from people to provide services that we are already not providing. I regularly get calls and emails from people who want better by law enforcement, who want us to improve our bike lane infrastructure, more traffic calming, more aquatic opportunities, more snow removal, and most importantly, more housing for homeless people. And I think that being asked that every single day from residents demonstrates that there’s an appetite in the community to improve and expand our services. I do understand that there are flaws in our property tax system.

We have already talked about it. It’s a regressive system. It does not target those who are wealthiest who can afford to pay it the most. At the same time, again, our community members are demanding us for services that we’re not providing.

And I empathize with those who are in fixed incomes, but it isn’t our responsibility to manage their budgets. It’s our responsibility to manage a city, and it’s a growing city. And it is one that requires massive investment in housing, homelessness, and climate action, by law enforcement, all the other services that people have been asking for. And I personally be more interested, and I will have a question for staff at the end, in offering tax relief to those who cannot afford it and who those live on a fixed income, then presuming what people can and cannot afford, and therefore presumptively limiting our service offerings.

We already see it every single year when we get the budget update. We see a graph where London is at the bottom of the barrel for property tax, both commercial, residential, and industrial, and we see it every year. And we see that London, Windsor, Chatham, always collect the lowest in property taxes, and therefore that directly reflects on what we’ve been able to provide to our community and how attractive it is to move to London. So I understand, again, that things are tight, and we want to stay within a reasonable range.

But by not collecting revenue, it’s the poorest people in London that will be suffering. We won’t be able to invest meaningfully in our health and homelessness plan. We won’t be able to invest meaningfully in our completely unfunded climate emergency action plan, and that will be an entirely new cost, which will not be included in the existing 2.9% to 3.9%. We won’t be able to be making massive improvements to pair transit, and I think it’s our responsibility to deliver those services that people have been demanding for and that we’ve planned for.

We have many plans that are not paid for. And as such, I think we need to be making these decisions based on what people want and not based on our re-election plans or things that we don’t think would be popular with the community. And so I did have staff compare or create some numbers based on how much it would cost, and a 1% increase would be approximately $32.50 for a household. So going up to about 4% would be $130.

So what I’d hoped to circulate was a 5.9% increase, and I would be interested to see if there is maybe any appetite for going up to there, knowing that we could drop down, but that a 5.9% will at least give us 2% in additional investments, then that 2%, again, netting out to new investment in new programming. So I did have a question though for staff, and that is, is there any way that we could do tax relief to those who can demonstrate that they cannot afford to make their property tax payments given a fixed income? To staff, if you want to highlight what programs we offer currently, if any, as well, I know that London Hydro does do things for some residents in water. Thank you through the chair.

That was a question I don’t have the information available for, there is provisions within the Municipal Act. They are very, very limited for that kind of relief. It is, I think a very, trying to find the word where there’s a great deal of information that has to be provided, and I think it has been limited because people don’t wish to provide the level of information that is currently required to have that adjudication done. It’s something, it is quite intensive, so it’s something that we’d have to take back, and we could certainly provide a report to provide that information as to how that section of the Municipal Act works.

It is also very labor intensive also to provide that kind of, if it’s significantly used. So certainly we’d be happy to bring that information back if that’s something that the council would like to see, and we could do the research to provide that and what opportunities it might allow. Councilor Frank? Thank you, yes.

Depending on how conversations go tonight, I might request that information. So you’re speaking about a 2% additional staff bringing up plans to 5.9. There’s a motion on the floor that says 2.9 to 3.9. I’d be looking to the mover and seconder to see if you’ve deemed that to be a friendly amendment.

I’m seeing two no’s. So two staff, we have had those conversations about paratransit and whatnot. How would that information currently come back in your reports now as the accessibility piece does fit into our strat plan, though it would be expanding a new service money that they might need? How would you deal with that request if it was set currently at 2.9 to 3.9?

Thank you through the chairs. So anything new, I think similar to the response I had previously, anything new that might not go within that target range if it doesn’t fit, for example, I would still expect to come forward as a business case. That would be for consideration that Council would then be able to still have all the information and be able to make a decision on through the multi-year budget, but certainly a business case and may or may not certainly be part of whether it would fit within that target. I have Councilor Troso next and then the mayor.

Let me start by saying I’m very disappointed that we’re now in December and we’re arguing about what the tax increase is gonna be. I think it’s way ahead. And one of the concerns I had about Part B and I discussed this with Steph in some great detail is I do not wanna create the perception that we are locking ourselves in to a particular tax increase right now because even if it’s flexible, even if some of this provincial make good money comes along, even if inflation goes down, we still have a lot of challenges. And I think it’s really, I’m going to be opposing the Deputy Mayor’s amendment because I think it’s taken this in the wrong direction.

Let me explain that a little bit. First of all, we’re talking about the annual tax increase. Second of all, we’re talking about an estimate. Third of all, this is saying for planning purposes.

My big worry and I’ve expressed this to anybody who will listen is that once we start, once we start putting these numbers on the table, they’re gonna stick in people’s minds. And I think that we are heading towards a horrible austerity budget that is gonna hurt a lot of people that we’re trying to help if we continue the rhetoric, some of the rhetoric that I’ve heard at the table tonight. So I just wanna lower the temperature on this and maybe ask the Deputy Mayor if he would take that, if he would just take that off the table so we can sort of continue a planning discussion. Now, I think I’m not putting this on the table tonight, but we have to be giving our taxpayers a lot more information about what some of the constraints are that we’re facing.

And these come from two different directions. These come from constraints that are being imposed by the province that are very real and very serious. And I think at some point we’re going to have to have a discussion about breaking out the property tax bills to show what the implications of Bill 23 are. So people realize that if this council in December has to pass a tax increase that’s higher than what we would like, that a lot of this has to be understood as an implication of Bill 23.

And hopefully again, some of this make good money will come around. So I would rather see some changes to Part B that make it a little bit more flexible. I think to try to pigeonhole this into a, this is not gonna be any greater than 3.9% is a huge mistake to start this process and it’s gonna have very, very serious and negative implications. Last time a council tried doing this, of course they were using zero.

But you know, I think we have to be flexible. Last time a council tried saying we’re gonna keep the tax increase within a certain amount. It was just devastating, devastating results that lasted for years and years and years. We need to be, we need to be flexible at this point and we need to understand that there’s some uncertainty.

And we also need to understand that when you start to talk about like, well, the tax increase can’t be any more than such and such percent. You lose the fact that we’re talking about a multi-year budget and it might be that it’s a lot higher in the first year and a lot lower in subsequent years. And so far what I’m hearing tonight that doesn’t make me excited about that process. We just went through a very fulsome discussion about the strategic plan that I think creates a very positive vision for the city.

And that positive vision does not have to transfer into increased assessments. There are creative ways of doing things. But I think when we try to fission hold things from the beginning into this narrow range of numbers we’re asking to be going down the road of austerity and we cannot afford to go down the road of austerity. Now, going back to another point that Councillor Frank made, I see no reason why we should not at the beginning fully investigate a fund and I’m not sure what you would call the fund.

It might be called some type of relief fund where under certain circumstances, property owners who, and I’m not talking about large institutional property owners here. I’m talking about owners of single family units who are owner occupied. It might be that there are circumstances where people on fixed income could apply to a fund and if certain criteria which we could develop are met, could be given some relief. That’s not the ideal way to run a property tax system which is inherently regressive.

But we have to, in the framework of Ontario, of the Ontario Municipal Act, we have to take every possible opportunity that we have under that act to introduce any, any opening or some level of compassion and progressivism that we can. So just in closing, I don’t wanna start by going in the wrong direction down the road to austerity and I wanna keep this flexible. I wanna keep this open and I wanna keep this subject to a little bit of some of the creativity that we demonstrated in our discussion on the strategic plan, thank you. Thank you and just a reminder, when I’m chairing over here, I don’t have to control the mic if you’re using it so that I will do the mom yell across the room at you.

So thank you for respecting that. Deputy Mayor Lewis, there was a request if you would withdraw your motion for the moment to allow a free flowing conversation and then reintroduce it when the time came. Is your decision? No, Madam Chair.

And if you’ll allow, I listened to Councilor Trust House comments. However, respectfully, I would ask that people respect differences of opinion and language like rhetoric is not helpful. The Councilor has his opinion. I have mine.

I did not call a point of order, but I would just encourage people to keep their tone respectful. Thank you. As we would have gone through the strat plan tonight is likely the start to many crucial conversations we’re gonna have about where the proverbial bill rubber meets the road. I have basically everyone else on my speaker’s list.

So we’re gonna go through. I’m still timing. Obviously try to be productive with your language and we will ask staff as we need and a reminder it is committee so we can go around as we make space for each other to speak. Mayor Morgan, you are next.

Thank you, Chair. And so let me do what Councilor Troso just mentioned and that’s turned the heat down on this discussion a little bit because I do think that we’re throwing a number of terms around that they aren’t helpful. So let me provide a little bit of context having chaired two multi-year budgets and gone through the target setting process a couple of times. This is a planning range.

This is not a budget that we are setting. This is not a restriction that we are bound to. This is not whatever number we pick I’m saying. I’m not suggesting one number is better than the other.

This is a planning range for staff to come back to. And so staff have said in their document they think to maintain existing services. This is a particular range that they feel will probably land in. We won’t know for sure until we get closer to the budget time but there’s a range that they feel that they can land in.

And in the multi-year budget process I feel in my own personal viewpoint it’s about giving each Councilor the option to get to the point that they might want to get to recognizing that we need to make a collective decision here. And so for some Councilors it would appear that they want a pathway to something below four as something coming forward that we can make a series of decisions to get there. Other Councilors want options to ensure that we fund initiatives within the strategic plan to a full degree and are willing to entertain a range that is higher. I think I heard 5.9 not that we would land there but have options to get there.

And so we are not picking the budget today. We’re not picking the number that taxpayers pay today. We’re talking about a range that staff is gonna take away and in all of the work that they’re gonna do they’re gonna bring us options that are within that range they’re gonna bring us options that are for consideration beyond that range because we have set forward a strategic plan that will involve us to do that. And this is nothing different than we’ve done in previous years.

So let me give some examples of what you would see given this motion or another motion and I’ll have the treasurer or the staff through the chair correct me if I’m wrong. So if we were to pass this motion and staff found that the inflationary pressures to provide the existing services that we provide was at the low end of the range, let’s say 2.9. Then they would bring forward a budget with the 2.9 of existing services and another additional 1% of items within our strategic plan that are recommended. And then they would bring forward a whole range of other items that are within our strategic plan that are for consideration.

And what council might do with that is say, you know what, I’m willing to spend more and have that as a higher tax increase. I might want to say I don’t agree with you on some of the things that are recommended and I wanna bring some for considerations into the recommended bucket and I wanna kick some things that are recommended out into something we don’t spend. And we will make dozens and dozens of decisions on this. And we will have dozens and dozens, well, not dozens, thousands hopefully engagements with Londoners over the course of the development of the budget to find the right balance for us as a collective.

And so I think what we have to do here is ensure that we get a range of options that meets the needs of each and every councilor, options that have a pathway of below for, for example, options of have the pathway of perhaps a fully funded strategic plan and then we have everything in between. And the real work is not today, this is a planning range, the real work is actually when we get down into making those decisions that will determine the final tax rate, whether that be 3.9% or 6.2% or whatever, whatever the numbers are. And that will be a series of decisions we make as we consider those business cases. But I wanna be clear, I know the word austerity has been thrown around and I don’t think anybody here is suggesting that we don’t continue to provide the suite of services that the municipality is providing.

The staff have said that 2.9 to 3.9 is going to allow us to do that in their estimation today. And I don’t think anybody is saying that we’re not providing a suite of services, we’re not cutting a bunch of services to get to that point. Now, there are significant implications of how much we fund on how much is the strategic plan we can do over what pacing and timeframe. And just give me a nod when I get near the end of my time, Chair.

But I don’t want us to have to fight this battle tonight. We need to have a path where everybody gets the options that they wanna consider on the table for consideration. And that is our goal today. And give staff the direction of how they craft that initial set of documents that we will see, knowing that we will make change.

I guarantee 100% we’re gonna make changes to what’s in the for recommender or what’s in the for consideration as we go through this. That’s the whole point of the process to engage with the public. They just need to put something in front of us that we can actually make these decisions on. And so our goal tonight should be to give the widest possible range of options for counselors to consider so that they can engage with everybody.

And nothing that has been proposed so far is excluding that given what the treasurer said about how options will come forward. So that’s my context. I’m happy to be corrected if I’m wrong, but I just wanted to say that because there’s nothing is predetermined based on anything we decide tonight. Thank you.

I wasn’t sure if you’d realize that I was nodding ‘cause your time was almost up or that I was just completely agreeing. I was hoping it was agreement. So I was just going back. Councillor Hopkins, I do see your hand.

I’ll go to staff if you want to reply to the mayor’s comments. And then I have Councillor ramen, Councillor Stevenson, Councillor McAllister, Ferreira and then Hopkins. Thank you through the chair. I think the only thing I would add is that certainly the direction from our perspective is to ensure that we can bring forward very quality and well thought through business cases that will achieve what council’s objectives are.

And I think really the intent is to develop the business cases so that when we present the multi-year budget that the flexibility and the choices ultimately are there with council, but that we’re taking the direction to be able to provide exactly what it is that you’re looking for and that that quality is there rather than doing a very significant number of business cases that may not provide the direction that council is seeking. Councillor ramen. Thank you. Thank you for this thoughtful conversation.

And I will say that I’m struggling with two things. And the two things I’m struggling with are anchoring bias and signaling. So one of my concerns with how we’re setting a target and where we go with the target is around the anchoring bias. So when we put out a number, you know, we say, you know, we’re saying that we’re building off of 3.9% average increase, that number starts to become fixed into the mindset, not only of residents and taxpayers, but it also becomes fixed into the mindset of others.

And so then it’s difficult for them, for all of us to have conversations around how we move around that number. That’s the possibility I’m discussing of an anchoring bias. So where I see us also struggling is around signaling. So not only could we potentially create this anchoring bias, but also if I’m an agency, a board, or commission, and I’m thinking about what I’m going to bring forward as a business plan, do I look at that number and does that number signal to me anything?

Does it signal to me to think big or does it signal to me to be strategic? So those are some of the things that I’m thinking of as we look at this exercise. Just because we’ve done it a certain way in the past doesn’t mean we need to continue to do it the same way going forward. I think I heard quite clearly that the items that are in our strategic plan are of importance and that we want to look at the full range of possibility on the table so that when someone says, “Well, why can’t we have nice things?” I can go back and say, “Well, here’s some of the things “that we were considering with the business plans.” And we saw a full range because everyone was able to see all the options in front of them.

So I think that’s where I’m having some challenges around the discussion, but I do see there is a happy medium between where the two numbers and proposals are right now that I think could settle out some of this conversation. So I’m thinking through whether or not we go down that option of looking at or entertaining some changes to that number, but again, I’ll leave it at right now the concerns around anchoring and anchoring bias and signaling. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through the chair.

I’m gonna support the motion that’s on the floor. This topic came up quite a bit when I was campaigning and people said, “Well, how are you gonna keep “the property taxes low when there’s all this inflation?” And I said that we get to be leaders and do what they have to do, right? How are families and businesses figuring it out these days? They figure it out.

And I don’t feel limited necessarily by the 3.9% because as we all know, if we’ve had to struggle through a budget reduction in our own lives, we find creative ways. We look at things that maybe we could do better, do differently. It sparks some creativity, it gets us to relook at things and see are we doing things that we don’t need to do or we can do them more efficiently. So I’m gonna be supporting the motion and I think it sets sort of an honoring tone to say to people that we hear them.

That there’s a lot of anxiety, a lot of fear, a lot of financial concern. And there are many, many people that are not gonna get a 3.9% increase or a 2.9 to 3.9. And we get to recognize that we can’t, there’s certain things as Deputy Mayor said, we’re not gonna go lower than that necessarily. But we’re gonna do the best we can that we’re gonna commit to at least aim for this.

And if as we’re presented things, we choose differently, we’ll get to come back to them and explain that. But I think that we, for me, for myself anyway, I’m gonna be supporting this motion and making that commitment that I’m gonna do everything that I can to give us the best possible services with as many new and exciting things as we can with this limit. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

I appreciate everyone’s thoughts on this. I know Robert Tax is always a hot topic for everyone, so I’ll just dive right in with my comments. The way I see it, without increased funding for improving our, I’m sorry, I’m gonna start again, without increased funding for, or really throwing myself up here, yes, okay. If we don’t increase our funding for our current growth, I anticipate it actually getting much worse.

Our services are not keeping pace with our current, let alone future growth. I don’t wanna tie my hands at the beginning of this process as it is my first time, obviously with this, we did have a taste of the budget, but I do think that we have to allow ourselves some flexibility, especially with the multitude of problems that we’re currently facing. What I hear from my constituents all the time is that our services are inadequate and they’re not keeping pace with our current growth. I actually believe that improved services can lead to cost savings down the road.

If we don’t adequately fund our strategic priorities now, it’s gonna cost us even more in the future. And this has been brought up before that one of the things growing up in London was when I experienced the Fontana years of the flat work tax rate, we’re feeling that now. And I’m sorry, but growing up in the city where the council of the day decided, we’re not gonna think to the future, that’s really where we’re paying the price now. And I don’t wanna tie my hands.

I want us to be able to actually adequately address these important issues that are facing our city. And I think in action or setting a rate which I think is going to really damage us in terms of making good on these commitments is detrimental to our strat planning. And I would encourage us not to tie our hands with this rate. I think we need to allow for flexibility and I will not be supporting it ‘cause I do think that we need to have some more flexibility here.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ferra. And thank you and through the chair. So this is, we’ve done a lot of work for the strat plan.

We’ve came together, we’ve came with these big ideas, basically bringing to the table what we heard at the door during our campaign. So we’ve done all this work and I’m just worried about the target that this motion sets right now that just kind of caps us right at the knees and we’re not able to, we just have a really low ceiling. So I would regrettably, I can’t support the motion from the deputy mayor. And basically, I’m concerned just from that target.

I feel like we need to set ourselves up for success and speaking to Councilor Stevenson’s comment, people will make due. If we have a target that may be a little bit higher than what some other counselors around this horseshoe would like, people will make due if we happen to increase that property tax to that level. And I’m just really worried of all the great work that we’ve done for the strat plan right now, it would all go to waste ‘cause we just won’t have the funding for that. We have a lot of unknowns as it is right now.

I hear lots of counselors talking about these unknowns. We have inflation, we have the more homes act with the implications from the development charges that we’re unable to bring in growth no longer, pace for growth. So I just feel like because we have all these unknowns, it would not be prudent to cap ourselves at the 2.9 to 3.9. And like it was discussed before, this is a target.

So if we did happen to increase that target from 3.9 to something higher, we don’t necessarily have to hit that. Staff may find ways to actually have a target that’s lower than that. I’m just hoping that everyone around this horseshoe would just recognize that if we do limit ourselves with that target and we do bring out that expectation, we’re not gonna be able to fund everything that we have been talking about up to this point. I went door to door during my campaign and that was the main things that we heard are the big ticket items that we have on the strap plan that now are hanging in the balance because we won’t have enough money to fund it.

Even during, I think during the debate, someone asked me, would you be willing to increase taxes? And my response was if that money goes towards the issues that we’re talking about today, then yes. I struggle myself with costs, gas, food, all other items and I’m one of those people who also struggle with my property tax and yet I am one of those people who would be willing to pay more for my property tax. And I’m not the only one.

I’ve had many people come forward and say that to me. During my canvas, it was definitely something that I remember very explicitly because people are willing to pay for what we’re talking about. You see it, you see all the comments on social media. You see people talking.

They’re willing to pay. And it’s not necessarily like it’s gonna be something through the roof. It’s just we can’t limit ourselves at that target right now. We need to have something that’s more prudent that gives us that wiggle room to be able to pay for something like that.

So I guess I’ll keep my comments there. I did wanna maybe ask staff about the percentages because there was a circulation that came around from the clerk about the different percentages. So let’s say like we were to reach, let’s go to the absolute extreme of 8%. And I see that that extreme 8% increase would be 260 bucks.

So the first thing I would wanna ask, that would be year over year annually. And would that compound or would just be $260 on top of your property tax? To staff, if you wanna take the opportunity just to lay out that question and how we would normally do a higher percentage increase in the first year of an MYB and then we lower it as we go as well. Thank you through the chair.

So we’ve referred previously to 1% representing approximately $32.50 on the average property tax bill. So there’s many multiples of that that you can do, up to and including the 8% multiple, which would represent $260 to the property tax bill. Now I will reiterate that if we’re talking about, for example, an 8% average annual increase, that would be $260 in year one. And then $260 in year two, of course, there would be compounding as well.

So the number is going to change naturally, but just in rough numbers, we’re talking based on 2023’s budget, roughly $260. But that is $260 increase per year for the four years, just to be clear now, to the budget chair’s point, yes. I mean, there will obviously be some variability from year to year. It may not be an even 3% or 4% increase every year.

Some years may be higher than other years, but on average, if we’re talking about, let’s say a 3.9% average annual increase, the sum of the four years average that are divided by four would work out to the 3.9. Thank you, you have one minute remaining. Okay, so that one percent, $32 year over year. So that’s your property tax for the annual property tax altogether, plus $32.

And then year number two is that annual property X, plus that $32, plus another $32, and then it compounds like that going forward. So if we were to hit, let’s say, the 3% at 97.50, that would be about 100 bucks added towards your annual property tax every year. So by year four, that’s an additional for around $400. So I feel like, yes, some people may disagree, but that is something that would be reasonable for that target to pay for what our strat plan is calling for.

So people will make do, you know? We will figure it out how to pay for that. So that’s where I’ll leave the comments for now. Thank you, and for those viewing online, staff did nod that Councillor Ferrer’s math was create corrects in adding the property tax per year.

Next on my speakers list, I have Councillor Hopkins, Councillor Layman, then Councillor Van Merbergen, I did see your hand, I have not forgotten you, and then Councilor Perbal. Thank you, Madam Chair, and really appreciate the conversation that we’re having around this amendment from the Deputy Mayor. I think I’ve heard growth as being a really important part of how we as a city are gonna move forward. And we know there’s a lot of growth in our city since the past four years, definitely through COVID.

And now as we determine where we’re gonna go as a city and how we’re gonna spend, I really do think it is so premature. I know staff want the targets, some targets set. But I do think it clouds the work and the needs in our community in terms of setting the direction. And the Mayor spoke about, and we’ve been on previous Councils and done previous budgets, and we know amounts shift.

It’s not set in stone, but somehow I feel this conversation is setting things and taking it in a certain direction. And what I am looking for here is what is the widest possibility to have the flexibility in the conversations going forward in the multi-year budget that we’re going to deliberate or start deliberations, probably in the fall and going into the new year that will set the direction. What do we need to do here today to create those widest ranges possible? And I’m trying to understand this motion coming from the Deputy Mayor, which to me really, we’re endorsing.

I find the staff’s recommendation be a little bit more flexible. We’re sending direction. I know, and that’s why I’m a bit uncomfortable. I don’t like that word endorse.

But I wanna go through your worship to staff, to see what we need to do and understand as a council to give us the widest ranges and targets to carry on the conversation without putting us and sort of setting everything and making a decision almost what we’re gonna do, given that we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us to do. We need that flexibility to get that work done. So I hope I’m clear in that, but that’s what I’m looking for through you, just to staff. Thank you, to staff.

That’s okay, I just took the upgrade of worship and I did one of those, so thank you. So to staff of looking to make sure, as the councilor said, the widest, most open conversation. What would the wording be or what’s the process to get us there? So the widest, most flexible through the chair, of course, would be to provide a bit of a range and perhaps that’s just a broad range that you want us to bring a budget within.

Civic administration, based on the council’s strategic plan, have many new initiatives there that we understand are very important council priorities, as well as community priorities. What we are looking for is to have some guidance, knowing that there was a very significant variability in the order of magnitude, if we brought absolutely everything forward, to guide us so that we can do the work and bring forward an implementation plan that will meet council’s objectives and to fulfill a start for council’s conversation through the multi-year budget, knowing that we will bring forward a recommended option for the multi-year budget with the pacing over the four years to meet those investments, as well as noting that there will be other business cases that will be there for council’s consideration, noting that those are priorities and may bring the council, regardless of whatever the target for a planning range that you provide us tonight, could be in excess of. So I think one of the things that, when we set a multi-year budget, whatever that range you give us is an average. It does not set what each year is going to be.

That is what the work is we will do, while we will be able to go back and look at how those investments could then be made over a period of four years to try to achieve ultimately what that range is and be within what council might see as perhaps the upset range that they want us to come within. So if it’s even a broad range that council might provide would give us some order of magnitude to know whether we’re trying to make everything fit within a very small range or whether we have more flexibility to perhaps bring something forward with a wider range. So I’m hoping that will provide a little bit of guidance so that we can develop business cases that really achieve that objective and give council a good starting point to have a discussion. Councillor Hopkins, you have two minutes remaining.

Thank you for that. And if I go over my two minutes, I will ask for an extension and I have to remind myself to look this way. My apologies, your worship. So going forward, then that’s what I’m looking for, the broadest range.

So I guess a couple more questions then. So if we do have a larger number, giving direction, not endorsing that number, but giving direction, will you then come back to us with more business cases or how will you take that direction? To staff? Thank you through the chair.

So certainly the work that we’ve done as a senior leadership team is to start to then look at how based on the council’s strategic plan and all of these strategies that are within there, how the implementation would be done through a way pacing exercise. Perhaps within that target, not everything can be done in year one, but it might take some time to be able to implement that. That’s the work through the business case development that we would do. The other part that is another layer is that the boards and commissions and perhaps some other agencies that provide that we need to pay the bill for also will be developing their budgets and will be submitting those.

So when we get all of that information, I’ll roll up at the end of the day, it’s being able to look at how we take that all together and then packages it up for our council’s consideration to give you a path for consideration through that exercise. The biggest challenge is to develop those documents in a way that provide a number of decision points for council to work through, but also taking into account what boards and commissions and agencies have also submitted and then approved through their processes as well as other agencies and bills that we simply have to pay. Some of those we don’t know. Based on when the budget is tabled then, there’s numerous public engagement pieces ‘cause that’s an important part is, the direction now is simply to provide us a path of how we start to then do our work to bring something forward that we would ultimately recommend for your consideration.

Obviously that is certainly subject to all the council’s decision, but through the public engagement process, that’s where the public has their opportunities and many opportunities to weigh in on what those business cases are and the value of those. So depending on the ultimate cost ‘cause when we provided the orders of magnitude through the strategic plan, they were at a very high level noting we’re still have to do the work. When we go and do that work and start to examine opportunities for sources of financing and how that might be done, certain things like capital projects, for instance, they may be large sums, but they may be paid over a period of time based on our reserve funds, for example, or through issuance of data as another example. They ultimately still have tax implications, but there are different ways to manage how we then bring those choices forward for council.

Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that. So what I am learning from your answer is that the number isn’t really that important, setting that target be it five or 3.9. You still have to do the work.

The business cases will still come forward. All that, all the boards and commissions will still have to put forward their asks as well. So what do we really, why do we need a target set? I guess it helps staff, I understand that, but I just don’t want us to be sort of caught here.

I wanna be able to make sure that we’re able to follow through with the conversations being as transparent as possible, have the business cases come forward and really create the same opportunities, regardless if it’s 3.9 or 5%. And I guess I’ll want confirmation on that as well. And before I go to my next question, thank you. Thank you.

I’ll have staff reply that I might add in a comment and you certainly have a minute left, so. Thank you through the chair. So the target and the planning range is actually extremely important because it guides the level of pacing that we do and bringing forward the plans to support the budget recommendations that we would bring forward to the council. Right, so the pacing and the flexibility is the greater the number, the more flexibility and pacing that you will have as staff.

And that’s sort of what I’m getting at. I’m just trying to really get a good handle on this. And the next question I had is, do you need, so I’ll speak to the amendment in front of us and what makes me feel uncomfortable is the wording about being endorsing it. I’d rather go with a higher number, create more flexibility, business cases, for us to have decisions going through that process, create more flexibility, but I would rather give direction to staff.

I think endorsement really is saying, we are saying that number. So that’s why I will not be supporting the amendment in front of us at the time, but really to appreciate the conversation. Great comments from everyone, thank you. Thank you, we’re looking for a comment from the mover and seconder about the word indoors.

First versus for benchmarking, would the mover and seconder relate to comment on the Deputy Mayor Lewis? Thank you, Madam Presiding Officer, and just through you quickly, this is language that is consistent with previous motions around this and it was what was recommended by civic administration. So I’ll speak to some of the other points when I’m up on the list again next. Hey, and anyone who already spoke once, who wants to speak again, I’ve started a second list for you ‘cause everyone’s getting first turned first.

If that’s okay, Councillor Layman, it’s you. Thank you, and thanks everyone for your comments. First time I’ve heard 3.9% tax increase referred to as an austerity budget. I’m not too crazy about 3.9% increase in property taxes being compared to a 0% tax budget that was produced many years ago.

I think what staff has provided us was a considerable range here from 2.9 to 3.9. And I understand why because there’s a lot of unknowns as we look for years down the road. We still have a huge inflationary issue with the threat of recession. We have central banks maintaining very high interest rates.

Interest rates, by the way, that are just starting now to kick in and have an effect, and part of that is on home of affordability. Many folks have their mortgages that are going to be renewing, and they’re going to be getting a shock in the mail. You have a mortgage at 1%, and your monthly payments are based on that 1%. 3 or 4% increase in interest rates is a huge increase because most of your mortgage payment is made up of interest payments.

People are having challenges going for groceries. I know I go get a bag of groceries. I can’t believe it’s 60 bucks for some eggs and bread and a pork chop. That being said, the Bank of Canada is confident and we’re starting to see that now that they’re making inroads on getting inflation under control.

They expect it down to 3% this year, and 2024 down to 2%, which is their target range. If they can do that without a hard landing, and you hear soft landing, which hard landing being a pretty significant recession, I think that’s what they’re aiming for, and they might pull it off. But we don’t know if things continue on and the economy gets back on its feet, interest rates come down, and we get at the lower end of the range of say 2.9. That gives us room to get the wants and needs that this council has addressed.

However, if it doesn’t, if the economy is in a bad place, then we’re not adding to homeowner pressure. We talk about homeowner or home affordability. Well, property tax is part of it, and like or not, property tax is regressive. The amount of income you have doesn’t determine the property tax.

There are people that are in homes with fixed income, and their home might be worth a lot on the market right place right now. They’ve paid it off, but they’re having challenges keeping it, and property tax is part of that. If times are challenging, and they open that assessment, property tax letter that we get from City Hall telling us what our increase is going to be, it’s going to be hard to swallow. That’s not forget, income tax is compounded.

8%, we heard that. That’s another 1,000 bucks on the bill. 5% is half of that, roughly. So to add that in annual costs, that’s difficult for a lot of folks.

I heard some comments at London lines of, it’s not our responsibility to manage their budget, and I totally agree with that. It’s not our responsibility to manage folks’ budgets, but it is our responsibility to manage our budget. And when people have a budget, they have to make choices, and Councillor Stevenson alluded to that. When your income is challenged, and your expenses are going through the roof, well, you might have to make changes in how you allocate those funds.

In our case, we can do that. And this is regardless of our tax increases 3.9 or 10. Part of our job is to make choices, and they’re our choices. We’d all like to have everything, everything that was in the strat plan.

Why not? Sure, that would be great. However, choices have to be made. And I think this is a reasonable range, and a reasonable target.

Don’t forget, we have one of the advantages of a growing city is we have assessment growth revenues, as well, that we can aim at. So that is why I encourage my colleagues to support this direction. Thank you, Councillor van Merbergen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

When any budget, including the city budget, is approached, and we look at how we’re going to formulate it, and deconstruct it. The first item that has to be looked at is the ability to pay. And that’s something that I find lacking in our debate. The fact of the matter is, it wasn’t that long ago that London, Ontario, and indeed, southwestern Ontario, was in the top 1/3 of median household incomes.

That’s recently, it’s 2005. We were in the top 1/3 of median household incomes for all of Canada. More recently, it’s been reported that we are now in the bottom 1/3 of median household income, along with Windsor and most of southwestern Ontario. So we have to look at these economic realities and take those into proper consideration, because of the ability to pay is not there in the community.

We can’t be dancing around talking about pipe dreams and pipe dream projects when the ability to fund them simply isn’t there. I’ll get another stat which came out, and this was just released actually March 30th by the Fraser Institute. Also indicated that it was from the year 2000 to 2019, the inflation adjusted median household income for Canada, as an average, was 11.1%. But by comparison, in London, it was 0.5, in other words, half a percent, in that 20-year period.

That’s how much the median household income increased. And that’s why it’s hard for taxpayers in this community to bear these types of hikes that are being talked about. We’re hearing that 6%, 8%, it’s that’s simply completely unrealistic and cannot be justified. The fact of the matter is we have to remember that yes, we went through a strategic plan exercise, but it was made abundantly clear that it does not trump the budget and that many of these projects may not be fundable.

So I would have to remind staff and also counsel that we have to look at the realities in the community and not just our debating chamber and say that we went through this process with this strategic plan and that, but some of us are talking like somehow that trumps everything. The strategic plan does not trump the budget. We are not in a position to be financing these very large heights that are being talked about. I think a 3.9% hike in terms of a limit or in terms of a guideline wherever you want to call it is hardly an austerity target.

That’s still over 16% with compounding over four years. And we all know that the average taxpayer is not going to get those types of wage hikes. Thank you, I have Councilor Perbal and then Councilor Cuddy. So me personally, I’m against any tax increases.

Certainly not doing support 5.9, but even 3.9 at this stage of the game. And I think that we’ve done some great work on the strategic plan and on the initiatives. We did hear some number there, 8% from the staff that there will be if we implement all of it. But I think there were some great initiatives and I really think that before, I don’t think it necessary at this time to put any number out there or what we are steering towards.

I think we should look at all the initiatives, all the costing and some of the initiatives they don’t even have equal. If you look at the strategic plan, in the initiatives they don’t even have equal spending over the four years. And there could be a certain one over first year and then potentially not second, third year. And I think those are the things we need to consider.

It’s a four year plan. And I think we are gonna put any number out there now. I don’t think it’s gonna limit us. And we don’t, and other things, I believe we are gonna, we keep putting out there that it’s gonna cost us $95, $97 million over five years.

But we are not looking at the positives, which will certainly, I’m certainly hoping we will get certain help from the province. And the additional revenue, the additional revenue incremental revenue from the enlarged tax base. And I really think that right now, I don’t see a reason. The only thing is I can see a reason if we go with certain number, that the staff is gonna, one of the initiatives, staff is gonna come back and they’re not gonna cost it because they’re gonna say it’s way out of the 3.9, 5.9, whatever it is.

But I really think that we should kind of take it one step at a time. We did as great, we spent a lot of time on the strategic plan. We got some great initiatives. Let’s cause them out.

Let’s bring it back to the council and let us decide what are our priorities and what we wanna implement, what not, what is it worth it to the taxpayers, to all Londoners. And let’s take it from there. But I think it’s really at this time, at this stage, beginning of the year for four years, I don’t think it’s necessary. Let’s look at this, take it a step at a time and reevaluate each initiative, each costing and then we’ll come up with the number of what’s the best for all Londoners.

But I think that would be the best approach. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy. Thank you and through you, Madam Chair. I’ll be supporting this motion and I wanna thank the mover of the motion for bringing it forward.

It’s fiscally responsible and in these times with high interest rates and increasing interest rates, we certainly need fiscal responsibility. You know, I’ve heard the word austerity a few times today and to reiterate what Councilor Van Mirberg and Councilor Leimand just said, it’s hard to believe that someone could think that 3.9% is an austerity program, it’s not. And most of my constituents in Ward 3 could not afford an increase of 5.9 to 6 or 8%. It’s just not possible, they’re all in fixed incomes.

Many of them are in fixed incomes and it just would not be affordable. I think we have to take a hard look at how we operate this city going forward and not to suggest that it hasn’t been operated well in the past, but I think we have to be very fiscally responsible for the next four years during our term. You know, we’re stewards of this city and we have to manage it with the greatest respect and responsibility and doing it with a budget of 3.9% or a range of 3.9% is totally acceptable, in my opinion. And I think we should all support this motion.

I think it makes a great deal of sense. And thank you very much. Thank you, Councilor. Could the Mayor take the chair while I speak?

Sure, I’ll go to Councilor Plaza. Thank you, a question to staff. If we give you the range of 3.9 versus 5.9 and you bring forward the report in December, what would really be different based on that range that we would see from you? Would it just be a different concentration of recommended business cases?

Would it just be some things that were removed that we never even got to see? What would be different if we give the direction of 3.9 versus 5.9? Thank you through the chair. The key difference is how we would frame it in the budget submission that we would put forward in front of Council.

It would primarily be a framing of here’s what we can do within that amount and would put a specific emphasis on the business cases that would be recommended with the details. Typically how we’ve done it in the past is then based on Council strategic plan, there are a number of other business cases that might not fit within that range that were very important to bring forward, whether they be from boards and commissions, et cetera, that would then be categorized slightly differently. So it’s really in the framing of how it’s provided ultimately to Council in terms of the recommendation versus the other items that are for consideration. It also provides us some framing with how we communicate with our boards and agencies as well and to give them a little bit of guidance as well, noting that they may not be able to perhaps put forward everything that they would have liked in that context, but that would not stop them from submitting business cases that would then be still for consideration.

It might just frame it a little bit differently in terms of how that pacing might ultimately be laid out as a detailed plan for Council to then still consider. Thank you. What I’m hearing this evening is some Councillors who are set on keeping the taxes as low as possible, making sure they feel they’re as affordable as possible to Londoners. I will also reference that London is currently the third and fourth lowest tax rates across all three municipal tax categories being commercial, industrial and residential.

So extremely affordable. I know that there’s some other municipalities in that area for 2023, they hit an 11% tax increase. We certainly haven’t seen that, but they’re also managing how they’ve done their budgets and they don’t use them all to your budget. And I am concerned that from what I’m hearing, some people are already really fixated on that number of even aiming towards the 2.9.

We’ve just finished a strategic plan and had lots of public engagement. We’re going out on our own to do more public engagement now and as the budget comes forward. And I’m hearing some concerns from colleagues that they don’t want to be pigeonholed or cornered in for discussions of if you get to do this, you’re already over the number that we may or may not have agreed on or set as a target in that residents and agency boards and commissions would already know for better or for worse, like what the target range is. And hopefully that all agency partners would come in as low as possible, recognizing we have lots of capital projects coming with a large increase of steel and weld pricing and that we don’t want to set ourselves up for failure.

And some residents may be already feeling that we’ve already asked them for their feedback of what’s important as soon as we start seeing what might cost before we even get to the actual number of what it costs, we’re already saying, you can’t have it. In regards to how important it is, we might not be doing it. So at this point, that’s my overview comments of the staff have answered what you’re going to see of 3.9 versus 5.9. I haven’t heard anyone super excited for eight.

So we seem to be focusing on that 3.9 to 5.9 in our comments that I’m hearing from colleagues. So Mayor, I’ll leave my comments there if you want to hand the chair back. Yes, and as usual, you’re under time and I’ll hand the chair back to you. Thank you.

As people will note, the time is also 5.57, dinner break was at six and I am one to be on time. So at this point, every colleague who I knew wanted to speak has had a chance to hear speak once. There is a second run of speakers list forming, but before we get to that and before we go for dinner break, I was wondering if it would be the will of committee to vote on the motion that’s on the floor if it passes were done and if it fails, you have the dinner break to think about new wording or a new way forward. Not trying to stop conversation, but we all have had a chance to speak.

Most people have taken their five minutes. If there’s any questions for clarification from staff that might sway your vote one way or another, I’m happy to entertain those, but if not, I’d be happy to call the question. We can see where we stand. Councillor ramen, and then a comment or?

Thank you. If we are going to vote on the motion, can we split it out? I think it’d just be the amendment on the floor being part B. I have the advantage of the clerks because we’re a committee when the motion was moved.

It was moved as the motion on the floor. So that’s why Councillor ramen I think is suggesting. Absolutely, we could pull apart B from the rest. If people want to get into the other points of A, C, D, and E, we could deal with all but B separately.

If you want to get into other parts of that motion, I’m not prepared to do that before dinner, but we can certainly vote on it in full and certainly pull B separate. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you had your hand up as well? Yes, I did, Madam Chair. And I think we need to continue this debate after dinner break, quite honestly.

I’ve heard a number of points raised in the first round of speakers that I actually think need to be addressed before we call a vote, you know, and I know, and not to put them on the spot, but I know Councillor Pribble was just saying, you know, do we really need a rate? Well, I think that needs to be addressed in debate as we continue, because I think the answer to that question personally is yes, we do, because our staff needs something to focus on. So I think we should take our dinner break and resume debate after we’ve had a chance to clear our heads, fill our bellies, and come back ready to engage in round two. Okay, I’ll look to committee then, ‘cause if people are, I don’t know if anyone, Councillor Hopkins, like I think we’re pretty set on, if the mover and seconder isn’t looking at friendly amendments, we either have to take what’s on the floor and pass it or defeat it.

Councillor Hopkins? If I can make a suggestion, I think we have been into a heavy debate here, and I’d like to continue. Okay, Mr. Merritt, or would we like to just, is there any, I guess, big questions about just calling the question of the 3.9, ‘cause if there has to be a number, as staff said, they would really prefer a number to help with planning.

And 5.9 wasn’t favorable to the mover and seconder, we’re kind of cornered at what we’re doing. And if someone has to definitely use the washroom, you’re welcome, too. Councillor Troso, words of wisdom? I hope so, through the chair.

Who’s the chair now? Okay, through the chair, okay. So I think that some of the concerns that have been raised by proponents of the amendment would be addressed and ameliorated somewhat if we had more clarity on a property tax hardship relief program, which is something that has not been done, I don’t think, but it’s something that, as I understand the initial response from staff, is something that we could consider. So I’m wondering if we can give some consideration to a property tax hardship relief program to assist fixed-income and limited-income residents who are living in an owner-occupied unit, and are subject to other criteria as to be developed, we would have to think about what account this would be funded through, what the statutory authority for it is, and how it would work to tenants who are subject to special charges.

But I think that getting a staff report, in terms of whether this is even within the realm of reason, would be of a lot of assistance to us. And I don’t want to delay this, but I think it’s a reasonable question. So I don’t know, we’ve already asked staff whether that’s something we can consider, and it wasn’t a no, it wasn’t a yes, I’m wondering if there’s any more clarity on that, ‘cause this would give us a lot of help. Thank you, I appreciate the well-intentioned Caring Park meeting where it’s coming from.

I believe that’d be a whole new program without a funding stream as currently set up. It would need to be a new business case brought forward, just looking at staff. So thank you through the chairs. So there is a section in the Municipal Act that does permit appeals for sickness and extreme poverty.

It goes through the Assessment Review Board. It is Toronto, Hamilton, and Ottawa review these cases directly there. They are very, very narrow in focus, and there is also a very great deal of information that you have to provide to satisfy that. It is not something that has been well used because people do not typically wish to provide that level of information to an adjudication board.

So it is not something that would provide considerable relief. It has to be pled, your case. There’s a great deal of paperwork to be able to do that, to be able to provide this. So yes, it would need a funding source.

It would need to be looked at. There would be staffing involved as well. So it’s certainly not going to provide the level of assistance. I think that you might be hoping it could actually provide support for.

So I’ll leave that there, Councillor Pribble. Through the chair to the staff to understand and the two motions or two numbers that we have. I certainly am not prepared to support a higher one. Is the lower one, if we go with the lower one, what will be the process from the staff in terms of the strategic plan and the initiative introduced?

Will still be presented to us? Or will the staff make a decision kind of saying this is way out? ‘Cause as I said, my concerns are, we are looking for four years. And I said some of the initiatives, I don’t want it to be scratched because potentially they could be introduced in year two or some of them are for year one, 80% and 20% year two and you know, so this is my concern.

I just don’t want to, I’m not prepared to support the higher one, for sure not. The lower one, what will be the actions from the staff? Are we still going to see all our strategic plan initiatives with costing and for us to decide? Thank you.

To staff for reply. And then we’re going to discuss that dinner break or of a motion. We’ll vote on either continuing or doing the dinner break. Thank you through the chairs.

So certainly the process would be that based on, staff would go back, do all the costing, start to look at all of the things that are contained within council’s strategic plan. We would then start to look at the pacing and how that could be done over the course of the four years to provide a recommendation and to provide a budget that, and I certainly would not expect that it would be the same amount every single year. We would look at based on those pacing where obviously where you’re building something as a capital project, it wouldn’t all take place in one year, you might start it and then it’ll be funded and phased in over a number of years. So the pacing is how quickly things are implemented is where the business cases come in and the recommendations that we would put in front of you.

There is not anything that would not be, that would not proceed as a result of a lower target. Those business cases that we would bring forward that might not fit necessarily within the target would still be provided as part of the business cases through the multi-year budget for council’s consideration. So there’s nothing that would be lost through council’s strategic plan. All of those options and the business cases there would still be there for council’s decision to review in the context of community engagement and what ultimately it will cost when all that information is known.

So it’s simply to provide a guide for us to be able to structure the business cases in a way that would achieve council’s priorities and meet a bit of the parameters that council would provide that guidance. And then the choice is ultimately based on that information would be through council at the budget time. Just a quick follow up. We’ll be the different approach from the staff if we were to tell you today for six, eight, 10%.

What would be the, whatever the amount we would tell you will be different. So I’m gonna say four or eight. I’m gonna say 4% or 8%. How differently would you approach the planning of the multi-year plan?

The staff, I believe this question was asked earlier but to reiterate, so there’s essentially the difference would be the categorization of how those business cases are presented through the multi-year budget with respect to whether it’s recommended and could fit within that range that council provides us or whether it’s labeled as four considerations. What’s really about how the budget would be tabled in terms of guiding council through the process but our process would be very similar irrespective of the targets. Councillor, satisfied? Not satisfied.

Thank you, no more questions. Okay, at this point, it is gonna be decision time to either call a question, take the break or keep going. Councillor Hopkins, you wanted to keep going and finish the conversation. At this point, maybe it’s just calling the vote to keep going, if we keep going then it’s to call the question or those who need dinner.

I don’t know who need, we’ve had a pretty thorough conversation and we still have more items before us in the agenda that could also be a long conversation. So just recognizing where we’re at, Councillor Hopkins? Yes, I’d like to keep going. Okay, so calling the question of, can we do a hand vote of all in favor of not breaking or do I just, no, just keep going?

Okay, perfect. So who objects to calling the question at this point that desperately has to say something? Councillor Ferra. Madam Chair, just a point of order.

I believe we can call a recess without a vote. Perhaps the clerk can clarify, but I think we can just call a recess and resume debate when we return. I also said, if anyone needed a bio break, they’re welcome to go and come as they need. So it’s a question of, a dinner break can be 15 minutes, a recess could be 15 minutes, or there’s still a second round of speakers list going.

So it’s really a question of committee of how long do you wanna be here discussing this and who’s really up for convincing or changing those numbers? Mover, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So I have a suggestion perhaps, because I did get some, and Councillor Hopkins raised the question of the language endorsed. And I will say that staff have provided perhaps some language that might be a little less in the endorsed that I can circulate during break.

That might help people feel a little more comfortable. So I would propose that we take a 20 minute dinner break. I will ask the clerk to circulate the alternate language, and then people can take a look at that and give it some thought. Okay, thank you for having heard the conversation, having potential change of verbiage that as a moverter you would be favorable with.

I’m assuming since you’re willing to share it. I’ll go to the clerk for words of wisdom. Thank you through the chair. I would just like to caution the members about conversations during the break, that that would not be appropriate.

And I’ll leave it at that for Council’s consideration. Could you just verbally read or tell us what the wording change is now, just to make sure that’s all in public domain before we make a further decision? Certainly, I’m happy to share that. And thanks to Ms.

Perbon for suggesting that perhaps rather than the current language that we just go to civic administration, be directed to prepare a multi-year budget with the average annual increase, not to exceed 3.9, it being noted that. So we take out the endorsed piece. It directs staff to prepare a budget with that target, but it does not indicate an endorsement of that target at this time. It’s just a direction on preparation.

And if that be directed rather than endorsed, help some people, then I think that there’s perhaps something that people could think about over the dinner time. Individually, not in the conversation at dinner, to re-emphasize the clerk’s concern. So I do have a longer speaker’s list already forming. So still looking to see for wisdom of who wants this dinner break versus who wants just to call the question.

(chuckling) Officer McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair, I just, for me, the language, and I just need this for clarification, ‘cause it’s gonna stew with me over the break if we take one, is the way I’m reading this is that the language in here is saying, the range of 2.9 to 3.9 is required to maintain existing service levels. And from my point of view, it defeats a lot of the work we’ve done in the strat plan because that’s giving staff a range to work with that maintains our current service level. And to me, it immediately negates many of the options that could be put before us because of that range and the language that’s currently in it, so.

So I’m hearing everyone’s concerns are still the same. The amendment of endorsed to directed has not made a change. So we still are at the impasse that I would say of just calling the question and seeing where we land. But we’re at committee, so everyone gets to keep speaking for as long as they like.

Councillor Roman, and then if we don’t have a decision, we are gonna have to get a break of some sort as the speaker’s list is long. Thank you, Chair. Actually looking for a break, I’m hoping somebody would second that length of time. 15, 20, I’m here in 20.

Okay, so 632 is what I’m hearing that looking for a seconder, Deputy Mayor Lewis, a hand vote, all in favor. Sorry, so from the clerk just to make sure that you had the votes and were good. Through the chair, I did not see the votes, so that motion is carried. Okay, we’re resuming.

If everyone could take their seats, please. Deputy Mayor Lewis, can you just see who’s in that hallway and tell them to come on back in? Okay, as we resume, staff is gonna start off with a visual that might be of assistance to us just showing us how you’ve seen it in a one-year budget of how cases come forward for consideration and the recommended ones, but staff has a visual from prior, a prior MYB, showing us how it is over a four-year cycle. So Ms.

Barbone’s gonna share her screen and then walk us through what the visual looks like for the cases that we’ll see. Just a reminder, you could either turn your heads, look at the big screen or just push that silver button in your monitor and we’re all set. Thank you, through the chair. So hopefully for the visual learners, this may give some context to what I’ve been trying to describe.

So I’m pulling from the most recent multi-year budget just to provide an example of how this would look based on what the council direction is. So I’m actually gonna, so this is the chart that you would have seen through the multi-year budget where you can see the gold line that says 3.4%. That is the average annual increase. That is what we are looking for direction.

Based on that direction, we would then do, based on council strategic plan, look at the costing for the business cases that would be required for new investment and then start to map out how those would look over the course of the four years. That’s what we refer to as the pacing. So just to use an example, if there was a $50 million investment required, just for, I’m just picking around number, just for sake of example, you could spend $50 million to implement that initiative in say 2020 in this case, which would create potentially a higher rate in year one of the multi-year budget or the alternative is you could perhaps spend those $50 million in the final year of the multi-year budget and depending on what the other initiatives that might be implemented over the course of those four years, the way that graph looks over the course of the four years could look very different. So in this case, although we had an average annual levy of 3.4%, the first year had an increase of 4.4% based on when certain business cases were implemented versus the most recent budget update, which resulted in a 3.1.

So a lot of those initiatives were implemented upfront so that you can see the graph was going down lower towards 2022 and then a little bit higher in 2023. Alternatively, the graph could look quite different where it’s equal across the years and that $50 million could be spaced out over two years in the middle as an example, depending on the timing of when those initiatives might come forward. And I use a one-time cost just for sake of argument. The other way is how we were looking to bring forward specifically to, if I can pull my screen here, how we presented the multi-year budget, and I show this was in the draft multi-year budget.

So as you can see, we had almost like a matrix that provided a way for council to walk through the business cases that were there. So the base budget, which is the maintaining existing service levels, is something that we will bring forward, we will cost, we will present to the council. The additional decision points really then become how we’ve looked at additional investments that might be recommended versus how that might come forward for council’s consideration. So throughout the last multi-year budget, the way we outlined the decision points was based on the target range or the direction that council had provided us.

We were able to categorize them into here’s the ones that we’re prioritizing based on council’s priorities for your consideration. And here are the other things that we identify in the strategic plan that council would also like to see come forward to be able to provide how those might look over the course of a four-year budget to be implemented. So some initiatives might be implemented closer to the end of the multi-year budget depending on how much they cost versus some things that might be more easily implemented within the target perhaps in the early years. So I think hopefully this is helpful in terms of providing a little bit of really the direction sets how we present the budget to you and the work that we do.

The information will all still be there based on council’s strategic plan. Those decisions are ultimately made through the review of the business cases over the course of the budget deliberations and also allowing for the public to weigh in on how that might ultimately look in terms of bringing forward a path forward to implement how that’s going to look. So I think certainly the intent is to provide the graph in a way that might show how those business cases could be implemented over the course of the four years. So that’s what we refer to as pacing.

So hopefully that helps provide a little bit of context of depending on what that target is, we can show how easily that can be identified within average over that period of time. It could still mean if using the example of 3.9 that the first year actually might be 5% to implement council’s plan, but that noting future years would then decrease significantly noting many of the initiatives we’re already implemented for sake of argument. So hopefully that provides a little bit of context to what council is trying to do in providing us direction on how we would show the potential implementation of council’s strategic plan. Thank you for that overview.

Looking to colleagues to see if there’s any questions regarding strictly the implementation and the averages that we’ve just seen on the screen. Councilor McAllister. Thank you through the chair to follow up with the graph which is up. So that was the previous strat plan.

So was there a range established and do that? Was it also identified what was required to maintain the existing service levels in the previous one? Thank you. Through the chair, yes, absolutely.

Very similar process to how we proceeded today. Certainly at the time we had not anticipated the maintaining existing service levels at that time being so significant and then subsequent to a provincial budget being passed just before we proceeded with the multi-year budget there were a number of other challenges that we had unforeseen at the time of target setting. So further made it important to be able to differentiate what all those specific challenges were. Councilor McAllister.

So sorry, just ‘cause I’m just looking for a number to compare. So was there a previous number that identified what was required to maintain the service levels in the previous strat plan? Staff might mean a moment to dig through some records to find that for you. Are you okay if I could take another question from somebody else while they dig for that answer?

Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I think this is relevant to the presentation Ms. Barbone just gave us because she herself said, be directed.

And so I wonder if she can clarify or perhaps provide us some insight from her perspective on the difference between the language that speaks to the be endorsed versus the be directed, which was actually the language that she used. Ms. Barbone, if you can answer that question while you dig for the other number. Thank you through the chair.

So in terms of being directed, what we had envisioned is that council has a bit of a target range or something that we, you would like us to bring a budget within that range, noting ability to pay, et cetera, that we would then go back, develop a budget for that we would recommend to fulfill those objectives and present it in that regard. The endorsed perhaps takes a bit of a different conversation where it might feel like when council is endorsing something that they in fact support it versus us going forward to do the work and to show you what that means within the context of delivering a multi-year budget. So if that’s helpful, that was why we use the be directed as council’s telling us to go back to take this direction and put something together that meets your parameters for your consideration, noting that all of the decisions through the budget are ultimately council’s recommendations that would come forward through that budget process that they would approve. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re fine.

Councilor McElle, no, you’re not fine. Okay, one more. Sorry, just a very quick follow up then because I know we were having this right before the break. So through you to our staff, from a preparation of the budget perspective then, do you, would you, I guess I’m asking, would you recommend or would it be better for the finance team to have the be directed versus the be endorsed from the perspective of the work that you would be undertaking?

To staff, thank you through the chair. Certainly from staff, we’re willing and open either way. I think certainly if that makes a difference to the council in terms of the direction that you’re providing, we would certainly go back. We’re going to do the work to identify what it will cost to maintain existing service levels.

We will present all of those decision points. It certainly gives me clarity on what it is you’re looking for me to present and guide in terms of what I’m going to recommend going forward to present to you as a budget for council’s deliberations. Do you have an answer for Councilor McEllester? Thank you through the chair, yes.

So for the 2020 to 2023 multi-year budget, we at the time at least thought we had a little more certainty on what that maintained existing service levels budget would be. So we actually provided a specific number at that time rather than a range. The number that we provided back then was 2.2% to maintain existing service levels. And the direction that was endorsed by council at that time was a total average annual tax levy increase of approximately 2.7% recognizing then that the difference between 2.7 and 2.2 would be available for additional investments.

Councilor McEllester, follow up or you’re good? You’re good. Looking to see colleagues if there’s any other questions specifically on pacing and the averaging in the budget that we just received from staff. If anyone still has questions, how the MIB is going to work in regards to that?

Okay, seeing none, first on my speaker’s list. Wait, the mayor needs something? Staff needs something. I had a question.

By all means. So existing services 2.2%, we set a target 2.7% and then the graph is where we landed through the budget. So can you just go over where we actually landed through the budget debate? Staff, thank you through the chair.

Sorry, it took us a moment to find that. The initial multi-year budget approved increases had an average annual tax rate of 3.9. Can you just repeat that number? 3.9% was what was actually approved through the multi-year budget in 2020.

Sorry, as an average annual increase. Mayor Morgan. Nope, that’s good. I don’t have any further questions for staff.

Okay, thank you. Anything further before we go on to the speakers list, I had Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you. So I’m trying to find a path forward with some numbers that we may be able to find some more commonality on working with.

So I guess I wanted to start the conversation. I think what we’re hearing is, and I think that that conversation just now was very helpful in setting the tone for the fact that we can come up with a number that we endorse or direct, and we can end up in a different place. However, I do think it might be helpful to have more conversation around a range that we can work with then. I’m happy to move a range, but I wouldn’t mind hearing from colleagues more discussion on if there is somewhere they’re more comfortable moving towards.

Okay, we have some people who would ideally prefer the range was lower, a conversation of how much higher feels like a bit of a game of hot and cold, which is fine. So looking to colleagues, the speakers list has started. If you would prefer if Councillor Raman just said the range she was looking at, or you want to go through more speakers. I’m hearing one person say, say the range, Councillor McAllister.

Okay, then you’re next, keep going. So carrying on when we took our break. So the reason why I’m very much fixated in terms of the 2.9 to 3.9 being required to maintain our existing service levels. I know I’ve been previously said like, the reason why I brought up the zero is because to me it feels flat because all we’re doing is maintaining.

We’re not actually anticipating in terms of how the city’s going to grow and being able to provide for future growth. And to me, it’s not pie in the sky. Like to me, we have to have this realistic conversation now because we are in this growth spurt. And so for me, I feel more comfortable opening this up to a wider range.

And it’s at our direction. I think this is the other thing I’m very much stuck on is I don’t think that this is opening the door to outrageous amounts because at the end of the day, we still get to decide what is considered reasonable. And we did that with the budget. We had a very healthy discussion in terms of what we considered reasonable and we are able to negotiate that.

And that’s where I think that we should go with this conversation is allow for it to open up a bit more because at the end of the day, this isn’t going to tie our hands. It actually gives us more flexibility and that’s how I see it. Thank you. Thank you.

I’ll just comment as well that staff had mentioned twice prior to the break that regardless if it came back and moved a number of 3.9 or 5.9, the business case of it was would still come forward as we would normally would see it. They wouldn’t redact any information on us or restrict and make decisions on our behalf. It would just change the pacing of the amount that they said for recommendation and the amount that they would say for consideration working within those monetary amounts that we set as a goal. We can absolutely still spend 2.9, 3.9, 5.9, or eight.

It’s still up to our decision. Just it will change how they paste items coming back in and what they’re going to tell us our priority is to set stay within those limits that we had identified. Mayor Morgan, you weren’t next in the speakers. Let’s go to you just for any information you had on this.

Just put me on the speakers list. Perfect. So then next I have Councillor Freira, Councillor Hopkins and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you and through the chair.

So I’m back to speaking to the range. Like I am concerned just with the short-term sightedness of keeping the property tax rate low just because I feel like it could be argued that we are somewhat in some of the situations we are in because of the past keeping tax rates very low. If we had a tax rate that was more at the level or at the average of where we should have had it been considering costs in the past, we may not be necessarily at this stage right now. So and then going to maintaining the existing service level.

So that we did speak about the unknowns, inflation, hidden costs, all these different variables that could make that range from 2.9 to 3.9. So if we were to cap ourselves at 3.9, we put all the pressure on the city treasurer and inner team to figure out a way to stay below that range, below the 3.9, so we could have some wiggle room but we would only have the max between the 2.9 to the 3.9 which is, it doesn’t really leave us too much room. So that’s why I feel like it wouldn’t necessarily be physically responsible for a city looking forward to cap us at that level. And I also feel that, you know, this is probably the most simple way to really look at a compromise of what this council is able to do.

We have a range of 2.9 to 3.9. I feel the discussion should probably start looking at raising the top end of that range from 3.9 to something that’s reasonable that everybody can agree on. And like I said, like I feel like that would be the compromise right there. I’d like to keep the range at 2.9 to something higher than 3.9 and I’m hoping that some people would maybe put a number on the floor.

That would make sense. I could, okay, well I would like to see if we can hit 4.9 or 5%. I feel like 2.9 to 5% would be that happy middle ground from what we’re asking for, so. Okay, so that’d be an amendment to go on the floor and we’ll call it 4.9, it’s great.

He said five, I gave him a look and he said 4.9. So looking to see there’d be a seconder for 4.9. Okay, I have a seconder, so the conversation, oh, Councillor Frank was the seconder, sorry. So then just the amendments on the floor, so just yay or nays, or if we need to have much of a discussion about it.

Yeah, so the speaker’s list on the amendment is, so the current speaker’s list pauses and we go to the next one. I had Councillor Hopkins and then Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’m very open to a higher amount than 3.9 and we’ve heard, loud and clear from staff, the realities of that pacing, the framework, the flexibility that will give us, we’re not setting the rate here. The business cases will come forward, we will be deciding on these business cases, but I think it’s really important that we take advantage of all the widest possible opportunities of dealing with the many changes that we’re gonna be forced to deal with in the next year to have that flexibility, so why not 4.9?

I think it’s a start. Again, it’s not locking us into anything. I really think it’s important that we have the flexibility given all the work that we have done within our strategic plan, the growth that we are seeing in our city, that we not corner ourselves in to an amount, and not have the conversations. We can say yay or nay to these business plans, but let’s have those opportunities.

A greater percentage will give us those opportunities, so 4.9, we’ll start from there. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. Thank you, I’m gonna speak, I’m probably speaking against the amendment, although I might not vote against it, because I actually don’t wanna do an amendment, and I wanna tell you why, because if you think about what was explained to us in the way that we approached the last multi-year budget, we knew what the existing services were, staff gave us an estimate, and then we added about a half a percent to say, come forward with about a half a percent of our strategic plan as recommended options, and then through council’s dialogue, we ended up adding from the original, not just a half a percent, but about 1.7% of strategic initiatives through the discussion debate by either adding in other four considerations or not. So where I think we’re getting lost here is we’re getting focused on a range, and staff honestly just don’t know where we’re gonna land in that range.

So everyone is speculating on what that range means. I think from the original motion that was moved, the councilors are hoping that we land lower in the range so that there’s room for strategic initiatives, and others are saying, I wanna see strategic initiatives, and I don’t want it to be completely thrown out. So rather than approach this with the way that we’re approaching it now, we don’t know where the actual pressures will land for maintaining existing services. We know approximate range, and staff will narrow that as we go.

What we’re actually interested in is, do we want staff to go forward and prioritize a certain amount of our strategic plan initiatives in four recommended, and then give us a bunch in four consideration with all the pacing and all the good work that comes from that. So if we were to do what we did last time, and say the cost of doing business in the city is gonna be what it is, but we want at least a half a percent of our strategic plan, prioritize and brought forward as recommendation with the pacing, and then we may add in others, that would put us at saying rather than trying to carve out a range in numbers, and everyone speculate what that means, maybe we should just say, bring us a recommended prioritization of a half a percent worth of strategic plan initiatives, and put the rest in four consideration, and we’ll do exactly what we did last time. We’ll, the range will land wherever it lands, whether it’s 2.9 or 3.9 for maintaining existing services, then we’ll have options of up to a half a percent that are prioritized and paced properly in the strategic plan, which would put us if in the range of 3.4 to 4.4. And if you remember, 4.4 was actually the highest we got in the last multi-year budget, and then we can decide whether or not we wanna add in or take out or whatever, but we get the advantage of knowing that we’re going to have some part of our strategic plan prioritized and paced.

Half a percent is about $37.5 million, I think, if I remember the numbers, right? And then we have a path where colleagues can rest assured that there’s going to be some work on prioritizing components of the strategic plan, putting it in and pacing it, and wherever the cost of business lands of maintaining existing services, it lands. And we deal with it at the time and we have the discussion about how much people wanna pile on or take out, depending on where we land in that range, and we free ourselves from the discussion, because the way we’re debating this right now is we’re creating a whole bunch of narratives that aren’t actually what we want to actually talk about, that are going to go out into the community and that we’re gonna have all this projection on what we are or aren’t doing. And so let’s just get to the heart of the matter.

And that’s, I think, what Council wants is, we wanna see part of our strategic plan brought forward for us with pacing and timing, and I would say, if you wanna do what we did last time, you put that at a half a percent. It lands actually potentially in the range that the original motion does. It could go higher than that, depending on what the cost of maintaining city services is. And we have the option, like we did last term, of adding to that.

And again, I’ll remind you, last term, we added 1.7% of strategic initiatives through our debate, our discussion, our engagement with the public, which is a piece here that is incredibly important to the budget process. So my suggestion would be, rather than us trying to craft out a series of alternate motions, let’s just go back to leaving the staff range as it is. They know that the maintaining existing services are gonna be there. We hope it’s near the end of the range.

Maybe it’s better than that. We don’t know. That’s yet to be determined based on a number of circumstances that we can’t control. And we just provide a direction to say, bring forward a budget that gives us pacing and prioritization on at least a half a percent worth of strategic plan initiatives, and the rest as optional.

And we go forward there. That’s a suggestion that would line up with what we did last time, that fits with the numbers. It seems to be in the general range where people are comfortable with, knowing that at the end of the day, where we land and where you’re comfortable with is going to be a function of what’s before us, when we have all of the information, all of the details, and proper engagement with the constituents that you all represent. And you may have difference of opinions then, and we’ll have a good old debate when it comes around, but we have to find a path forward here that gets rid of some of the rhetoric and charged language and get back to, let’s just make sure we get a little bit of what we want to see in this.

So that’s my comments. I guess that means I was speaking against any amendment, but that’s what I think we could do if you want to move forward with a slightly different approach to this altogether. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So building on what the mayor just said, I think that makes a whole lot more sense than the exercise that we’re doing right now, because I will say 4.9, I’m against two. And it comes back to the last target was 2.2, and we added 1.7. We went through strategic plan where I certainly, and others did too, said we are not going to be able to pay for this all in four years. And yet when the time came to consider removing things from the strategic plan, those votes got lost repeatedly over and over because people did not want to take anything out.

And the same thing will happen in the budget process. If we say to staff 4.9, we’re still going to have people wanting to add above 4.9 and take nothing out. I am much more comfortable with the idea of we are going to invest a little bit in new initiatives, pay for what it costs to maintain service, and then start pacing. And I think half a percent is actually a reasonable number at this point in time, given the discussion we’ve all had about affordability concerns and everything else in the community.

That is a more reasonable approach to me, because if we’re just going to start picking numbers, we may as well not have a number, and then the staff will bring back a budget that is 8% every year for the next four years, because it will be everything. So if we’re not going to provide them with a direction on a specific target number, I would be much more comfortable with the 2.9 to 3.9 range for maintaining services. And wherever that lands, if it’s 2.9, then we’re only talking about a 3.4 increase, because we’re only putting that half a percent in. So I am trying to figure out in my head some language.

I also don’t know how my seconder feels about that on this motion, but I would be willing to entertain a direction to staff to come back with a budget that maintains existing services and invest an additional half a percent into new initiatives. And sorry, that is not particularly well-word, Smith, but I will see if I even still have a seconder for that, but I’m willing to amend my own motion to go that direction. Sorry, Madam Chair, I didn’t turn off the mic for you. So there is an emotion on the floor, but Councillor Ms.

Westlake-Powers, there is actually a motion and an amendment already on the floor. Yeah, I believe Councillor Frayer and Councillor Frank— - Yeah, so the 4.9’s on the floor. I’m not sure Councillor Layman, if you’re a head nod to Sean’s thing, which my Deputy Mayor Lewis’ thing, which I don’t know what effect over here, but just for— Well, just procedurally, how do we move forward? ‘Cause we’re dealing with an amendment to the original motion, and now we’re discussing changing the original motion, so we’ll need guidance there.

Yeah, I’m just not sure what the discussion is behind my back at this moment. You could either withdraw your motion, keep the motion. It depends if you like what Deputy Mayor Lewis said, ‘cause you could withdraw, they can make a change if Councillor Layman makes it nod for being okay with that. And if not, you just continue as you are, and we vote on eventually what’s on the floor.

Am I, I think I’m on it? I’m on it. Thank you through the chair. I’m not necessarily ready to withdraw anything yet, just because I do have some questions about the Mayor’s suggestions.

It does sound reasonable, but I have question, what is the prioritization of— That’s perfect, and you’re my next speaker. So you have five minutes to ask your questions. And thank you through the chair. I was almost done, it was just a quick little question, but I just wanted to know, that motion would require a discussion on prioritization, is that 0.5% from what I understand, a 0.5% increase is only set 37 million or something like that.

So I just feel like that still is not enough for what we’re trying to achieve in the way the strategic plan is written at this moment. So I just wanted to get some clarification on like how would we prioritize, and I would like to look at, to see what that direction would look like. So I don’t want to remove that just yet. Yep, to staff.

Thank you. So similar to how it was done the last time, well, SLT was senior leadership team do, was we would do an administrative prioritization, to provide something to put before you at the budget process, and then put the other business cases there for council’s consideration, with other suggested pacing based on what that potential implementation plan could look like. So similar to that diagram that I had showed, it would allow us to highlight some things that could be done within there, and then show how that might be put over time, but also allow us to separate it into parts for council to consider additional investment that might be over and above, if council wished to ultimately invest more. Thank you, staff, sorry, through the chair.

So I’m still a little concerned, just because the 0.5%, I don’t think would be enough. Like a 1% would be a little bit, I would be a little bit more agreeable to that, but my main concern would be the range, because we don’t necessarily know where we’ll land between that 2.9 and 3.9. And the way I see it is if we were to have 2.9 to 4.9, and then our great city treasurer and her team find a way to land us at the maintaining existing service levels at 2.9, all of a sudden we have this huge wiggle room to move up and possibly implement more areas of the strat plan the way it is right now. So those are just the concerns I have with that, just ‘cause there’s just too many unknowns at the moment.

So that’s why I thought that it would be a nice compromise for everyone on council to hit that more broad range. And if we’re lucky, we don’t hit the high end of the range. But because we have the unknowns right now, I just felt like that would be something that would be a reasonable thing to ask for. Thank you.

And as always, we’ll get to any decision points post-December, the decision points in the wiggle room is ours. Next on my speakers list, I have Councillor Troso, and then Mayor Morgan. I feel at this point, I don’t wanna say we’re going around in circles, but we’re throwing out different numbers in different forms, and I don’t think that’s getting us to where we wanna get. The reason why, and I was concerned about having these numbers in here in the first place, and that’s the first thing I said, I don’t even want these numbers in here because that’s gonna lock us in.

Okay, I think the staff has made a very, very compelling region why, and it says here, for planning purposes, which is very different than a mandate for planning purposes, they want this in there. I think maybe what’s more important at this point is, and this is something for somebody that didn’t like B as it was originally written. Go back to B, and use that as a starting point because I think while I’d like to see that range expanded, it’s been explained to me to my satisfaction that that’s a flexible range. Now we can make a very minor change in the language, which I think would make it a little more flexible.

What I’m looking for here is flexibility. Instead of saying the desired, you could say a potential. And I think by saying a potential instead of the desired, we can leave B the way it was, although I’d be more comfortable if we expanded it out a little bit, or maybe contracted it at the bottom and expanded it a little bit at the top. But I’m satisfied that Steph is telling us that these numbers are not mandatory, and they’re not binding.

And as much as I don’t like these numbers, ‘cause I think it constrains us too much, it’s better than some of the other wordings that I’ve heard. And I think by the word desired is very prescriptive. I think potential is a more neutral term, and it doesn’t take away the flexibility. And then in terms of the type of the article, I’d rather use the the, because it’s not necessarily that one, it could be a different one.

I think at this point procedurally, we’re debating an amendment to a motion that is still on the floor, and I’m trying to amend it even more. So I’m gonna turn this back to the chair for some clarity in terms of where we are. So I wasn’t, like, what’s on the screen now? I’m not sure if you were looking to amend that, as some of the words you mentioned aren’t in it.

And if you’re looking to put an amendment, the amendment to the motion on the floor at this point, or just looking from clarity of view as you had specific wording. Or if you want to just consider wording, and I’ll go to Mayor Morgan, who’s next on my speaker’s list. So I’m gonna vote against the amendment, because I believe that the other option that I was suggesting can capture some of the concerns that colleagues haven’t. And let me speak through you, of course, to Councillor Ferrera.

We aren’t restricting ourselves by only allocating a half a percent. The last multi-year budget we allocated a half a percent, we added 1.7%. That’s a lot. The half a percent is just the dividing line between where staff generally land on the four recommended and the four consideration.

And I can tell you, the last council moved a bunch of four considerations into the approved zone, because staff do some prioritization of the strategic plan. We do the actual prioritization of the strategic plan when we decide that full package of budget measures. And remember, our strategic plan isn’t just budget-based items. There are many things that we can do within existing budgets that will be done in the strategic plan.

There are many things that can be funded through capital allocations, which will not impact the tax rate unless there’s some sort of small debt servicing costs associated with them. So we’re really just talking about giving staff something to work with so that as they prepare the budget, they can do some level of a pacing and prioritization that a week, of course, can adjust later in the way that the four consideration and the recommended pieces of our strategic initiatives come forward. But we will decide where to actually land those and what to approve, just because we say we want about a half a percent of strategic initiatives in the four recommended, doesn’t mean we’re not going to move a bunch over in. Like I said, the last council had half a percent.

They moved in 1.7. That was based on our collective decision making. I can tell you, councilors around this table had votes on an opposite ways and different considerations of that. And ultimately, we landed a budget that was generally supported by council.

But what I’m saying is, if we can move our discussion away from, and I believe part of the problem here is, last time we had, here’s the cost of existing services, this time we have a range. So we have a question mark. So if we focus our discussion on, let’s just make sure that a chunk of our strategic plan is going to be looked at by staff in a way that lands in the four recommended zone. We can still, the rest of it is not going to be gone.

It’s going to be in the four consideration piece of the budget like was described through the graphic that was put on the screen. And then we can decide how much to put in there. It might just be a half a percent. It might be 1.7 like we did last time.

It could be a different number. But that’s a function of, as we get further in the process, numbers get defined better, estimates are closer. We actually understand what the components of the strategic plan costs. ‘Cause up until this point, remember, it’s just a bunch of dollar signs with estimates.

As staff does that work, we will be able to see the business cases and then create our own prioritization. But we have to give some general guidance to staff to say, we expect you to not, to put up chunk of our strategic plan in the four recommended piece and then bring forward the rest for our consideration and our decision making. How they prioritize that is not necessarily a prioritization of the strategic plan. Like I said, there’s a whole bunch of the strategic plan that don’t cost money that aren’t gonna be impacted by the budget.

But there are some that do. And so staff will do their work to try to pace and meet a general tax rate that we will change the budget process. So I think we can just shift this conversation back to, it worked last time very well. We had lots of flexibility.

A lot of people got what they wanted. A lot of people got to bring the initiatives in. And I think we’re just not understanding where we are this time and when we’re overthinking it right now. Let the range land where it lands on maintaining services and move towards just saying, you know what, half a percentage strategic plan, we expect that to be in the recommended options.

We expect the rest to be in the four consideration. We’ll make the decision later. So I’m gonna vote against the amendment and I’m going to pitch something like that at the appropriate time. The amendment is on the floor, has been moved and seconded.

The wording is in eScribe. I have no one else on my speaker’s list. So looking to call the question on strictly the amendment, Councillor Ferra. Okay, thank you through the chair.

There’s multiple points in the report that clearly state as I see it, that there are so many unknowns and it’s pointing to the costs are gonna be higher than what we have right now. So this is why I feel like the range should be increased on the top end. So we can capture that. I do know that there’s support for that because that is also seen by other council members and I do see what other council members are saying, trying to keep that rate as low as possible.

However, I do see that there might be some room for compromise from what the mayor has put on the floor or what the mayor is suggesting and I feel like this is a council that we are able to compromise. So for that, I’m hoping that that 0.5% would be a little bit higher, maybe 1%, think about that. But with that, I just want to really point out that the report is pretty clear that these costs are gonna be higher and I just feel like it would be responsible and wise to give a range that captures the costs that most likely what we’re gonna see. I would hate to have a top end range and we blow that within the first reports or the first business cases that come back.

But because I do see that there’s possible other suggestions coming on the floor and I do hope that that 0.5 is a little bit higher. Speaking with my seconder, I’m gonna withdraw that amendment. Back to the main motion then, Ms. Westlake powers.

If I can get the consent of the seconder as well as the consent of the committee, then we’re good to withdraw the motion. Yes, I can send. So, sorry. Mayor Morgan, who hogs the clerk.

Thank you. So if I could, I know we’re back to the main motion. I wanna ask since I heard the mover and seconder say that they were generally friendly to what I suggested, what I think B would then read if they were willing to change it would be that civic administration be advised of the council desire for civic administration to bring forward a draft 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget with an annual tax levy increase. Sorry, tax will have to wait till the wording’s done.

Bridge annual tax levy increase in the range of 2.9 to 3.9% identified the 2.9 to 3.9 identified range to maintain existing service levels and investments of an additional 0.5% in funding for additional investment for planning purposes. It could use a little bit of wordsmithing, but generally that’s what we’re saying is keep the maintain existing service levels add in the half a percent funding for additional initiatives, which are strategic plan based. So noted that is what we heard in talk prior to, but you also heard from someone who just removed a motion of asking for up to 1% or 0.75 called as you will. So looking to the mover and seconder of what your wording would be, ‘cause we haven’t heard that verbally as well if you’re fine with this and what percentage?

Sorry, Madam budget chair. I clicked the button a second too soon. Although the language is slightly clunkier than what I had sent over to the clerk, I recognize that we’re also getting some advice from Ms. Barbara on at the same time to make sure that the word average is in there.

So yes, I am prepared to be supportive and my seconder will have to speak for himself, but to revise B to reflect that we bring forward a draft multi-year budget with an annual average increase in the range of approximately 2 to 2.9 to 3.9% identified. To maintain existing service levels and investments of an additional 0.5% in funding for planning purposes. So I’m comfortable with, however the clerk needs to wordsmith the language, the intent is there, so I’m comfortable with that. Looking to the seconder?

If you need to see that versus hearing it. Yeah, and the spirit of compromise, I will second that as well. Sorry, to the clerk. Thank you through the chair.

Just bearing in mind how the discussion has gone thus far, I would recommend that we do this as an amendment. And then if the amendment passes, then we can vote on the motion as amended, rather than trying to do the whole motion all at once if that’s amenable to the mover and the seconder. So just a clarification, that’s an amendment of just Part B, is what we’re talking about, okay. And is the wording being loaded into eScrab as we speak?

Wonderful. So this is the amendment of the 2.9 to 3.9 with the 0.05 for other items. Starting a speaker’s list on that, how’s Sir Troso? I’m sorry, I really, I really, to the chair, I really do appreciate the efforts that are being made here to bring us closer.

But I don’t think we’re there yet. And the reason for that is the fundamental objection that I started with tonight was being locked in. And I still think we’re locked in. And I think we’re specifically locked in with the limitation to additional investments at 0.5.

And I’d be, feel like I’m going around in circles, but I’d be more comfortable if that was 1%. And the reason for that is I don’t want, I don’t want the new strategic plan items to be directly competing with each other in such a stark way. It might be that we make room for more strategic plan items by actually removing something that’s already there. And again, this is, I like the process, I like where you’re going, but I can’t support this because I think we’re not there yet and I still want to see more flexibility, especially in that some of the strategic plan items might actually replace some of the things that we might take out.

So saying up to 3.9 plus 0.5, I still think it’s too rigid and I’d like to see a little bit more flexibility there. So I would not be prepared to support that yet, but we’re getting progress. Thank you. I’ll also note that staff will prioritize 0.05, and we can certainly have other items as well that we pick up to one, 1.52 as we like.

This is just, they will specifically prioritize those things based on what can be done in budget. We have other federal provincial funding that can come up and have really good value for money and things that are already in the works and other community partners. So just a reminder on that, Councillor Layman. Thank you, as I haven’t spoken to this amendment.

I think we’re gonna just spend another hour talking between 0.5 and 0.1, 0.5 and so on. So I request that the chair calls a vote. Am I allowed to do that at committee? No, I can do that at council, but not at committee.

So I will respectfully say hearing that from colleagues. Just the mover and seconder, you heard a request for 0.1%, you’re not interested in 0.1. So at this point, we have made, we’ve had one long discussion with those drawing. We’re at this again.

So I can’t call the question of those other speakers. I have two more speakers, but literally it’s 7.30, we’ve been at this for two hours, and I always enjoy our time together. But at one point, we will have to call the question to actually call a vote, see where we stand, and then either it passes or we go back to the drawing board and craft something more. So I’m asking the next two speakers to keep things really tight, and then I am looking to call the question as you’re starting to hear from colleagues that the way forward people are, we’ve had a long discussion, we’re kind of, we’re where we’re gonna be.

So I have Councillor Frank for brief comments, and then Councillor Ferrera, anyone else, but I am hoping to call the question really soon. Thank you, and I appreciate letting me speak again. I’ll be really quick, and I’m happy to go and vote. The way I see it is we have made a bit of a compromise, because if we get to 3.9%, and we still need additional 0.50 funding, we have gone over and we are recognizing that we want to have new investment.

If we’re at 2.9%, and a lot of us on council still see lots of value in additional 1 or 2% increase based on what business cases come forward, and based on what we want to see in this strategic plan, we can make a compelling argument to our colleagues to try to go up. So we might go up to 5%. So I’m okay with where we act, ‘cause I think we’re at a compromise, and I think that’s what we’re looking for. And I think we’ve heard many times from staff tonight that these are just vague numbers to help them, which I appreciate, and I’m happy that we are getting some.

But for us, we can go over. So I personally don’t feel locked into this anymore. At the beginning, I did, I don’t, and I’m happy to go and vote. Councilor Ferra.

Thank you, and through the chair. So I would, I still feel like we need to have just a little bit more compromise, ‘cause it’s a little bit weighted on the opposite direction that I was originally trying to go. I’m trying to work with all of you. I will listen to all of you, I will take everything that you say, and I think about it, and I’ll come back, and I hope that you do the same for me.

And for me, I’ve always been trying to approach this, this gig with compromise, because that’s how you work with people. I removed my amendment because I wanted to compromise, and I see this motion, or this amendment right now, the way it is, and it is close, but it’s just, it’s not as close as I’d like it to be. I would like that additional .5 to just go up a little bit higher. I’m not gonna give you 1%.

I’m just asking you to bring it a little bit higher, if you can, because at the moment, I would not be able to support the motion the way it stands. So those are my comments, and I’ll keep it right there, but I do hope that you just take that into consideration. Councilor Troso? With adding a clause at the end saying, it being noted that nothing herein locks these numbers in, and they’re still flexible.

Would that satisfy, I think it would create some clarity for the public, and I think it goes without saying, and I guess through the chair, I’d like to ask the other people who have expressed a similar sentiment to myself, whether that would be acceptable. I also say that we’re never actually locked in. It’s always the decision of council, and I’m just worried that if we start doing that on this one, then people will think on other ones of you didn’t have that wording in there, and you didn’t do it last time, and it’s confusing to the public too. So I appreciate what you’re trying to get in.

We’re not left in. It’s an ongoing conversation coming back in December. We haven’t even seen the budget of the numbers yet, and this is just arranged to have staff focus their time and priorities as well, and agency boards and commissions to kind of know what they’re working with. So I’m not going to go and ask colleagues for that one.

I think it’s a dangerous road to go down. We’re ready to call the question. Councilor McAllister, are you pleased with calling the question, or do you need to? Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to just finally be playing a bit of a piece keeper here, but in my discussions with Deputy Mayor, one of the things I just want to kind of make clear is we do have a number of new counselors, and I appreciate the full sum discussion we’ve had this evening, and one of the things I’ve realized, and I understand the hesitancy, because I think, speaking from my own perspective, there is the fear that we are locking ourselves in, and I have heard from past counselors, and I respect your experience that we are not tying ourselves to an anchor here.

We do have flexibility, and I totally understand where the other new counselors are coming from because I am experiencing that myself. And so I just want to say, I think what the mayor has suggested is a fair compromise, and if some of these solutions do require heavier lifting, I fully expect that staff will provide that for us. I don’t think that it is necessarily tying us down. I think we have to give them some leeway in terms of coming to us with solutions that are reasonable, and will require funding, and if need be, we can deal with it then, but I think we have to move forward with something, and I do believe what the mayor suggested is a fair compromise, so I will leave it there, thank you.

Thanks for just clarity. Once again, if you want to refresh E-Scribe, and to anyone watching us, it’s just part B on the floor at the moment that civic administration be advised of the council desire for civic administration to bring forward a draft 2024-2027 multi-year budget with an average annual tax increase in the range of approximately 2.9 to 3.9 is identified to maintain existing services levels as well as additional investments of an additional 0.5%, in funding for additional investments for planning purposes. This is the sentiment we’re going with. It seems as council, it is not anything firm and we’re locking ourselves in.

It is a fluid document with general parameters. In realizing you’ve had a robust open debate tonight that we’re not expecting each other to later say 2.9% no more. We each know where we want to generally fall in taxes, but it’s a fluid conversation going forward, and we are not locking ourselves into this. This is the general information we’re asking for staff to bring back, and they’re going to bring back all options, just prioritize things a little bit differently with the priorities of the budget range that we’re giving them.

Right now part B is in the system and we are ready to vote just on part B, Councilor Trowso. I just, I like the word approximately before 2.9. I’m trying to find a way to make this. I like the way it says approximately 2.9 to 3.9.

Could you duplicate the word approximately before the 5.5? Would the mover and seconder have an issue with approximately 0.5% in funding for additional investment as the approximately also occurs between 2.9 to 3.9. Realizing staff won’t round up approximately from 0.5 to 1%, just it might be 0.5 to. I don’t know how much we need to be wordsmithing this.

I think we’re really getting into the weeds. I don’t want to change this anymore. Staff can make their rounding adjustments as they need to. Approximately, we’re getting so far into the weeds on this that I’ll say quite bluntly, colleagues.

I think we have a compromise here. I’m not willing to spend another hour wordsmithing it to everybody’s satisfaction. I’m sorry, but what’s on the floor is what I’m ready to vote on. Councilor Lehman?

Yeah, I agree. And don’t forget, you’re welcome to vote against us and then put your own motion on the floor as you see fit. Hey, that concludes my speakers. Calling the question.

Councilor Van Meerbergen, thank you. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 12 to three. Thank you, that amends just part B, looking for a move in our second order to put A through F on the floor, including part B as amended, move by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. We haven’t discussed anything a bit B yet, hoping there isn’t much of discussion, but looking to see if there’s a speakers list.

If not, I can call the question. Is the clerk ready for the question to be called? They are calling the question. So it’s including B as amended that we just voted on.

Would the councilor like part B pulled separate? Is that the issue? Yes. The chair, the previous vote was on the amendment to part B.

This is on the main motion as amended. So the clerk, is it too late to pull part B as amended and just do A and then C to F? Are 13 votes already in? So no, clerk’s Cuddy and Pribble.

You’ll need to use your mics. What did it get? Yes. Thank you.

The system does get a little bit weary if it sits for too long. Closing the vote, the motion is passed, 13 to two. Thank you. At this point, that concludes the, did we need to receive staff’s report or do we do that?

Sorry, just, are we done with 4.1? Or she’s waving at me, I’m sure it’s an admiration. I am for direction, item 4.1, the multi-year budget process forward has been concluded. I return chair to Mayor Morgan for the remainder of the agenda.

Thank you, thank you very much. That was excellent sharing of what hopefully will be the longest part of the meeting. Onto 4.2, which is the request for a shareholders meeting for London Hydro. So you can see the request on behalf of the board to have a shareholders meeting.

There is a preloaded motion in the system that we could have moved and seconded and that would hold the AGM on June 20th at SPPC, which is the normal course of action. Councillor ramen, are you willing to move better? You wanna speak to it? I’m moving it, thank you.

Okay, so that motion will be moved to hold an AGM seconded by Councillor Hopkins. Any discussion? Okay, we’ll open that in the system for voting. Is there cutting?

  • Yes. Motion’s passed, 15 to zero. Okay, 4.3 is consideration of an appointment to the London Police Services Board, which requires one additional member. If colleagues recall at the last Municipal Council meeting, this was referred back to SPPC in order for us to choose five candidates to proceed with interviews, which would be conducted by this committee.

There’s a little bit of language that we will need to do just to provide the direction for the interviews and that sort of thing, but the first item before us is to narrow down what is the full list of original candidates to five. And so we have the ability to do that as we have before. All the candidates are preloaded in the system. The difference that would occur this time from last time is last time we were choosing just one.

This time you could choose up to five and I would strongly encourage you to pick five. That way we’ll have very accurate preferences of all colleagues across and we are looking by Council direction to do five interviews. So ideally you can pick five people that you’d like to interview. There’s no restriction on who you can pick.

And the way that this vote works is, it’s almost like when we select a committee for a board that needs five members, there’s a threshold at which we kind of narrow it down until it gets down to just five members. There’s no possibility for anybody else to achieve the votes to move beyond that. The direction from Council was to pick five. I had one Councillor ask me if we have to pick five.

That’s the direction from Council. If someone wants to do a different number, we would have to pass a motion of reconsideration for Council’s consideration to pick a different number of people to interview that then could be approved at Municipal Council at the same time as the group that we picked today. But it would be a motion of reconsideration since there was a direct motion from Council that contained the number that we would interview. So possible, we would just have an additional process to go through.

And if that’s what you want to do, I’d suggest doing that perhaps at the start and then we could have six or whatever you wanted to do. But I just wanted to provide that clarification ‘cause I was asked to do so that it would be reconsideration to change that number. So I want to see colleagues have any questions because I don’t want to just jump into voting to narrow it down unless everybody’s absolutely clear and comfortable with the process that we would be following on this. Any questions?

Councillor Palosa. So just for absolute clarity, it’s not going to be ranked candidates, we’re selecting up to five, preferably five. And right now, Councillor’s direction is to pick five people for interviews. That’s correct, you’re not ranking them, you’re just choosing five.

So there’s no ordering of those five, you’re just picking five, Councillor Peril. I just wanted to make sure, Councillor Palosa, she said, preferably five. It’s not preferably five, it is five. Directionally provided ourselves as Municipal Council was to choose five.

So ideally, colleagues will interpret that as a direction from council to choose five. Sorry, for clarity, to choose point of information from order, which is like we have to choose five to interview, which sorts itself out, or we have to select five people from the list of a lot of wonderful people. And if we don’t pick five— I’m gonna go, I wanna go to the, just get the original motion from the clerk and be clarify on this. Just so colleagues know what I’m about to do, I’m going to look at the original motion.

I’m gonna take advice from the clerks, then I’m gonna make a call on how that would work. And then, if you don’t like my colleague and challenge the chair and we can do something different, but that’s the easiest way and easiest path through a decision. But give me a moment just to review the actual motion and get advice and then I’ll make a decision. Okay, so given the wording of the motion, which is to the SPPC committee in order to determine a short list of five candidates for interviews, I would revert to what our regular policy is, which does not, although I would strongly encourage you to, does not compel you to pick five candidates, I would say that you can vote for up to five.

But again, preferential system works best when you complete a full ballot. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, Your Worship, and I’ve been here before and I really want to emphasize the importance of picking five to be interviewed. Because it does weigh if you pick one person.

And I do think we are not being transparent and it does undermine what the intention of the motion that is being brought to committee this evening for us to come up with five candidates to interview. And I really want to stress the importance of the number five and not playing that game to come up with what you think you want the ultimate result to be. I think we need to be transparent and accountable with our process regardless of what our rules say. Thank you.

Thank you, any other questions or comments before we open the first round of selection? I don’t see any. So we’ll open that up and then the clerk will advise us if the result and we’ll see how we proceed. And take your time, we’ll leave it up until everybody, oh, a question, go ahead, Councillor Frank.

Thank you. I was wondering as with the last time, there’s usually an opportunity to speak to people and put people forward if people want to or highlight people. In the past, I think the last one, we didn’t do that and just went straight to voting. And perhaps that was a bit of a hasty decision.

I’m just wondering if there’s an interest to do any of that or if people want to hop right to voting. So yes, that would be very much in order. So if anybody would like to speak to the list of candidates or a candidate or multiple candidates, we would do that before we vote. And so yes, if you’d like to add some commentary and you’d like to start, we could go with you and then I can start a speaker’s list.

Thank you, yes. And I think Councillor Raman hit on this at council. I left feeling some regrets at our SPPC meeting the time before that, having not spoken in advance of us all voting and I didn’t want to do that again tonight. I think we’ve been given some time to reflect and I think there’s been lots of comments made to us via email and the community on social media and in the media and I think gave me an opportunity to look through everyone’s applications again and look for folks that I think could do a good job.

So I do have a list of five and I’ll share them in advance just because I think it might be interesting to pull some attention towards them if people are still trying to figure out who is on their list. I was hoping to select Michelle Anderson, looks like she’s excellent experience with students, student facing and also a background in accessibility. And I know that that is a strategic priority of the city so I think she could bring some background for that. I also thought that Gani Bremo and I’m sorry if I’m butchering these names, their background is in psychology and I think given the increase in folks that are interacting with police services that have mental health issues, I think that that perspective on the police board might offer a unique perspective.

I also thought Gita Kanarin was interesting. Also psychology background and previously having worked with police officers and has kind of both sides of the coin. Stephen Demelio, lots of experience through Pride London and other community groups and I think that they would bring another unique perspective that may be as missing on the board. And then Joseph who was on my original list and having a background served on other First Nations police board.

So that is my selection I’ll be putting into the system and I think that they all bring a unique perspective that’s missing on the police board. Thank you. Other speakers, oh, Gita was L, letter L, page 114 if you wanna look at the resume. Other speakers to the candidates, Deputy Mary Lewis.

Thank you, Chair and through you, I’m just gonna say briefly, I think this is the value of coming back and doing a little more leg work on this. I don’t mind sharing that Councilor Frank and I, although we didn’t agree on the first vote on the selection candidate, we have a number of candidates who overlap on our list of preferred candidates. And so I think that the opportunity to see people’s top five and then move our votes around as we perhaps go into second or third rounds to narrow that field is very helpful. I will share that Stephen DeMello, Michelle Anderson and Gita Caron are also on my list.

And I even identified as six. It’s just in case that person maybe stays on the ballot longer than the other. So I do see value in coming back to this. And I already see some consensus with some of the names Councilor Frank shared where I could get to too.

So I hope that as we go through the rounds on this, people take that spirit to heart. And hopefully we identify a consensus candidate, or consensus five candidates tonight that we all see value in interviewing. Other speakers? Go ahead, Councilor Raman.

Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering, could we be reminded of the full motion that we agreed to at SPPC at the last meeting? Thanks. Sure, I could read it to you.

Yeah, that the matter of an appointment to the London Police Services Board, including all 54 applications be received, including all 54 applications received, be referred to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in order to determine a short list of five candidates for interviews. It being noted that interviews would be conducted by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. It being further noted that this process will be with regard to reconciliation, equity, accessibility and inclusion, and inclusion strategic area of focus in the 2023 to 2027 strategic plan, and the municipal focused truth and reconciliation commissions calls to action. The speakers, sorry, I thought Councilor Plaza was still chairing for a minute.

Other speakers to the motion. I don’t wanna rush it. I’m thinking some thoughts. Already did this once.

I don’t wanna do it a third time. So we’ll take some thoughtful consideration on this. And if not, and if everybody’s ready, we can open an initial round of voting, yes? Okay, we’ll do that then.

We’ll open the initial round of voting. We’ll look to the clerks for the results. Take your time scrolling through the long list and making sure you’ve selected the individuals that you’d like to select. The selection process has been closed.

And the top five candidates are with apologies for the pronunciation. Gita, Paneran, Ryan, Goss, Joseph, Wabajig, Devin, Dee, Emilio, and Michelle Anderson. So that is the top five candidates. They’re just for colleagues.

And in the report, we’ll have the full ranking, just so colleagues usually ask me what the next one, the next on the list were Giani Brahma. Sorry, Ziba Hashmi, Prab Gill and Winston Williams were the next few. Then everybody, there was a number of people who got one vote. And then there was a lot of obviously zeros at that point.

So with that, if colleagues are comfortable, we could, sure, I’ll have the clerk read that out. Through the chair, the votes were Gita, Paneran, 11 votes, Ryan, Goss, Penn votes, Joseph, Wabajig, 10 votes, Steven, DeMilo, DeMilo, eight, Michelle Anderson, seven, the full vote will be reflected in the report. Okay, so colleagues, so we have that before we move to like a motion to say, let’s interview those people. I just want to let you know my intention, given these will be interviews, my intention is to call a special SPPC meeting.

And so the motion, I would like to add in to interview these individuals with a piece that basically will direct the clerk to kind of circulate availability so that I can call a special meeting on a date that we can all be available. I’ll ask for people’s flexibility as much as possible because on this important decision, I’d like to have everybody there. So that’s why I don’t want to call a date right now or do it myself, but I might have the clerk circulate. And then as chair, I can call a date that works for hopefully all of council on this.

And again, we’ll work with your staff to be as flexible as possible. So we’re just pulling together that motion that outlines all the pieces, both the candidates interview as well as the process and the direction to circulate to colleagues for the call of the special meeting. Yes, we’re working on that, Council Raman. Thank you and through you.

I’m just wondering if you can share any additional parameters around the interviews and perhaps any additional thoughts on if there’s any desire for or if there would be any or another round to say it a different way. And any training perhaps that might be needed necessary to consider before we undertake those interviews? Yes, maybe, and I hate to put the city manager on the spot ‘cause she’s on the call. The question is, can I, if I could change it into question, what additional training would be available to council to ensure that we conduct the interviews?

I know we’ve had opportunities for training for different selections, committees. I myself did, when we selected the city manager, unconscious bias training, things like that. So I wonder if the city manager can comment on what might, what we might have available that we can make available to councilors before the interviews are conducted that they could engage in. All right, I’m in trouble with my camera.

There we go. Thank you, Your Worship. Certainly we could provide, as we have in the past, the unconscious bias training. There is also training that Ms.

Morris does. Some of council has participated in it in terms of our ARAO Foundation’s training, which may also, which is the foundation of using the equity tool for our organization. So we could also make that available to council, to SPPC, in preparation for the interviews. Those are the two that I can think of immediately.

Council Raman. Thank you, that’s very helpful. And in terms of the question sets and any additional resources that we might have available for scoring candidates or anything of that sort after the interview, what might be available? Yes, so when we previously done interviews, how it has worked, and not that we have to this way, but let me explain, the clerks have worked with people services who conduct interviews all the time for hiring to formulate a list of questions, but they’ve also were relevant with the board and commission, reached out to the board on questions that may be relative to the service of that board.

And so in this case, I know the clerks have also done some plenary work anticipating the direction we were going based on last council decision to start that engagement with people’s services as well as reach out to the police board in the support of a formulation of relevant questions. Ultimately, the committee can decide what they want to ask or not, but those resources are how we’ve handled it in the past. And we could set some parameters before we conduct the interviews on asking consistent questions to all candidates, the slate of questions that we’re asking, those sorts of things. Ultimately, we have support so we can get, but the decision will be up to the committee to decide what the final slate of questions is.

Do you have another question, Councillor Ramen? Go ahead. And then I’ll go to Council, you’re next, Councillor Troso. I’m just wondering, are there questions?

No, Councillor, I just want to go to Councilor Ramen first. I’ll go to you after. Thank you, just to follow up. So before the interview process, we need to make some decisions around what the questions that will be and then any matrix tools.

And we would do that before this special meeting just before we interview, just so I’m clear. So what we could do is I could circulate for dates for SBPC meeting for the interview, but given we would just be talking about the questions, we could tack this on to an existing SBPC meeting so that we can have a discussion in advance of the interviews, which would give us the time, as well as, in some cases, it is best practices to provide questions to candidates in advance. That would be up to us on whether we wanted to do that, but that would give us the opportunity to give a full and thoughtful go at this from our perspective and everybody be comfortable with the approach that we’re having ahead. So if everybody’s comfortable, that’s the approach we could take.

The next SBPC, we could have all of those resources available to us and then we could decide the slate of questions and the approach we want to take. And then the called meeting for the actual interviews would occur after that. So tack on to an SBPC for that piece, but a dedicated specific meeting only with interviews is my preference for the interview portion, okay? Councilor Trossati, question?

Over the years, the university has developed an equity interview book, which helps selection committees through the interview process. I’m wondering if it might be useful to look at that. The reason I raised that is there are also potential questions that you should not ask. And I know that the university’s booklet talks about what some of those are and we might want to consider that.

Yeah, as the city manager said, Ms. Morris, as an approach to this, I think if she may have already reviewed such a thing, but if you want to ensure that that’s provided to either us or her or both, I think I know myself will take as many resources as you want to give me. But I think given Ms. Morris does training on this, maybe ask that along to her and see if that’s already incorporated into her training, maybe similar.

I’m more concerned about questions that probably shouldn’t be asked at the interview. Councilor Palosa. Thank you and looking to see several questions. When we do the interviews, is it like in one of our meeting rooms?

Is it here in chambers? Is it open to the public? Is it gonna be publicly broadcasted? As that definitely gives a different feel to the interviews.

So we have to start the meeting from chambers so that we can livestream the start of the meeting. Interviews as we’ve done, every time with interviews are done in camera. So that would be consistent with our practices that we’ve used before. And then as for the location, we would have the option to interview here or in a committee room.

It would depend on is Council going to make, and we could, a virtual option available to the candidates to be interviewed. If we wanted to do that, we would have to make sure we chose a committee room that had the technology in it. Again, these are decisions that I think what we can do is when we decide the questions, we can decide the basis of those components of the interview. Ultimately, these are Council’s interviews and so whatever way we wanna do it, we can.

But we have a variety of options before us. The only restriction is because this is an actual meeting in SBPC, we have to start the public meeting, do the motion to go in camera, and then come back and end with our public livestream after that. Thank you. Personally, I would prefer a committee room with the livestreaming option, just would feel maybe a little bit more personal, realizing sometimes if it’s multiple questions coming at them, we can feel a little bit like a firing gallery, especially when we’re sitting like this, power control as one person staying before us.

My other concerns that I know I’m sure we’ll do with later is the questions, and if we’re taking turns asking them, if it’s just prepared questions versus going off and wanting to make sure that the candidates had the same access, the questions beforehand, also that they were given up to a maximum amount of time for interviews, that some didn’t get a lot longer than others, and they knew that going in that ideally, they would have so much time to answer per question to make sure they got through all their questions. And my final comment, as we have done it a little bit differently over the past, upon who we were interviewing and whatnot, I guess raising the concern now that if some counselors aren’t at the interviews or there for all interviews, that they would have missed those interviews and they’re strictly going off just the resume. So just raising that too, that even though we’re trying to create a quality that way that some people might not get all the counselors’ attention for the interviews because they might not all have at the same time, so just that. Thank you for the comments.

And again, I think given these are counsel’s interviews, and given that we have the option of having an SPPC meeting, my preference would be that you’re all absolutely 100% on the same page for the interviews and have decided them and the process and all the questions raised before we conduct them so that everybody is in his in agreement that they’re being conducted in a way that everyone’s comfortable with. Councilor Pribble. I just had a question. My fellow Councilor Palos was there such a shunt, the questions to be distributed in advance to the candidates?

Or did I misunderstand? I’ll let the counselor answer for herself. I would have preferred that they had the questions in advance, especially for asking very specific questions of like what do you see as the biggest opportunities or strengths going forward? They could come with meaningful answers, but I’ll defer to the clerk of what’s the normal process.

So the answer is it’s our decision. And so again, when we decide the questions we can decide, are we making them available or not in what way? We can also decide how they’re asked. I’ve been in interviews where a consultant has asked all the questions and I’ve been in one work, “Oh, you go around the table, each person asks one.” So again, if colleagues have suggestions like that, the best time to do that is before we actually start the interviews so that we all know what the expectations are and how it’s going to work.

And we will have an opportunity to do that the way that we have the two-step process. Councilor Provost, go ahead. I just wanted to add that I hope we decide not to distribute it in advance because I would like to know what the person actually thinks and themselves not to research it. So I hope we just like in a normal corporate world, you don’t give out any questions in advance.

I hope we won’t and we’ll have the same questions for everyone. So I wanted to debate this now. We’ll have an opportunity to decide this as a council. There’s differences of opinions, but you know what, if we have to have a vote on the process, we’ll have a vote on the process.

But right now we’re just taking some thoughts and feedback so that I can design our decision points on this. Couple more and then we can move forward with motion. Councilor Trossal, then I think Councilor Cudi had your hand up to you. No, okay, Councilor Trossal.

So when we start an open session, but go into closed session, there’s typically some recital of the grounds for going into closed section. But what would that be here? ‘Cause I think that needs to be specifically stated if we’re going into closed session. That’s a good question for the clerk ‘cause we’ve done this before.

Thank you through the chair. And although I don’t have the wording in front of me, we rely on the section of the Municipal Act that refers to personal information about an identifiable individual. And that would be included on the public agenda. I will add that we do not debate.

It’s just the interviews in camera. There is no debate, discussion, decision making on the candidates in camera. It is just a point at which you gather information through the engagement. My concern about that, and I don’t mean to be argumentative here, and maybe we should get an opinion, is there is, I think there’s a waiver when you fill out the application when that grounds.

I just, I don’t think we can resolve that here, but I don’t want to be argumentative, but I think we should look at this very carefully. Yes, that was the application on an interview. The interview is a different process. If colleagues would like an opinion at the time when we discuss the questions, we can have that opinion and advice from our staff before we proceed, but that’s how we’ve done it before, and what the basis and what we’ve done it on.

And so appreciate your comments, but that’s not something we need to determine at this moment. Did I see any other hands? Okay, if colleagues want to review the motion in eScribe, which now has the direction to conduct the interviews with the candidates that are listed, that there will be a special SPPC meeting at my call, that members of council will be canvassed by the city clerk to determine an appropriate date and time, and that we reviewed communications from the following individuals on this matter, and that training opportunities will be available to the members provided in advance of the interviews, and you already have my commitment that we will have a discussion at an SPPC before that special call. SPPC, it wouldn’t be part of this motion.

So that’s the motion to have a mover for the motion before us. Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor McAllister, discussion on the motion. Seeing none, then we’re gonna open that motion for voting. Councillor Trosto.

I don’t see it on my screen, I’ll vote yes. Opposing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero. So then that completes the items for direction within the council agenda. Next, we have deferred matters and additional business colleagues.

In the added agenda, there are three. I wanna start with a quest to update London Hydro Board of Director Recruitment, Interview, and Nomination process. You see a couple of pieces of correspondence before us from the board chair when they came to my office that I passed along and when they came directly to all of council. Councilor Raman is our representative on the Hydro Board.

I know she wants to speak to this, so I’ll go to her first. Thank you and through you. So before you is a letter from the chair of the board of directors from London Hydro, Ms. Graham, and she shared a number of things that have been thoughtfully considered by London Hydro.

In the first that I’ll go into is around a proposed process to address any openings on the London Hydro Board, and what Hydro did was they had an opportunity to look at the process with LMCH and from there, look at our processes and try to find a way forward that allowed for the involvement of London Hydro through a committee to conduct interviews for potential candidates, seeing that London Hydro is quite a specialized board and the knowledge and skills required of members of the directors of the board are really important to them and seeing that they were also looking through some upcoming resignations which are shared in the letters provided here in as well, and some of the skills that potentially could be leaving the board of directors as well. So that’s been provided in our package. And so I’m hoping that council will be supportive of London Hydro undertaking this process. And I think it’s really important to note that there wasn’t really a process that was written down in a shareholders agreement or anywhere else by way of how exactly they should go about their process.

So this is a way to formalize that process in a way that’s consistent perhaps with, well, consistent with the housing authority, but consistent also with a way in a means forward to put names that would be a benefit to the board of directors of London Hydro and well as well as for the city. So I think that there’s an opportunity to look at what’s in front of us and consider options how to best support London Hydro to provide top quality candidates and to ensure that our processes are aligned and that there’s opportunity for them to have some input into the process as well. Thank you. So let me add just some context.

Given the two letters and given council Romans comments and just based on the letters, a possible direction was crafted, the clerks assisted in the crafting of that. And that is that we could take the following actions related to this. One is given the vacancies, we could start the process of advertising and recruitment process for those vacancies, how it works with the LMA’s she board, which is very similar as council does all of the posting and recruitment of applicants. Those applicants are passed on for consideration.

They do their process. They give back a recommendation, but we still have the option to consider all of the candidates. We just have that piece. What is being proposed is something very similar to that.

So what we could do is to have a direction where the first piece is let’s start the advertisement and then the actual appointment would be made at the annual general meeting, which if you saw earlier tonight, we are going to have in June. The second piece of the motion would be for staff to report back to SPPC in May with respect to a proposed appointment process based on the letter, including the shareholder resolution that would be necessary to actually create the process. And we could consider that at a meeting of the shareholder, which we could facilitate on May 30th. So ultimately, we would decide at that point whether or not we’re going to do the process, but we could put everything in place to say, this is what it would look like.

This is the meeting of the shareholder. We would have the report back on staff and what it would look like. And if we’re comfortable, we could execute that as the shareholder in time for the decision in June. It would be a short turnaround for the board, but if we start the advertisement now, we’d be able to have that piece all ready to go pending council’s decision.

So it is possible to do all of this. We might, the timeline can work, and that would be the direction. So I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis’s hand up first, and I’ll go to you, Councilor Trossow. But that would be a possible motion that can be made.

Thank you, Chair, and through you, I guess a question for our staff, and perhaps for Councilor Roman as well as our representative on the board. First of all, I will say I am fully supportive of this process. I think it’s worked excellent at LMCH, and I think it will serve hydro very well. Do we, my question quite honestly is, do we really need a report back from staff on the 30th to then ratify this?

Or can we provide civic administration direction through delegated authority to go ahead and prepare the necessary changes and just do everything at the June 20th meeting? So that we’re not asking London and Hydro come before us twice for a matter that really, their board’s already indicated support for. And if council’s supportive of it too, then I don’t see the value of bringing them in twice. So is this something that we can just provide civic administration direction to prepare for and delegate the authority to them?

The clerk can answer your question, and then I’ll go to the next speaker. Thank you through the chair. This process was enacted through an amendment to the shareholder resolution for LMCH, and that would be our proposed approach with London Hydro as well. That requires a report back and a by-law to enact that shareholder resolution.

So that’s the rationale behind a report back in May that would facilitate this to be conducted should council be in agreement with the shareholder, with the proposed shareholder resolution at the June annual general meeting. Without, sorry, without the change to the shareholder agreement, I would suggest that there’s probably possible ways that Hydro could still be involved with the applications in their review, but this would formalize that. Deputy Mayor. So I’m just mindful of what occurred in your absence, Mayor, when I was sharing a council meeting, and we had one of the, and I know this isn’t the correct language, but one of the secret bylaws that Mr.

Mathers had to advise us on with regard to some provincial changes. And I’m wondering if we can just do this for Hydro as well, or have a by-law that amends the shareholder agreement and just bring it to council, rather than having the clerk’s team and our staff go through a whole report process, just to go through an SPPC and then a council meeting, bringing the shareholder in twice. Is it possible if we are supportive of this to just do that? So just clarification, we’re the shareholder.

It would be bringing Hydro in. Sorry. - Yeah. Okay, so I can get you an answer.

I may have to go to legal on that, because I need to make that very clear. So I believe we have Ms. Marshall listening in. Okay, but one sec before you chime in, Ms.

Marshall. Yeah, it goes straight to this. So before you chime in, there’s probably another question that you’re gonna get asked. So let me just put that question on the floor first, that way you can answer both at once.

Is there some provision in the law that says otherwise, then this appointment belongs to the city council, and it is our discretion to appoint whoever this council wants to appoint whether or not they meet those criteria, because there are arguments that can be made. Okay, I’ll leave it there. Yeah, so I just wanna clarify that, and then I’ll go to Ms. Marshall.

We’re still making the appointment. So we don’t give up that. All that the entity the organization would do is the any sort of interviews or selection process to provide a recommended candidate back. But when that recommended candidate comes back, it comes as the recommended candidate with the rationale from the board.

And we still have the list of everybody who applied so that if we disagree, we could go a different direction, but we’re essentially putting the onus in the organization to do all of the work and the interviews and the selection process and the engagement with whoever they feel they need to engage with on that process. At the end of the day, we still make a decision and we’re not bound to follow the recommendation just like with the housing board. Okay, so now I’ll go to Ms. Marshall.

Through you, Mr. Chair, I’m not aware of the requirements in terms of any public participation or public notification regarding a by-law amendment. So it would be up to the will of committee and council whether they wanted to have a by-law before council. I’m not sure whether we could have one paired in time, but we could certainly try to do that.

Talking about is the shareholder declarations by by-law. Can we do the shareholder declarations by by-law without a meeting of the shareholder? Do we have to call the meeting of the shareholder and do them by by-law? I would, yes, there would have to be a meeting of the shareholder.

Councillor ramen. Thank you, through you. So I’m not quite clear as to why that’s required and I’m just stating my own personal opinion, not that of London Hydro’s. But I just, there was no process that was formalized in terms of how this was to be undertaken beforehand that was attached to the shareholder agreement.

So what they’re proposing here is a way for SPPC and then to council to provide direction to the process. And then from there, they would undertake that process. And if later on, let’s say that shareholders meeting on June 20th, there was the desire to then update the shareholders agreement by including this as an appendix, that could be done. So the process is ours.

It’s not theirs. They’re recommending this as the process. So I’m not sure why that requires any changes within the shareholder agreement. Yes, so let me say what my understanding is and then we’ll see.

The process that is being outlined in the financial motion is if you want it formalized as a by-law and a shareholder direction with parameters to make the decision on the current appointments. If you just want to engage with London Hydro and say do some interviews but give us a recommendation. Like we could do that informally. The advantage of the shareholders resolution is within the LMCH shareholders resolution, there’s a specific path that they follow that they would be required to follow because we’ve directed them as a shareholder.

There’s nothing stopping us from doing it a little more informally this time and landing it all at the AGM and avoiding the meeting. It depends if council’s comfortable having it formalized or formalizing it at that point. We could still proceed along generally the same lines and there’s nothing stopping us from doing that. And the clerk will add something.

Thank you through the chair. Just for reference, there are other boards that will look to the SPPC agenda when applications are included for an appointment to the board. The board will review the applications that are on the public agenda and it has not been uncommon for that board to make a submission on the added agenda for SPPC for the committee’s consideration. So that’s the informal process by which some of the other boards are doing this now.

LMCH has formalized it as part of the shareholder agreement and that’s what’s being proposed with this draft motion before you is the formalization. But as the mayor has outlined, it’s also possible to do it through a more informal process. Councillor Trozau. My concern about the recommendations coming from the body and this, I’m not picking one, this entity here.

This has come up many times in the past. I think it’s really important to keep this open and keep it open to members of the public ‘cause it might be that they’re members of the public that don’t have, for example, background in the industry. Perhaps quite the contrary, perhaps somebody with a different kind of background or worldview. And when I see these entities telling us who they wanna keep on their board, there is a danger that it becomes self-referential and self.

And I wanna be careful with my words because I don’t wanna use the word self-perpetuating in a bad way, but it’s sort of like we’re gonna keep putting people on the board who look and think like us. And I think it’s really important to have that diversity. So I just don’t want this, I don’t want this council as the shareholder to be bound by these letters talking about the person’s expertise in the industry. Other boards do this and I think we should try to keep it as open as possible and accessible to as many members of the public from a variety of different perspectives as possible.

That’s a ramen. Thank you and through you. I just wanna make it clear that the application and the person’s resume that’s being shared is no different than what would be for any of our committees right now. So it’s the opportunity for the organization to, or well in this case, London Hydro to conduct those interviews.

And I really do see value and I think just coming out of our previous discussion, we’re all seeing value as well in the fact that interviewing can allow for a different conversation around a person’s expertise in a different way to get to know somebody as they are interested in being part of a board. So what I’d be looking for is I’d be looking to the look we can call it informal, but they have outlined it here in a process in a formal way, but in an informal process for now. And then the opportunity that they could bring it forward as an appendix to the shareholder agreement in June. Okay, so if you wanna try moving that, I’m just gonna have to craft up with some slightly different language than we have.

Let me first see if there’s a seconder for that. So there is a seconder for going that approach. Just give us a moment to pull that together. So as we’re pulling this up, I just wanna understand correctly, you essentially wanna craft a motion that says, let’s follow the process that was suggested this time around.

Well, at the same time, kind of part B, proceed with all the necessary work on updating and formalizing this as a shareholder resolution. That’s what we’ll put together. Just Councillor Ramen, I just wanna make sure you’re comfortable with this. Some of the process that they’ve outlined is slightly different than the way we would do it.

So we’re gonna make it as if it was the way that we would have done it. I’ll give you one example. In their suggested process, they said the committee will review and shortlist all applications submitted by the cutoff date. Technically, we do allow some submissions after the cutoff date because those applications land on a regular agenda.

Sometimes we have people add them on the added agenda. So that would happen after the cutoff date. It would be our intention this motion to kind of follow our practice with our dates, not exactly as they’ve outlined it, to ensure that everybody has the same kind of fair, consistent process that would happen at municipal council. That is the way it would work when we do the shareholder direction.

So it won’t be exactly as defined in their suggestion ‘cause we just have to change a couple of processes to align with how ours work. Nice suggestions, but it’s just not quite the way that municipal council has to operate with the way it receives and processes applications. So as long as you’re comfortable with that, we’re gonna just craft it up with that in mind. Okay, so generally, part A is gonna be as I described, we’re going to advertise as we normally do with the broader recruitment process that we’ve recently directed and that those applications will ultimately consider at the end of the annual general meeting, but the civic administration be directed to provide the London Hydro Corporate Governance and Risk Management Committee, the applications received in the recruitment process, noted above in part A, for review and consideration, which may include interviews conducted by London Hydro, with a recommendation to be submitted to the shareholder for consideration of appointment at the annual general meeting.

And we will receive that recommendation, as well as have access to all of the applications that came in. Okay, we’ll load that into the system, moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Lewis. It’ll be up on your screen in a second, I’ll let everybody read it before we vote, but is there discussion on this? Councillor Hopkins.

Yes, while we’re waiting, quick question. What are we doing different to what a normal procedure has been in the past, just thank you. Councillor Ramen, we’ll respond to that. Thank you.

So I think what’s different this time around is that London Hydro will have the opportunity to actually see the applications and consider them at committee for the opportunity to interview. And that way they’ll be able to have a conversation around what skills and expertise the individuals are bringing forward, as well as giving some thought to what’s needed on the board to fill these gaps that they will have. If you look at the two candidates that have been formed as of their resignations, I mean, considerable amounts of skill, 15 years on London Hydro, it is something that the board does need to consider. Thanks.

Thank you for that. And the final decision will remain with us. Thank you. - That’s correct.

So we’re just adding in the additional direction to put it all in one motion that we take the actions to formalize this in a shareholder agreement in the future, as like another part. So we’re not doing it now, we’re gonna conduct this process, but we’re still going to proceed with after we do this informal one, this time with some parameters, actually move forward with the by-law change and the shareholder resolution at the annual general meeting to formalize the process in trying as a shareholder resolution for the future. So we don’t have to do any sort of special process again. So we’ll add that in as a part C, I think.

That’s gonna work involved like the report back and the documents coming to us for our consideration before we like pass it as a shareholder. Okay, you can refresh and find that motion now. Just depending on when you refresh, ignore the typo on the last word, that’s fixed. There’s an extra S involved in the last word.

What’s updated? So it should be correct if you look now. So just make sure you’re comfortable with that motion for the mover and seconder. If that’s the case, I’ll look for any other discussion and then I can proceed with a vote.

Yes, okay, yes. Any discussion on this motion? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to one.

Okay, item 5.2 is a request, request to governance working group meeting. A detailed, I’ll say letter from the deputy mayor and the budget chair outlining a number of items that the governance working group consider. And so I will, you guys, colleagues have the correspondence. I’ll go to the writers of the letter to make some comments.

Whoever, Councillor Plaza, go ahead. I’m gonna move it. I like my letter. Deputy Mayor Leados is gonna second it, so we’re off to a great start.

This is just the start of the list. I know some of our council colleagues already have questions too about the process and getting things done. Just wanted to call the first meeting the governance working group for we can bring questions forward. These are a few ones that started to be discussed.

Some of them started in the last term of council, but you get too close to election time and we’re busy doing other things. Or you’re in the straw plan, you can’t do it then. Just trying to pace things when it’s a good time to have these discussions, but realizing a lot of the colleagues are new to council and you need to kind of settle in and start to get a feel for what you’ve gotten yourselves into as well. And then just really understanding the roles and looking to formalize a few things.

Exactly what the deputy mayor is responsible for. The budget chair is still more of a newer position. Obviously, if you’ve seen tonight’s a lot of work goes into that of just like, what do you expect from me? Or whoever’s serving as budget chair?

And a couple of councils ago, remunerations were removed. That’s the question. If you do step forward to chair committee, as you’ve known, for those who are stepping forward, there is a lot of prep work behind the scenes working with colleagues and staff and just have that conversation of going forward. So just looking to create that space to have those conversations.

So we’re not having them behind the scenes on one off and we’re on the same page. And another colleague had asked about the onboarding process, that what you just went through, that comes at the end of the term that you normally, the staff normally collects feedback, but just for the process too of, as you go through your term of things, it would be really a great to know one in the beginning that we do look to, in civic administration, does look to improve that process to get council up to speed and working as quickly and as diligently as possible. So looking for your support of this letter and then anything that you would like to add or emotions you can bring forward tonight’s been kind of long. I did never want to say it another time.

But just when you see FID or looking for your comments on this, we can have that conversation in the governance working group space. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, everything that the budget chair said. And then some, because when we look at the difficulty we had right at the beginning in filling our own appointments to boards agencies and commissions, we had vacancies because people weren’t available.

Setting some expectations around what that entails for us as councilors, serving on those boards, agencies and commissions, how we consider, frankly, what can be a very uneven workload in those currently, whether we adjust to recognize the workloads are uneven or whether we adjust to balance the workloads more fairly. Those are all discussions for us to have. And frankly, they’re discussions that only we can have. We have to decide what some of the parameters of our job is from our own experience and then share that out to the public.

Of course, that was part of the reference letter here too, is that there would be a public consultation. I don’t think anybody expects this to be a two or three meeting discussion. I will say, I feel like we’ve almost laid out a potential work plan for the next 18 months of governance working group. And if some of our discussions tonight are an indication, it might be more like 24 months, ‘cause we’ll have a lot of different opinions.

But the budget chair is absolutely right that having that discussion now is the time to get it started. We’re through the strategic plan development. We are sending Ms. Barbone and her team and all of the other divisions off with a heavy workload tonight to start developing business cases.

So we can start to have some conversations about our expectations for ourselves and for future councils now while we wait for some of that to come back. This is by no means an exhaustive list. And in fact, one of the items that is not reflected in this letter but has already been referred over from corporate services is the scheduling of our standing committee meetings and what that looks like for ourselves and for our staff. So there’s already one other item to be dealt with.

But I also wanna just say to colleagues that anyone at the governance working group once we start meeting can bring extra things onto the agenda as discussions evolve, as our perspectives change as we discuss some of these items, we can add, subtract as we go. That’s the great thing about governance working group is it’s a much more free flowing gathering than our standing committees. The formality is not quite so strict and we can have a bit more of a free flowing discussion on how we land on some of these things. I will just wrap up by saying not only do I hope you support this but I know that Councillor Ferrera had his hand up to be next on the speaker’s list.

I think he has one friendly amendment that I think really, especially after the budget discussion we had tonight in the onboarding process really makes a lot of sense is around Councillor onboarding and training. So I’m not gonna speak to what he wants to move I’ll let him do that but I will say we discussed it earlier and I think it’s a friendly amendment and we should throw that into the mix too. Well, we’ll hear what it is first. So go to Councillor Ferrera.

Thank you, through you. Thank you, Deputy Mayor and thank you Councillor Palosa for bringing this to the table here. I do have a friendly amendment. It does speak to training and onboarding.

Basically, I’d like to formalize the training and beyond boarding. I’ll keep it brief so I won’t really make too much of an argument but I’m sure you guys know really what I’m alluding to but I do have some language that I wanted to add to section C as part three and that language was a discussion with respect to establishing a formalized training and onboarding with new Councillors. And that just basically would formalize a training for things like how to go about the parliamentary procedure, how to go about passing a motion. Things that at the beginning I was a little shaky with but now obviously I’m a little more grounded with that now but something that would have helped.

Other things that we could bring to that discussion would be who to go to when you have some feedback for a certain area like water or planning or anything like that so that would be my friendly amendment bringing to the table. And I’ll take that as a friendly amendment. The mover and second are okay with that. Okay, we’re gonna get the language.

If you don’t mind, will I get the language up? Given it’s friendly, it’ll be in the motion. People wanna pull the motion apart and vote on it separately. We’ll worry about that later.

But I will just make sure you’re okay with the language. Until then, just for time’s sake, I’m gonna go to Councilor Trossau as the next speaker. Oh, okay, sure. Well, we’re gonna get the language up and then I’m gonna make sure they’re okay.

Councilor Hopkins in the meantime. Yeah, speaking of friendly amendments and then I’d like to make some comments since I have the mic as well. I did review the letter. I would like to speak to E where we undertake a review of the appointment process for boards, agencies and commissions.

I think we all understand the importance of doing that. I would like to just add the committee of adjustments. I think we make appointments to the committee of adjustments and I would like to have that put in as a friendly amendment that is my friendly amendment and then I’ll make comments. Take those friendly.

So the clerk’s interpretation given the scope of the motion and the intent of what governance would discuss and given at the start of the term, we make all those appointments under that banner including the committee of adjustment was that it would already be included in that grouping. So if it is, then I don’t think we need to start adding a bunch of groups in and plus as long as SPPC agrees that that’s our understanding, then they report to SPPC governance working groups. So go ahead and work on it, I think, unless anybody has any objections and include that as well. Okay, I see lots of nods, so that’s covered.

Great, if I could just make a couple of comments too. On that, I’m glad that is just assumed that we’ll be reviewing the committee of adjustments. That’s great because my comments around the governance working group is that we are not bound by anything in this letter. It is a working group where any comments, concerns can be brought to and eventually that working group will have the discussions and then eventually those recommendations or comments will come back to us where we will be making that final decision.

So I really think that’s really important that we all understand that process. So I’m not bound by anything in this letter. I’m looking forward to the conversations going forward and opening up the governance working group. That’s correct, Councillor Hopkins.

The working group has no standing under the procedure while I has no get delegated authority for decision-making. It basically makes recommendations to SPPC and SPPC makes the decision. So it would just be simply working on these things and providing recommendations back to this particular body. So the language is adjusted.

I just want you to flip through and make sure you’re okay with it. Yeah, okay. So other questions on the motion. Oh, sorry, Councillor Vam-Airbergen.

Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I’d like to vote or if you could call C, D and E separately, please. Do you want them called separately as a group?

As a group, for me, as a group, as a group of clients, just to save time. Sure, okay. So we’ll deal with A and B together. And then you said C, D and E as a separate group, correct?

That’s correct. Okay, we can do that when we vote on it. But for now, I’ll take comments on the general. Okay, so I assume the same mover and seconder are good moving A and B.

So we got A and B on the floor. Any further discussion on A and B? No, okay, we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 15 to zero.

And now mover and seconder, you’re willing to move C, D and E with the addition that was suggested by Councillor Ferrera. Okay, yeah, moved and seconded by the same group. Discussion on C, D and E, noting that there is an addition to what’s in the letter that was made by Councillor Ferrera. Okay, seeing none, we’ll open that for voting as soon as it’s ready.

Closing the vote, the motion’s passed, 14 to one. Okay, next is item 5.3, which is on the added agenda. It’s the report from the diversity inclusion and anti-oppression committee advisory committee. I’ll note in their colleagues that of all of the things to just receive in the report, there is an item for direction to bring to your attention and that is their request to create a subcommittee to review municipal council’s appointment process if being noted with some details.

I wonder if council wants to entertain a small addition to encourage them to engage with the governance working group at the same time and they can provide some feedback to them so that as we’re working on the appointment process as DAIAC wants to have a subcommittee, let’s get some people together and work them all together so we can approve this but also perhaps encourage some direction to talk with the governance working group. Go ahead, Councillor Trostoff. I’m all in favor of them having a subcommittee if they want to have a subcommittee but my question is don’t the advisory committees already have the ability to create subcommittees through the chair and through the committee because I’ve been on committees that have done that without coming to council and I don’t want them to have to come to council if they think that would help their work. Thank you through the chair.

The intention with this specific wording is related to ensuring that council supports this initiative before they get started on the work. So that’s the intention behind it and that’s what was reviewed at the meeting which I can advise this committee that I was also in attendance at. Could we slightly change the wording then to say that? I mean, I’m in favor of that, I would support it but my worry is that by passing this the way it’s written we’re sort of creating a legislative history that all the different advisory committees can’t create subcommittees without council permission which is not the case.

Thank you, Councillor Palosa. Thank you, absolutely they can form subcommittees. I think this one is a very clear indication of some past experiences some members in this committee has had with council and wants to be aware that it is an important conversation they’d like to have in us to be aware that they are having it. So I’d be, I’m happy to move this or second this discussion request from DIAC and that they’ll be invited to participate in a future meeting of governance working group one or GWG can go to them.

Our agreeable time will be found to have an open dialogue with their concerns. Sure, so you want to put that on the floor and yes, you’re correct, they can. In this case, they would like us to pass this motion. So moved and a seconder by Councillor ramen.

We don’t need to put the governance working group piece in with governance working group can make that imitation to them knowing that they’re working on this. So people on the governance working group as soon as you pick a chair and vice chair, go ahead and reach out, okay. So that’s moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion on the motion which is on the DIAC report?

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Perhaps this may be relevant. I know that not all the committees have necessarily seen work plans for the advisory committees. So this may actually be something that’s not in their work plan, that they’re requesting we acknowledge they’re going to start working on.

And I’m not sure if the clerk has any insight into that. But I know to Councillor Palose’s point, we have had advisory committees that have deviated significantly from their work plans or operated without work plans. So while they don’t need direction to form a subcommittee, it may be that this is appropriate at this time because it’s outside their current work plan. Okay, that’s not the reason they brought it forward this time, it’s they could form a subcommittee under their terms of reference, but they wanted it brought before council for our support and approval.

So moved and seconded, any other discussion? No, okay, let’s open that for voting. Closing the vote, the motion’s passed 14 to zero. Okay, that brings us to the agenda, assuming there’s no other additional business.

I don’t see any. With that, I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Frank. We’ll do this by hand, all those in favor of adjournment.

That motion’s passed. Thank you, we are adjourned.