January 16, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:02 PM; it being noted that Councillors S. Hillier was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That Consent items 2.2 to 2.3 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

2.2   2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update Report

2024-01-16 Staff Report - 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment & Infrastructure, the report regarding the 2023 Climate Emergency Action Plan Update BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed

2.3   1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee

2024-01-16 Submission - DIACAC Report

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Franke

That the 1st Report of the Diversity, Inclusion and Anti-Oppression Community Advisory Committee from its meeting held on December 13, 2023 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

2.1   Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program Public Transit Stream Funding Reallocation

2024-01-16 Staff Report - Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by H. McAlister

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Environment and Infrastructure and the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken regarding recent changes to the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program (ICIP) Public Transit Stream (PTS) as communicated by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MTO):

a)    the MTO BE REQUESTED to remove Project ICIP-LON-08, Oxford Street / Wharncliffe Road Intersection Improvements from the current program and reallocate the decommitted funding to ICIP-LON-06, the Wellington Gateway project;

b)    the financial impacts associated with recommendation a) above (as summarized in Appendix “A” as appended to the staff report) BE RECEIVED for information, noting that these impacts are subject to approval of this request by MTO; and

c)    subject to approval by the MTO, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to take all actions necessary to implement the capital budget changes outlined in this report;

it being noted that the Mobility Master Plan (MMP) is considering corridor improvements in the area of Oxford Street and Wharncliffe Road and this funding reallocation will support improved infrastructure project integration.

Motion Passed (13 to 1)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   RBC Place London Board By-law Recommendations

2024-01-16 Submission - RBC Place London Board By-Law Recommendations

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to bring forward to a future meeting of Municipal Council a by-law to incorporate the changes to the London Convention Centre Corporation By-law as requested in the communication dated December 18, 2023 from L. Da Silva, CEO, RBC Place London, provided the changes are permissible under the City of London Act, 1992 and the Municipal Act, 2001.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.2   London & Middlesex Community Housing

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the London and Middlesex Community Housing:

a)       the communications dated December 4, 2023 from P. Chisholm BE RECEIVED;

b)       the resignation of Shellie Chowns from London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors BE ACCEPTED; and

c)       the term for Kathleen Savoy, Board of Director Tenant BE EXTENDED from December 31, 2024 to December 31, 2026;

it being noted that the usual manner to solicit applications for appointment for the position to London and Middlesex Community Housing Board of Directors has commenced, with applications to be brought forward to a future meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee for consideration.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.3   2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments

2024-01-16 Staff Report - 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, with respect to the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments, the following actions be taken:

a)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the report dated January 16, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information and the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Draft Base Budget Amendments related to Tourism London (as appended to the staff report dated January 16, 2024 as Appendix “A”) and Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (as appended to the staff report dated January 16, 2024 as Appendix “B” and “C”) BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

b)    on the recommendation of the Chief of Police and Chair of the London Police Services Board, the Base Budget Adjustment form and revised Business Cases P-28, P-L8, P-57 and P-29 BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; and

c)    on the recommendation of the CEO/General Manager of the Covent Garden Market, the revised Business Case P-66 BE REFERRED to the Budget Committee deliberations on the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated January 15, 2024 from AM Valastro with respect to the Police 2024-2027 multi-year budget.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

4.4   Mayor J. Morgan - Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair Positions

2024-01-16 Submission - Mayor Morgan

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That, with respect to the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the necessary actions to implement the following:

a)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the Deputy Mayor position effective January 2024;

b)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the position of Budget Chair effective January 2024; and,

c)    the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to review this as part of its larger review of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy on its Deferred Matters list, and provide any recommendations on further changes to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in order to allow for implementation in the 2026-2030 term of Council;

it being noted that the communication dated January 8, 2024 from Mayor J. Morgan, with respect to this matter, was received.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by P. Cuddy

Motion to amend part b) to read as follows:

b)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the position of Budget Chair effective January 2024; and,

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That item 4.4 be approved, as amended:

That, with respect to the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair positions, the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to undertake the necessary actions to implement the following:

a)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the Deputy Mayor position effective January 2024;

b)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the position of Budget Chair effective January 2024; and,

c)    the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to review this as part of its larger review of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy on its Deferred Matters list, and provide any recommendations on further changes to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in order to allow for implementation in the 2026-2030 term of Council;

it being noted that the communication dated January 8, 2024 from Mayor J. Morgan, with respect to this matter, was received.

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the motion BE REFERRED to a future meeting of the Governance Working Group.

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part a) be approved as follows:

a)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the Deputy Mayor position effective January 2024;

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part b) be approved as follows:

b)    a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councillor salary for the position of Budget Chair effective January 2024; and,

Motion Passed (9 to 5)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That part c) be approved as follows:

c)    the Governance Working Group BE DIRECTED to review this as part of its larger review of Remuneration for Elected Officials and Appointed Citizen Members Policy on its Deferred Matters list, and provide any recommendations on further changes to the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in order to allow for implementation in the 2026-2030 term of Council;

it being noted that the communication dated January 8, 2024 from Mayor J. Morgan, with respect to this matter, was received.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential 

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 3:10 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 (2 hours, 25 minutes)

Okay, I’m gonna call the meeting to order. I’ll just let colleagues know, we have everybody either here or online with the exception of Councilor Lehman who will not be joining us today. So we have 14 members of Council President. The City of London is situated on the traditional lands at the Anishina by Hona Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran.

We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. City of London is currently home to many First Nation, 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. 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. Seeing none, we have three items in consent. I’m just gonna look to see if any colleagues would like to deal with any of those items separately.

Councillor Van Meerbergen. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to pull 2.1 in consent. I’m not sure I’m gonna vote against it, but anyway, thank you.

Sure, well, we can pull that for discussion and deal with it separately. Councillor Trossa, that’s when you wanted to pull too. Okay. So we’ll put that down at the end of items for direction.

So we just have 2.2 and 2.3 left. It’s okay to deal with those together. No one wants those separate. Okay, I can look for a motion to do both of those then from anybody, Councillor Hopkins and Councillor Frank, and we’ll have any discussions or comments on those two items now.

Go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had a couple of questions on 2.2. I did send the questions to staff, although just recently, so some of them maybe get back to me later.

On page 11, the staff report refers to a 21% increase in the number of zero emission vehicles. And I just wondered if we know how many vehicles were registered in the first half of 2023, just wondering what kind of number we’re talking about there. And who do they register with? Mr.

Stanford, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Those details, I’m happy to get. I just don’t have them at my fingertips right now, but the car registry is something that we receive, I think through either the provincial government or a related agency.

Go ahead. Okay, thank you. And on page 21 in 2.2.2, it refers to eight nonprofits that provide housing to equity and denied groups to implement clean energy projects in their buildings. I just wondered what the equity denied groups are and who the eight nonprofits are.

Go ahead, through the chair. Those items deal with a project with the London Environmental Network, and I’d be happy to reach out to them to pull out the very specific information that the council has requested, and I’d be happy to share that as quickly as I can get it. Thanks, not trying to put anybody on this spot here, so on page 27 in 2.6, it says that the city submits information to this global program on an annual basis. I was just wondering if council gets to see that report, and it also talks about energy access and energy poverty, and I just wondered if somebody could explain a little bit of that to me.

Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, several years ago, we came to committee and council to receive endorsement to submit data to this particular group. On an annual basis, we’ve just been reporting out at a very high level, not the specific information.

We can include more details should committee and council desire as part of our either annual update or our progress update. It is a group, though, that we have continued to receive good information from in the way of reviews, and that is one of the reasons why we’re part of that particular organization. As part of the latest review, they have identified that the concept of energy poverty, and within communities, there are some groups, typically on the lower income side, that actually are into situations where the energy portion of their expenditures tends to exceed much more than other income levels, and that is an item that has been identified for London to begin to work on, and it is something that we’re actually now looking at on how that will be achieved and brought forward as part of the progress report to committee and council in June of this year. Thank you, just one last question, and on page 28, 3.0 states that over the full term of the CAEP to 2050, investment in climate action by the city, businesses, and residents, so investment by the city, businesses, and residents is anticipated to be significant.

I just wondered if staff could share more about this on what those investments might look like and how much, or maybe there’s a report coming that I can refer residents to. Mr. Sanford. Through the chair, the very notion of costing out the climate emergency action plan is one that has been discussed at committee and council.

It’s very much like the London plan in some respects, the ability to cost out all those items into the future, extremely difficult. We are completing some work for the technical consultant right now that will help with better scenario planning of what the year 2050 will look like from an expenditure perspective leading up to that. That information will be available in about a year’s time from now. It’ll deal primarily with operating costs.

It will also touch on high level capital expenditures as well. So this information is under development. Our review of other communities across Canada all have the same challenges, predicting what will have to be spent to adapt our communities to changes in the weather, what it’ll take for long-term investment in mitigative practices. These are areas that have a high level and certainty right now, but we believe by working in collaboration with other municipalities as we are, we’ll get clear information each year that is another key piece that will be as part of our progress report every year is continuing our best to update information as well as you have before you in the multi-year budget.

You have the beginnings of that type of work and discussion. Thank you. Any other speakers to the two items before us? Go ahead.

I vote to Councillor Hopkins first and then Councillor Van Mireberg and next. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And first of all, thank you to staff for this report.

I really do appreciate the updates that we get. I do have a quick comment. I really appreciate the table three, the London’s peer municipalities in Ontario and select municipalities in Canada and the comparison that we are doing. And we’d like to know, can we expect these comparisons to continue with future updates through you?

Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, absolutely. We find great value in comparing with other municipalities.

Our goal is to play leapfrog wherever we can, especially when another municipality puts in place something that we can easily emulate right here in London. Councillor Van Mireberg and. Thank you. I asked this the last time we had a report and it bears repeating it.

First of all, I really appreciate the report and the effort that goes into this. And frankly, Jay, I don’t envy your position like between competing forces. One of which is whether or not we are going to ban natural gas heat starting in 2030 in new homes. Because I think if that’s the case, if that’s the road we’re leaning towards, I really believe that is not fair to our kids and grandkids because natural gas is plentiful, relatively clean in terms of fossil fuels.

And it keeps the price down because it’s so available. If we’re going to do this, where we’re going to go just strictly heat pumps on electricity, they’ll be paying a lot more just to heat their homes. And frankly, with minimal payback. So I’d just like to get your thoughts on the proposed ban that’s coming our way in 2030.

Mr. Stanford. Through the chair, so much more work is still required on that particular subject that has to come forward to committee and council. Right now, that is one of many ideas that is presented in the climate emergency action plan for moving forward.

So very difficult to answer at this point in time, other than to say there’ll be a lot of information that comes forward on this. It is an item that is up for discussion and a number of other communities. We have information coming in from the provincial government as well as the federal government on how they’re greeting electricity and moving away from certain items. At the same time, there’s pressure on keeping a strong economy in Ontario.

So all that has to be brought forward and that’ll be part of the considerations that will be brought forward to committee and council. To comment any further right now, I just don’t have any further details at this time. Okay, thank you. Any other speakers on these?

I have just one question for Mr. Stanford from the chair on our work on the climate emergency action plan. As one of the fastest growing both economies and cities in the province, how does population growth factor into our necessity to reduce our emissions when we have in one hand upward pressure of the growth of a growing city and economy? Well, on the other hand, trying to get below levels many years ago, which I know we’re committed to as a council, but I just wonder how the unique pressures that London might be facing because of the concentration of growth that’s happening here in any sort of special measures or special, perhaps engagements that we need to have with other levels of government about the unique challenges that London might face based on population growth, or is that factored in in some way that allows us to mitigate that?

Thanks for the question, a very challenging one because growth actually, if not done wisely, can be a contributing factor to increased greenhouse gas. I do believe that we use affordable housing as a good example, as we put in more affordable housing, but built to a higher standard today, we’re actually going to be in a better position. So it is how we approach these and how our policies are either in the category of weak, medium, or strong policies as we move forward, how we can accommodate that growth and achieve both objectives. So I think that’ll be a key part of all the discussions and working in our enterprise-wide approach.

We’re making sure here that all service areas are taking those items into consideration as different reports come forward at a very quick pace to address our growing economy here in London, which we all know is a good thing, but must be done wisely from a climate change perspective. Thank you, I appreciate that. Any other questions before we move on? Okay, so this is moved and seconded by colleagues on council.

This is for both items 2.2 and 2.3. We’ll open that for voting. Using the vote in the motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, we have no scheduled items.

We’re on to items for direction. Item 4.1 is an item from RBC Place. Yeah, we’ll go back to 2.1 at the end of the items for direction. So get to wait a little bit for that, depending on how efficient we are.

So we go to items for direction in the order that they’re in. So item 4.1 is the RBC Place London Board by-law recommendations. So a communication from RBC Place with some recommended changes to their by-laws. It’s just a communication.

I did ask the clerks and they’ve done so to prepare the necessary direction to make those changes and incorporate them, which would be essentially we would have to forward this to a future council meeting with all of the changes incorporated into the by-law based on the request. So if colleagues are willing to do that, that motion is pre-populated. If you’re looking to engage in some question and answer on this or have any other concerns, we could go that way. But at this point it’s a communication, but we do have a motion prepared if people are happy with the changes that we can put up and with a mover and seconder and proceed that way.

That’s a mover? All moved by Councillor Ramen, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on the suggested changes to their by-law? Then we’ll open that for voting.

Bosing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, next, 4.2 is from the London Middlesex Community Housing Board. There’s two items to this Board of Director Resignation and then an extension of the term for a tenant position. Again, a communication from the board, but we did prepare a possible motion that would receive the communication, accept the resignation and extend the term as prescribed.

That’s prepared if colleagues are willing to move forward, but certainly we have some members of the Board here if you have some questions about what’s being asked on behalf of the Board too. So I’ll look to see if someone’s willing to move the stuff. The Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councillor McAllister are willing to move it. I’ll see if there’s any discussion that colleagues would like and knowing that we have a couple of Board members here who might be able to answer some questions if you have them, certainly happy to go to them.

Deputy Mayor Lewis, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And through you, I just want to take an opportunity as a member of the London Middlesex Community Housing Board to extend sincere thanks to Ms. Challenge for the time and energy that she has put in on the Director’s Board for a number of years now, including serving a period as the Chair.

And her resignation is not a lack of interest in continuing to work on this file, but simply a result of no longer being in the municipality of London or in the County of Middlesex, which is a prerequisite for serving in this position, although I’m sure she’s gonna continue to do some good work in Elgin County where she will be taking up a new residence and we congratulate her on her new home and that opportunity. So just wanted to extend that on behalf of the Board and say with respect to the Director of Tenant Position request for the term extension, obviously there’s a request here, Ms. Savoy is doing great work. With the Tenant Director positions, as colleagues know, we’ve had to fill these on an interim basis a couple of times and these have been good news stories because tenants have actually been succeeding moving on to post-secondary education, moving on to new jobs that have not allowed them the flexibility to continue to serve.

So the Board is just looking to allow Ms. Savoy the full term in the position she’s in now having come in part way through. Any questions or comments? Okay.

Seeing none, we can open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. All right, next is 4.3, which is 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget draft based budget amendments on the regular agenda. There’s one from the London Police Service on the added agenda, oh, sorry, the added agenda.

There’s also one from Kevin Gardner Market and I believe the Conservation Authority also has a based budget amendment. There’s a draft motion that’s prepared that essentially refers these. There’s also an added item of communication that we’ll just essentially receive. So I guess my question is to colleagues, we could put this all together in one motion for both all of the regular and all the added items to refer them to the multi-year budget process and receive the communications.

Certainly once that’s on the floor, we can ask questions if people want to pull those apart for some reason we could, but today we’re not approving anything related to these pieces of information. We’re simply taking the updated communications referring into the budget process for the budget committee to deal with. So is there a mover for maybe all of it, including the added stuff, Council Fair and Councilor Hopkins? Any questions or comments on any of the items before us?

Go ahead, Councilor Trossa. Thank you, through the chair, quick question. If I understand this, it’s about the wages and benefits under the new agreement. So how does that affect the other items, for example, P29 vehicles?

Is there something in the new agreement? I’ll go to Ms. Barbara. Thank you, through the chair.

So if I understood the question is, is this not affecting every single business case? ‘Cause I think you were questioning the vehicles. Yes, if this was about an agreement on a new four year working agreement, why does it include other items besides those questions? So thank you, through the chair.

So essentially every single business case that is impacted in some way with the updated costs related to the collective agreement has been reflected. So there are costs within that all of the business cases that have been revised here, that are impacted in some way through the revised collective agreement. And that does update them with the revised cost as newly updated. Any other questions on any of these items as they get referred to the budget process?

Okay, seeing none, then we can open that larger motion for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Okay, so the next item is a communication from me, which means I probably shouldn’t share this part ‘cause I can put a motion forward. I wonder, Councilor Rahman, would you like to chair or no?

Okay, you don’t want to chair. There’s lots of people involved in this one, so it makes it tricky. Councilor McAllister, do you want to chair this part? Yes, you’re willing to.

Okay, I did this to Councilor Rahman the other day, so I’m willing to take this one. (laughing) Recognizing as the chair, go ahead Mayor Morgan. Yeah, so colleagues, I included communication before you, which asks for your support for temporary increase to the compensation for both the deputy mayor and the budget chair based on two things. One, the added workload associated with the positions, which has not been compensated for quite some time, including my time serving in both of those positions.

And two, a requested review by the governance working group and whatever process they feel is aligned with their general compensation review to say whether or not they think these are the right things in the future or the right way, basically, a general referral to the review to take a look at this, but given that review might take time and given it’s my desire to properly compensate people for the work they’re doing, as well as the work that I anticipate adding to their plates, I couldn’t possibly add that additional work without coming before Council to ask if you would be supportive of a temporary increase compensation through the rest of this term for both the deputy mayor and the budget chair. Just in the letter, you can see some of the additional duties that I contemplate for the deputy mayor is chairing SPPC. I intend to bring a lot more emotions before SPPC and like other municipalities where the mayor chairs council, but not any of the committees because they’re usually pretty active in it. I’m looking to move to that model on the budget chair.

I’m looking for the budget chair to start chairing audit committee, as well as take an additional role in the process between multi-year budgets and the annual budget updates, particularly the service review process to try to help drive down some of the costs of the multi-year budget. No matter what we pass, we can certainly work each year to try to bring those numbers down in the subsequent years beyond 2024. All of those details I would bring forward at a future date, but I wanted to let you know I’m contemplating those additional duties and have identified some of them. And so I’m happy to put the motion as I drafted on the floor, but I will say this piece.

I’m certainly open to colleagues, suggestions, amendments, and comments on this. My desire here is maybe I don’t get it perfectly right at this moment, but I certainly would like to compensate people for additional work that they’re both doing now and in the future, which is why I’ve asked for both your support now, as well as your support for conducting a more thorough review of this. So I’ll put that on the floor. I’ll see if there’s a seconder and I’m happy to let Councillor McAllister share this part of the meeting.

Okay, third, seconder. Okay, Councillor Cuddy, thank you. And my speakers, as I have Deputy Mayor next, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and through you, I’m just gonna be very brief in this portion. I may have more to say depending on what colleagues’ comments are, but I just want to be clear to everyone that Councillor Palose and I, we have sought advice from the integrity commissioner and the integrity commissioner has indicated that under the specific exemptions in section four of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, we may fully participate in this discussion and vote on this matters without restriction. Okay, thank you. Are there any other speakers?

Go ahead, Councillor Trozzo. Through the Chair, let me start by saying that I want to acknowledge the incredible task that the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chief have taken on. And the comments I’m about to make are in no way reflective of any dissatisfaction with how they’ve executed their roles. I also want to say I’m in full agreement that they need more compensation.

I think they’re underpaid. Having said that, I think there are other members. Am I not doing this new? Okay, having said that, I think I can go around this table and look at other colleagues and say, “Boy, I really think you’re under compensated.” And I’m not gonna do that ‘cause I’ll miss somebody.

I can’t support this at this time. And I wanna be very clear as to why. I’m going to support part three because I think it’s important that the Governance Working Group be directed to review this issue. We might need to put a word after this, this what.

And have some further discussion about it. I cannot support part one and part two. I think this increase is something that needs discussion from our regular, regularly established procedures and processes. And I don’t like the idea, especially when the budgets on the table itself to be making ad hoc changes to this.

Now, there’s also the broader question, which is not on the table right now. And that is, if this council’s workload is at the point where we’re asking two particular individuals to take on more and more work, there are two side issues from that. Number one, why can’t that work be distributed among other councilors who decide to step up and maybe take on a little bit more work? And I think that’s exactly the type of issue that the Governance Working Group would be looking at.

And the other question is even broader than that. And it goes back to some of the historical issues that we’ve been looking at in terms of governance since 2006. And that is, if we’re at the point where we actually need a person to be a full-time, higher-paid sort of deputy mayor, even combined with the budget chairs it used to be, is that something we should be discussing on the Governance Committee? And maybe it’s time for us to say, we need to move to a second full-time position that’s elected city-wide and notwithstanding the changes that we made regarding the Board of Control in 2010, I think it’s a legitimate question to be asked.

And I’m in no way questioning the decisions that we made back then. But again, I’m not putting a position on the table here, but I think it’s something that would best be discussed in the Governance Working Group. So I’m also not really comfortable with the disparity. I know the difference between 10% and 12% doesn’t look like it’s very much in terms of the money.

But if we’re going to do this, I would want to have a fuller understanding of why there’s that difference. So for that and probably other reasons, I’m not comfortable supporting one and two. I will be supporting three, perhaps with a slight change in language. And again, this is in all great respect for the work that these two Councillors have taken on.

So thank you very much. Thank you, and I’ve got a Councillor Ferrer next. And then Deputy Mayor Lewis wants to speak again. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. I was actually looking at the mayor. So I forgot that you were the chair of my apologies. So I want to follow similar statements.

I do see that the duties and the amount of work for the Deputy Mayor of the Budget Chair is significant, very, very high. And I do recognize that you guys are putting in the work and you’re very helpful too. I am able to contact you both at any time. I know some of the hours are not even close to business hours and I appreciate the call.

So I totally recognize that. But similar to with what Councillor Troz was speaking to, specifically with the process, I would like to see the process maybe refer back to the governance working group. I understand the mayor’s motion to bring proper and fair compensation to the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chair. So I would be, I would obviously consider maybe an expedited process, but I would like to see it go to that governance working group and have that discussion there.

So those are the statements that I, that I, the similar sentiments that I have with the Councillor with Councillor Troz. So going back to the Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair, you guys are doing a phenomenal job. You guys, like I said, you’ve been very helpful to me and I know you’ve been helpful to other Councillors as well. I’m just looking at this strictly through a process lens.

So. Okay, thank you. I’ve got Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Cudi and Councillor Ramen. Thank you, Mr.

Presiding Officer. And through you, first of all, I want to pick up on what colleagues have just said. The third section of this part C is irrelevant if you don’t approve stipends today because this is already on the governance working groups deferred matters list. And it has sat there for a year untouched, it has.

It has been on the list since the governance working group was first called to order and has not been addressed at the governance working group level at this point. Now, yes, I have and I’ve made myself available to colleagues at all hours of the day and night, weekends, et cetera. The Mayor is asking me to take on additional duties. And I’m happy to do that except I’m not going to continue to do what is essentially two jobs without some recognition for that.

So, and I have seen this before. In fact, Councillor Truss, I’ll reference the Board of Control. The job of Deputy Mayor and Budget Chair actually used to be compensated at basically a six figure salary because it was the job of controllers. And so we are looking at a situation where this is before us.

The Mayor is asking you to recognize the work we’re undertaking now. And I don’t say this with any disrespect to colleagues either, but I’m not going to be able to keep taking calls on weekends. I’m not going to be able to keep working 60 hours a week. If I’m not getting recognized in some way for that.

And I don’t say that to be selfish. I want you to recognize the sacrifices that Councillor Plows and I make in terms of, and not just us, anyone in this job. There’s been in the five years that I’ve been here. There’s been three Deputy Mayor’s.

So this is about the workload of the position, not the individuals. But when individuals do say I will take on this responsibility, they do so knowing full well that they have to make some personal sacrifices along the way. For the first time in eight years, I am not involved in managing or helping coach minor hockey team, something I love to do. But the duties of the city that I was asked to take on require me to give more time and energy.

And I’m happy to make that sacrifice. But I can’t keep making sacrifice after sacrifice, after sacrifice, and just be, you know, continue to just have it expected as just part of the job. We all are compensated to be award Councillors. I would agree actually with the comments about that Councillor Trussa has started with about some of the other positions.

And in fact, that’s on the governance working groups deferred matters list to the overall council compensation. Whether or not we should be looking at stipends for committee chairs, whether or not we should be looking at repealing or reinstating the eligibility for elected officials to receive stipends from boards and commissions. And that is work that the governance working group is going to do. But this is where, and this is why the mayor has said, this is an interim measure while the governance working group makes a decision on this.

So, you know, again, I appreciate the comments. I know none of the comments are being made in a personal way. And I appreciate that. But I will say from my perspective, I’m at the point where I have to start saying no to things because there’s only so many hours in the day.

And that’s where I am today. So I’m happy to take on what the mayor tasks me with. But if I’m tasked with more, there’s going to be some more sacrifices involved. And I can’t continue to just make those sacrifices from my personal life.

Some of that will have to be things that I’m doing now that I just, as the deputy mayor, that I just won’t be able to continue to do this as the deputy mayor because I’m going to have new duties on top of that. Okay, thank you. Go to Councillor Cudi next. Thank you, Presiding Officer and through you.

If this were a corporation, which by the way it is, if it were a business, which it is, our deputy mayor, who’s a second-in-command, I might add, and our deputy chief, who is our CFO, are paid like mid-level managers, actually not even paid mid-level managers. They’re paid less than mid-level managers. And these are the people that are making the decision that are leading us under the mayor to deny this is embarrassing, truly embarrassing and disrespectful to the people who are working hard. I won’t go on because I think everybody knows where I’m going with this.

You couldn’t hire somebody to do this job. What the deputy mayor does and the budget chief does for what we pay them, now you couldn’t pay them for that. You know, on a personal note, you hit phone calls at seven o’clock at night for the deputy mayor to make sure that I’m on side with something or I understand that something has gone through council or SPPC or 10 o’clock on a Sunday morning, I get the same phone call. So I apologize if I’m getting a little personal with this.

This is important to me because if I were in business, I’d be getting that same phone call from the CEO or from a vice president or a COO. So I highly recommend to all of my colleagues that we pursue this. It’s justifiable and thank you for the opportunity. Okay, thank you.

We have Councilor Raman next. Thank you and through the presiding officer. So first I wanna ask a question. Is this a strong mayor vote?

Does this require a certain beyond just a regular vote? Is it because it’s a strong mayor piece? Can that be clarified? No, this is something I brought before council which would require a majority vote of council.

I don’t, this is in my opinion, not related to the areas of provincial priority. I know in the media, the strong mayor piece came up. The way I would assign the duties would be under strong mayor legislation, but the request here is a request that I’m bringing before council’s a member of council for your feedback input and potential, hopefully supportive and approval that would require a majority of a vote of council to pass. Thank you.

Just another question of clarification. Could you explain why this is not under section 4.1 that outlines the deputy mayor role and says see the mayor may determine solely the responsibilities of the deputy mayor versus under strong mayor powers? Yes, because the attorney of the committee piece is one that under the new legislation, although under the by-law, I can certainly determine that. The new legislation has the piece where by mayoral direction, committee chairs are appointed, given there’s two committee chair appointments associated with this, that’s that piece.

To answer your extended question, yes, there are many other duties I can assign under the existing by-law. So that’s the answer to your question. I’ll hold my debate and comments for later. Thank you and through the presenting officer.

My next question just pertains to whether or not someone can point me to more information about where I find the roles and duties associated with the budget chair. Start. - Okay, go ahead, mayor. So last year, there would be two mayoral, I always get this mixed up, directions and decisions associated with the workload of the budget chair.

One is a direction to staff working with the budget. The other is a decision related to the establishment of the budget committee which also contained the chairing of that committee as well as some direction to work with members of council in a very specific way around the budget work. So that would be where the core components of the budget chair position are currently defined. I will say having served as a budget chair in previous terms, there’s lots of things that you do and none of them really were defined before the point where I actually established that clear than it had been in the past through that direction and decision.

Thank you through the presiding officer. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that that was laid out in a more clear way because I do think that previous to that direction, there was a lack of clarity on the role which I think is really key that we have an understanding of what the roles and responsibilities are in any position that we’re looking at. I personally am supportive now that we have more information about the role of the budget chair to work through these conversations through the governance working group.

And I think that that’s where these conversations should be taking place. As Councillor Cady alluded to, we have to think and act as directors of the corporation and compensation management is a really important aspect of human resources. And when we’re looking at compensation management, we have to have clear and transparent ways of establishing why a role is compensated at the level that it’s compensated. And I think by providing the numbers and the percentages that we have here, we haven’t established the rationale associated with the role and why that role needs to be compensated at the level it should be.

And I think that’s the expectation when you do it in a corporation. And so I do think that we have a responsibility to do that in a similar way. I also listened to the interview of the deputy mayor and the budget chair on CTV. And there were some comments that I just wanted to clarify because one of the comments made by the budget chair was around the actual percentage that’s here.

And whether or not that percentage was perceived to be accurate or fair. And it almost sounded as though we were alluding to a pay equity issue. So I want to ensure that there is no pay equity concerns with this. I want to ensure that there’s no concerns around how the number was arrived at from a compensation perspective in order for us to do that in a transparent, fair and accurate way.

I believe that we have to have more conversation about this. And I believe the opportunity to do that is through our governance working group. So again, that was my perception of the conversation. If anyone else would like to correct me or discuss that, please do.

But I’m very concerned when we enter into that territory because there’s legal ramifications, there’s other concerns that are raised when we do that. And because again, we are in a corporation, we have to consider what are then the implications of us having this discussion and having these types of increases on the rest of the corporation. We have other employee groups that we have to consider. So again, I’m comfortable having these conversations and having more detail as well as personally seeing this go from governance working group to a compensation task force or something of that sort to bring back more information and rationale behind some of these decisions.

I absolutely do think that the deputy mayor and the budget chair deserve more of a pay increase. But how we do it, I think, is really important as well. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

Just over the five-minute mark, okay, thank you. Councillor Hopkins, you’re next on the list. And if anyone else, okay, Councillor Palose, I see your hand as well. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Presigning Chair. And thank you, Councillor ramen. And for the comments I’ve heard so far, it has been a reminder to me about how we do perform duties here representing a corporation. So that to me is very important and how we do it in a very transparent and accountable way.

I do have a question through you, Mr. Presigning Chair, maybe back to staff. I did hear comments about number three being irrelevant and not addressed at governance. I would like to know exactly where the review is at the moment at governance working group.

And if these two positions, the Deputy Mayor and the Budget Chief will also be reviewed. I understand it’s been in front of the governance working group for the past year, but if we can get an update as to where it is, in the reason why I think this question needs to be understood is that it is important that we do all this work for the next council that’s coming in. I know I appreciated when I ran for council understanding exactly what the stipend was. It’s even more important that when we are in council, we determine this and how it’s going to look for the next council.

So where are we with the at governance working group with this review and is number three irrelevant? To staff or maybe the clerk can provide an update in terms of where that is on the governance agenda. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

So the existing council policies regarding room and narration is on the GWG deferred matters list. There were a number of appearances on GWG agenda through May, through to July, there was a verbal update. And at that point, there was some interplay with the strong mayor legislation. The report was then submitted to GWG to provide an update as to what that legislation meant.

And since that time, there hasn’t been much activity on that, but there have been a number of other items that have been dealt with via GWG as you would know. The intention is to bring back in March or April some additional information and becoming aware of this particular ask from the mayor. Of course, it depends on what SCPC intends to do with this will dictate what the report recommendations will be in March or April. Now, one of the things that I did here today was the task force discussion.

We would need some direction as to what that is. Do we convene that? Is there a different terms of reference? Is there a different makeup?

And so we would need some sort of direction from GWG and ultimately from council to form that and begin those discussions if it is going to be external. If the discussion is going to be with GWG, then we would need to know that as well. Okay, go ahead, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that.

So I would, based on that, I think the W. Mary is correct. There’s nothing being done. And obviously this is important.

I would suggest that we get a governance working group committee meeting done as soon as possible. So number three is not irrelevant and that we can initiate the task force going forward. I might as well make some comments now. Probably running out of time.

So I might ask for an extension, but I think that is really important that we proceed with this not only for the, and I’ll start off thanking the Budget Chief and the Deputy Mayor for the work that they’ve done. We can see here on council, the work and the dedication that comes from both of you. And I wanna thank you for that. But I think it’s imperative that we start this not only for these two Councillors, but also for the next council.

And we get this in place, understanding what the remuneration is, what the composition of Councillors with extra duties looks like as soon as possible. I will not be supporting one and two. I do have concerns about the equity pay. That’s a huge issue for me.

I would like to have a better understanding the difference and why between 12.5 and 10%. But I think that can all be dealt with as we go through the review at GWG. I think there’s a number of unintended consequences that can result from this as well. And that’s my fear.

And every time when I don’t really understand the concept of what we’re doing, I fear that we could be creating almost that division on council. And as long as I’ve been on council, I’ve always felt that we’re all equal to some extent. If someone has decided to give another Councillor more money, I am okay with that. As long as it goes through that, the accountability, the transparency, we are a corporation.

That’s the way we should do it, the way it’s been done in the past. But I really would encourage us getting this dealt with at GWG as soon as possible. I think that’s it for now. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And you still had some time. So you’re okay. And I’ll go to Councillor Palosa next.

Thank you, Mr. Presenting Officer. I’ll open with a question to the clerk, Mr. Schultez.

If one and two is voted down today, does that make it an issue to bring back? Should GWG make a recommendation to this committee, which is in the same realm of range of percentages? Should they decide to compensate? Go ahead, Mr.

Schultez. Thank you through Mr. Presenting Officer. If I understand the question, it’s a question regarding decided matter of council and potential for reconsideration.

If I could just speak that clarification through the presiding officer? That’s correct. Realizing it would be decided matter of council for a year. Go ahead.

Thank you. And through the presiding officer, if it’s the identical request would come forward or rather motion would come forward, then I would say yes, but that would be a decided matter of council. So if, for example, council were to vote down a precise 12.5% to annual base counselor salary for the deputy mayor position, and that came forward again via the GWG, then I would say that yes, reconsideration would be required. However, if a different regulation or sorry, a recommendation would come forward, then I would suggest perhaps not, but ultimately those types of considerations would have to be ruled by the chair.

Point of order. Councillor Blow. Oh, going to order. Okay, go ahead, Mayor.

I believe the rules of order that the clerk are referring to are for decisions of municipal council. However, we’re sitting at committee and many times items are defeated at committee that can be brought back to committee in the future. It’s when council makes a final decision that the decided matter of council has triggered. So if something does not make it through committee, it is not a decided matter of council ‘cause it never makes the council.

I would just ask as a point of order, if you could clarify whether the clerk is referring to, should this go to council or if he’s referring to the decision at committee today. Mr. Chaltos, can you clarify that? Yes, of course.

That was the basis for my question of whether it being a decided matter of council and reconsideration. Mr. Mayor is absolutely correct. And decided matter of council is only when council decides that matter.

Committee is of course also have reconsideration rules which only require a majority. So that is another aspect to keep in mind. So if the item does not proceed to council and it’s referred somewhere else or there’s some other reason that it does not make it before council and is not decided upon then it does not become a decided matter of council. So I would agree with Mr.

Mayor. Back to council proposal unless the mayor has anything for their dad. No, that clarifies it for me. I was just, my interpretation was the council was asking about the committee decision, not a decision at council.

Thank you. It was just highlighting procedurally how we can sometimes get ourselves to places that we don’t intend. For me, I view this as two executive functions and it’s the spirit of recognition. And by no means, I don’t think this council would ever pass what would be truly a fair compensation for the work of these two positions or as already mentioned, like the positions of councilors and the extra jobs we take on.

I do believe that is the full pay review that will be happening and in part of the conversation of full time council and our rules and equal compensation. I would say that based on information that Deputy Mayor Lewis gathered and how we fulfill our all positions that we are putting equal number of hours. And I do believe that the mayor’s recommendation is based on how he views the two roles and not who’s in them. So for me, it wasn’t a gender pay equity issue.

It was me advocating, I’ve never done Deputy Mayor the position, but for me, realizing the work of the budget chair and that everyone who fills any meeting as chair, we do it slightly different based on each other and the work that I do in outreach to different organizations and current institutes, organizations, groups, the increased awareness, especially in a multi-year budget and the impacts that we have better quality submissions and more info back to council. And we have less time spent and better decision making. So for me, I’m also partial ‘cause I am the budget chair and haven’t done the other position. I did see the two positions deserving of equal compensation, but as the mayor outlined, he’s the only one in this room who’s actually done both jobs.

I do support governance working group reviewing this going forward, realizing we’ve already waited for governance working group to have a recommendation come out with this and other objects, items on their docket, which hasn’t. By all means, like I don’t take any of those conversation personally as we can’t, in this position, it really is looking at the jobs and how they’ve evolved over multiple terms of council, but we used to do what we do now in finding best practices going forward. I would just note from the presiding officer to pull this apart as council has wished, you already heard for the governance portion to be pulled out. Also realizing as we’re on the eve of a multi-year budget process, I don’t believe the next government working group is for a couple months as they’ve taken some time off to focus everyone’s time on the budget process.

So just highlighting that in the procedural piece for you as you make your decisions going forward, happy to take any questions, but I really do see this as the positions and their value to council versus who’s actually filling that position at this time. Okay, thank you. I also would like to speak, so I’m going to hand the chair over so I can speak to Councilor Cuddy for a moment. Thank you and recognizing the presiding officer and also Councilor McAllister.

Okay, thank you. It’s been awkward when we’re all hanging back and forth. So my question through the presiding officer, I would just like some more background information in terms of how the percentage was reached in terms of what we deemed fair compensation for the role. I don’t know if the mayor wants to speak on that or if you had consultations with staff, but I think that would be beneficial for the public to know how we arrived at those numbers.

Recognizing the mayor. Thank you, I’m happy to provide some context, but as Councilor Palosa said, it’s really my perception and experience with the positions I think anybody in the position is going to view it differently. So when I became budget chair, the first time, I realized the workload was so great that I actually ended up having to take a reduced responsibility in my other role at the University of Western Ontario. By the time I became deputy mayor in a different position, the workload was great enough that shortly after becoming deputy mayor, I actually took a full leave of absence from that position to fulfill the duties.

And so, from my own perception of them, they were different workloads, but the council is right, that is my perception, which is why I brought this before council. And if council feels that they are equal positions, it’s a very easy way to do that. You amend the motion to make the both the numbers the same. That’s exactly why I brought it before council.

This is my suggestion and starting point for the discussion. Council wants to go a different way. It’s why it’s not a strong wear decision. It’s a request of council.

They can look at it, they can do what they want with it. Some people want to refer it, but the percentages are based on my own experience in the positions, as well as my assessment of the potential additional duties that I was thinking about assigning to them. But I recognize that I would support the will of council if they were looking to go a slightly different way on these pieces. And it was one other piece to your question.

I’m not sure if I caught it. Oh, you said fair, do I feel this is fair compensation? No, I don’t. I feel this is a short-term recognition of additional workload that is probably not accurate compensation of what needs to be done in the long-term.

So I just want to be clear on that. That’s why I asked for a temporary recognition of the additional work. I’m not suggesting that in any way that this is the exact right number that council should land on in the long-term, hence the part three of my motion to ask for a much more proper review. And I’ll put myself in the speakers list ‘cause anything I add now is probably more debate than answering your question.

Returning the chair to the presiding officer noting more question, okay. Excuse me. Thank you. Yeah, do you have a few more questions?

Thank you. And through the presiding officer, in terms of where the pay would be drawn from, is this from our existing budget, or is this a new ask? I can start with that, but I would have to go to the clerk. In my consultation with the clerk about the fact that this is about $14,000 annually, I asked if I needed to bring a source of financing for that, the clerk indicated that given the size and given the temporary nature of it, that there was a willingness just to absorb that within the existing budget for the period of time that’s contemplated.

Should council make a permanent decision on compensation? I would say that that would need to be all the properly allocated in budget lines, but given the temporary nature and the size, that was the clerk indicated to me, but I certainly don’t speak on behalf. The clerk who manages the budget that is falls under, so I would leave any further comment for that, which is being transparent about a discussion I had about the source of financing. Okay, thank you for all those clarifications.

Recognizing in terms of my opinion, I do think that these are two of our more important executive roles, and recognizing that this would still go to governance, I would like to put the amendment on the floor that both of them be put at 12 and a half percent. Thank you, do we have a seconder for that motion? I’ll second the motion. Good news is you get to chair the whole time now, because I have a motion on the floor, and Councilor McAllister has an amendment, so you’re now the chair guiding us through the entire amendment process, Councilor Cuddy.

Thank you, Mayor. (laughing) Yeah, so I’ll second that. We have a, so I’m gonna move in the motion. We have a seconder, I will now return the chair.

No. Okay, I’ll keep this. Okay, so now that we have the motion on the floor, do we wait for the clerk to? There would be debate now on the motion, so you’d look for, to build the speakers list, and I remind you that you also want a time, ‘cause people get five minutes on the amendment.

Thank you, we’ll start a speakers list. Point of order or offer. I’m willing to time for Councilor Cuddy as he’s chairing this intricate conversation. I got you, I’ll tell you when they’re done.

Thank you, starting the speakers list. I, Councillor van Mereverger, did I see your hand up? Thank you, exciting officer, thank you very much. I wanna make the point that this is not, in my view, an unusual request, because London’s Councils have had a deep history in different pays for different components of Council.

So the one that comes to mind is obviously the Board of Control when it used to be part of Council, and for those who aren’t really familiar with it, the candidates would run for four positions citywide. Those positions were actually citywide. They paid more than the Ward Councilors, but in exchange there was more focus on the budget, and of course the controller who had the most votes became the Deputy Mayor. So we do have quite a precedence of having different tiers in terms of pay dependent on responsibility.

Now, regarding this current Deputy Mayor, I think he already has a pretty good gig going. His primary residence is his Councillor’s office, and he’s saving thousands, at least thousands, in rent and/or mortgage. And so, I have to say, that’s still a pretty good gig. Now you want a little bit more, okay, we can consider it, but I do draw the line at the new shower you want in your office, that is just a bit much.

But I think in all seriousness, this is a reasonable proposal, and I will support it. Any further questions? Seeing none, we will, do we have the clerk read this out? Or, yeah, thank you.

Motion to amend Part B to read as follows. B, a pay increase of 12.5% to the annual base Councilor salary for the position of budget chair effective January 2024, and. Thank you, now we’ll vote on this. Closing the vote, motion carries, 11 to three.

Thank you, I’ll now return the chair to the presiding officer. Recognizing I have the chair on the original motion. As amended. Deputy Mayor Lewis, a point of clarification, you need a new mover and a seconder for the as amended motion now.

Okay, can I get a- I’m still willing to move. Okay, so thank you, Mayor, for moving. Seconder, Councillor Cudi, thank you. Okay, had a lot of hands go up.

We’ve got back to the speaker’s list. I believe I had the Deputy Mayor, Councillor Stevenson, and Councillor Per bevel. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer, and just to provide a very brief reply, Councillor Van Mirberg, and you would need to trade me offices if I was going to be able to fit a shower in there because yours is much, much more spacious.

Mine’s running out over to Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you. I just wanted to say I appreciate the dialogue on this. I also appreciate the Mayor’s desire to provide compensation for the additional duties that he’s asking.

I certainly value and appreciate both roles, and it is absolutely not a question of whether to give compensation. It’s for me, I’ll admit, even in this moment, I’m on the fence because it’s warranted, and I also believe that the process needs to be there. It needs to be part of a bigger discussion. So I just wanted to put the thoughts out there that for me, if I do decide to vote no, it’s not a no, it’s just a not yet.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Pera, we’ll go ahead. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think we’ll see, if it wasn’t the first, it certainly was the second meeting of the governance working group that we got together, and we talked about the remuneration and stipend for our positions, for potential chair positions, Deputy Mayor, et cetera. I really thought strategically that made sense, and we were on the right path.

The only thing is, and again, it would be the first, and the last thing that certainly our speed and efficiency could have been faster, if you didn’t have to be in this situation. I do like to make decisions that are strategically viable, that make sense, and I do think that we should leave it. At the governance working group, I don’t think there will be any discussions in terms of 12 and a half, 10, and if it makes sense to the other potential proposals, that will make sense, and that’s the reason why, by the way, I didn’t, I voted no for the 12 and a half, and I will not be supporting it, because I think that if we are gonna move this now, the level of urgency is gonna decrease, and I do think this needs to be addressed. Again, nothing against these two, personally, these individuals, I know they work very, very hard, but again, we need to, this is an urgent matter, this will just delay it, let’s bring it back to the governance working group, decline this, vote this down, let’s get back on track, this just like with our new implementation plan, this dates targets, let’s get this done strategically, and let’s get it done for once, and so we don’t have to make any changes in a few months down the road, thank you.

Okay, thank you, do I have any other speakers? Mayor Morgan, go ahead. Yes, let me first start by saying, I really appreciate all of the comments that my colleagues have made, and in an odd way, this is one of the situations where I pretty much agree with almost everything everybody has said. I do have my own slight difference of opinion, and perhaps it’s because I tend to be in a position to task the individuals with the duties and rely on them, and having held the positions.

You know, my challenge with the position where it is now is not that I don’t fully agree with a very thorough review and getting this right for whatever timeframe makes sense. My challenge is that, you know, every day that passes is for everybody who recognized that there is an additional workload here, we let another day pass where we don’t actually compensate in some way, even if it isn’t to the level, it should be a recognition of that additional workload. And for me, in the position that I’m in, where I rely on and assign a number of those duties, in some case under bylaw, in other cases with other tools that I have, I felt compelled to bring this before you to ensure that I’m doing all that I can to support people who are doing an incredible amount of work for me on behalf of all of council and on behalf of Londoners. So again, I appreciate the dialogue.

I don’t think we’re out of alignment here in our general desire to properly compensate individuals who are doing work, whether it be this or others. For me, the urgency piece is just having done the positions. I see the strain in the workload that goes into it and as someone who tasks that, I felt compelled to bring a temporary measure to recognize that work before council. I hope you support it and have it both ways and recognize this in the short term, but also conduct the thorough review that basically addresses all of the comments that colleagues have here today, as well as others.

So I’ll finish by saying, but I do appreciate the perspectives and dialogue and I appreciate how respectful people have been in the debate. Given we’re talking about positions, there are people in them and that’s always a very sensitive thing. I think you have carried this debate with great sensitivity and care for balancing those two things properly and effectively. Okay, Councilor Hopkins, next, go ahead.

Yeah, thank you. This is on the main motion with the amendment. I will continue not to support one and two, not yet. I do appreciate the work that has gone that the two colleagues have done and I appreciate your worship, your intent here.

I think it’s very admirable of you to want to support the work that is valuable to you and I think there is a process for that, but I do appreciate your desire to make that happen. I’m also very, very excited to learn a little bit more about the key initiatives as we enter our second year and I would encourage you to maybe task some of us as well. Don’t be afraid to reach out. I want to make a comment to the Board of Control.

My colleague here to the left of me was around. I was around with Board of Control. Very familiar with that. That was an elected position as well.

I find this conversation that we’re having, we’ve come into this job with a certain expectation. I think the community expects us as well. There’s certain expectations. I think if we’re going to change things, we should go out to the public for those conversations to deal with the changes that we’re going to make because as you start to create these inner circles, there is an outer circle.

I know we do it in other levels of government, like provincial government. We have a cabinet and ministers. I don’t want to see us as a city. I know we’re a big city.

We’re a growing city. We have many, many challenges, but I know how do we all come together? That’s why I prefer going to the governance working group. I am so disappointed that we canceled our meeting this month.

I just want to go on record. I did not realize. I know we’re going through a budget process. We’re kind of caught now because we now have many budget meetings that we have to deal with through the next number of weeks.

And of course, the next meeting is in March, but I think this should be something that we get going right away. Maybe a quick question with the March timetable when we meet, making sure we get through this review process, get the working group established, and then have that recommendation come back to us for a final decision. Is there enough time? Just want to make sure we’ve got those timelines in place to deal with the review of remuneration.

Maybe this is a question to Mr. Scholstice. Okay, go ahead, Mr. Scholstice.

Thank you, Mr. Presoning Officer. Just for clarity, the on the deferred matters list, it’s in the intention is to consider remuneration for the start of the, quote, 2026 municipal council turn. If there’s some intention to have a task force, an independent task force review consult with the public and bring back something for the current term, we would need to consider the timelines for that and receive some direction to do that.

If the meeting in March, there is some direction regarding a draft terms of reference or rather a terms of reference. We can certainly get that work initiated, but as far as getting things in place for this term, we would need to first of all get that direction then consider the timelines in that context. Mr. Scholstice, so understand there is time then if we get going in March.

Assuming that I can speak through Mr. Presoning Officer, yes, we can certainly initiate that process if there’s a direction that comes through the GWG and ultimately through council, we can begin that conversation certainly. If it goes through multiple iterations of a GWG, if there’s no direction that comes forward, as far as an agreed term of the reference and of course that will delay the start of any sort of independent task force. But if there is consensus that’s agreed upon by council and we have that council direction, certainly we can begin that work.

The one key point and I would like to emphasize that the current deferred item is for the start of the 2026 municipal council terms. So if that is going to change, then that certainly would need to be indicated. And if I may, Mr. Presoning Chair, to make sure I remind myself where I am here to you to Mr.

Scholstice then that can number, the part three of this motion would suffice with moving that forward. Or do we have to change or do we have to defeat number three and then come up with a new motion? Just need some clarity here. Through Mr.

Presoning Officer, the third item that’s being discussed put forward by the mayor indicates a allow for implementation in 2026 to 2030 term of council. So we can initiate the work in relation to the deferred matter on GWG and that’s in relation to the independent task force or whatever model GWG wants to recommend. And I don’t think that that’s contrary at all to what the mayor is suggesting in the motion. What would be directing GWG to review, review that as part of the larger review of remuneration.

But I don’t think that it’s contrary in any way. The key part is really the timing of it, whether that is intended again to be implementation in 2026 or something sooner. Thank you. Okay, I have Mayor Morgan and then Councillor Frank.

Yes, and the clerk responded to the piece that I was going to respond to. I just wanted to defend a little bit the work, even though I don’t sit on it, the work of the government’s working group. The reason why they haven’t got to this yet is because it’s for 2026 implementation and they’ve got a lot on their plate and they’re trying to work their way through the number of items. And so the prioritization works that way.

So the colleagues just have to be aware, everything that is deferred matters at governance working group is for implementation the 2026 timeframe. That’s why some of these things haven’t been got to yet. And although my third direction is not contrary to anything there, it also refers to the 2026 or 2030 timeframe because that was the piece that I suggested be the let’s get it right, let’s do the proper review. The pieces that come before that are less recognized in the in-term, the work that’s being done in some way, even if it’s not exactly where we land ultimately.

So I just wanted to put a little defense for the work of the governance working group because I know they’ve got a lot on their agenda. They’re working through it in a pace and in an order that makes sense to try to get stuff back to council for approval given the timeframe so that the items that we have deferred as council to governance working group in the way that we would defer them, which is a 2026 implementation currently. Thank you, go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you.

I’ve also appreciated listening to everyone’s perspective and as well, the work of the deputy mayor and the budget chair. We all agree that they do a lot of work and I am wondering, is there the ability, I guess through the chair to the clerks or presiding officer to the clerks? Can we refer this whole item? ‘Cause I do see some discrepancy on timelines and I’m wondering if we refer the whole item including A and B and if we are able to make things retroactive, if this goes to March, we have a discussion, we say spot on, this is excellent, then can we just make it retroactive to January and then at that point one, we’ll have had a thorough discussion, we’ll be able to understand the rationale and percentages as well perhaps at that point, we could also do a bit of the larger review.

I know there’s been some discussions about ABC compensation and as well as chairs and vice chairs so I am wondering perhaps as a big compensation overview instead of a piecemeal approach, that might be more effective and people could enjoy the deliberations at Governance Working Group, which is a bit more free flowing. So through the presiding officer, I’m just wondering if we are able to refer the entire motion, including A and B for consideration, discussion at Governance Working Group, if you would mind asking the clerks. Okay, Mr. Shultis, response?

Through Mr. presiding officer, the very simple answer is yes, procedurally the all three could be referred. In regards to the retroactivity, I would defer to finance, perhaps Ms. Berbon or someone to comment on that and on the direction piece, so ultimately that would need to go back up for direction via counsel from Governance Working Group through SBPC.

I hope that answers the question. Ms. Berbon, did you want to respond? Thank you through the chair.

So with respect to the retroactivity, even if it was approved today, it would still be retroactive ‘cause we’ve already, we’re in the middle of January. So that is just subject to whatever the direction is of whether final counsel approval, we could certainly accommodate whatever the direction of counsel is. Go ahead, Councillor Frank. Thank you, appreciate both those answers.

I’d like to refer this whole item to Governance Working Group. I do think again, the deputy mayor and budget chair deserve more effective compensation, but I do think if it’s retroactive, I’d be happy to have that discussion at Governance Working Group. And I think I’ve heard from a number of my colleagues, there is some desire for further deliberation on this. Okay, so that we have a referral on the floor, which takes precedence.

Is there a seconder? Okay, Councillor Rhum. Any discussion on the referral? Okay, Deputy Mayor Loose and Councillor Ferrer.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. And through you, I’m gonna be blunt. I’ve seen this song and dance before.

I’m not supporting this referral. What this referral will do is ensure that no changes are implemented. Any time this year, everything will be linked together. There will be no consensus on terms of reference for each of these individual items.

We will spend the next six months at Governance Working Group trying to find a terms of reference on everything as a package, and then we will spend another year with a task force reviewing these things. I’ve seen the song repeated in 2014, in 2018, and now here we are again in 2024. So if that’s the case, then the result will be no change. And what we will do is we will then get to a point where we will end up saying, as we have seen previous councils do, we’ll put it to the next term of council and let them keep working on it.

So I won’t be supporting the referral. I actually think that these items, whether we’re talking about as Councillor Palauza has described them, and I think accurately. So more executive positions with considerable extra workload, committee chairs are sort of at that next layer. The boards and agency commission work is another layer down from that, but I think the way to deal with them is one at a time.

And I said this about the renovations by a lot too, or the renovations motion. How do you eat an elephant? It’s one bite at a time. You deal with these things piece by piece by piece, because that’s how you’re going to be able to find consensus, because people may have consensus on one section and not consensus on another.

And a different group of people may have consensus on the third piece of this and not some others involved. So this is what happens when we, as I’ve said, I’ve seen before, if we lump this all together, what we are doing is endorsing the status quo. So I won’t be supporting the referral. Okay, thank you.

Councillor Ferri, you’re next on the referral. Thank you, Presiding Chair. I did have some questions, I guess, following up on Councillor Frank’s referral. I just wanted to know, is there a possibility?

I guess going to the clerk, if we can do this, I think we can, but I just wanted to confirmation, could we put this, if it were to go to the referral and put it at the first agenda for the next governance working group? Like it would be an item that we would be discussing at that governance working group just to expedite things. Is that a possibility? Mr.

Schultis. Thank you, through Mr. Presiding Officer. Certainly, we could put some information on the next governance working group.

And if the chair wanted to deal with that matter, or a committee wanted to deal with that matter first, certainly that’s something that could be done. Okay, follow up, Councillor Ferri? Thank you, no follow up on that. I just wanted to ask the question, because like I do understand, you know, I do agree that there is some under compensation when it comes to the deputy mayor and the budget chair.

It’s just a matter of the process for me. So if it’s possible, just because from the comments that I hear from the deputy mayor, thinking if we had this conversation the way it’s going, now it would go out next term. Is there any way we could expedite that? So that would be something that I would maybe be looking for for the referral to add that expedition into the language, just to loop things along.

Okay, thank you. We are Councillor Stevenson, you’re next. Thank you. I just wanted to say that, ‘cause I’d been undecided, but I’m not gonna support the referral.

I am gonna support the temporary increase. And it gets to be in both end. We can honor our colleagues who are taking on these extra duties and have the discussions at governance working groups. So that’s my choice.

Okay, thank you. Any other speakers on the referral pick? Mayor Morgan, go ahead. Yes, I’ll be voting against the referral for two reasons.

One is the referral is really to the Councillor to suggest that the referral, there is no additional piece of information that staff is bringing forward for March that would allow the committee to make any different decision than they would today on temporary. And if you actually wanna take the time to dig into this and get it right, it’s gonna take more than one meeting of governance working groups. So I actually see the referral is counter to what my personal intent is here to say, temporarily recognize the work that’s being done with a temporary compensation level and dig into it. If you wanna dig into it and you wanna do it on a quicker timeframe, you can do that.

But I think if you don’t wanna do the temporary recognition, you can just vote that down today and still move forward with everything that’s being talked about the referral isn’t going to add anything new between now and March. That is different than the position we are today and the decisions we’ve made. So I’ll be supporting my original intent here. Should the referral be defeated?

‘Cause I think you can recognize in the short term with a level of recognition, again, not perhaps the proper level of recognition, but you can recognize something now and still do all the work that everybody desires to do at governance working group on a timeframe that can be changed or determined with the advice of that group in the will of council. Okay, thank you, Councilor Ron, go ahead. Thank you and through you. I will be supporting the referral.

It’s the reason I second did it. Part of the reason I’m supporting the referral is because I do think we need to look at this in more detail, as I’ve said. Even I have concerns about the wording. Although the mayor in his letter is stating that it’s a temporary measure while we’re figuring out in the future for 2026 and 2030.

Right now, just as a pay increase of, and so I think that that’s also concerning because it’s almost setting forth where we’re going without the conversation for 2026 to 2030. And whether you agree with the number or not, it anchors in on a number. So when we do the compensation analysis at governance working committee for 2026 to 2030, we’ve now anchored on a number. So anyone that knows negotiation knows that you don’t want to anchor on a number too early because then when your compensation management task force or the governance working committee or whoever is looking at what to do on compensation management, they will use that anchor to then build the number.

So I do worry when we get into these discussions and we’re having them without having more context to the discussion. I really do think this is an opportunity for us to have a full some discussion about roles and responsibilities. I do appreciate the mayors looking at how to better task both these counselors, but also other members of council with other responsibilities because I do think that there is more discussion that needs to happen around the roles and responsibilities of the counselor and how we operate in those roles. So I will not be supporting this and we’ll support the referral.

Hey, thank you. Are there any other speakers on the referral? Okay, going once, going twice. All right, we will open the referral for voting.

Closing the vote in the motion fails, six to eight. 30, call me off guard there for a second. Okay, so we’re back on the original motion as amended. Are there any other speakers?

There was a request to divide it before you go to the vote. Yes, there is a request to vote on each one separately. But are there any other speakers on this item? Okay, seeing none, we will open them for voting individually.

Would you like A and B together or all three separately? That was a request. So I’m looking to council for a direction. Do we want them individually or would you like them bundled?

Okay, we’ll put A and B together and then fiddle on separately. Oh, no, Councilor Wong, do you want to vote separately? Thank you, again, because they’re two different roles, I would see them as being two separate votes. Thank you.

So we’ll do three votes. Closing the vote in the motion carries, nine to five. Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Pribble. Closing the vote, motion carries, nine to five.

Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to zero. Yeah, sorry, a bit of a delay there. We’re done with that motion. So I will return the chair to the mayor.

Thank you, and great job. I appreciate you navigating us through that section. So going back to the agenda, colleagues will call it, started the meeting. We pulled an item of consent, item 2.1, which is the investing in Canada infrastructure program, public transit stream, funding reallocation.

Now that we’re at that point in the items of direction, where we can deal with those pulled items. So I’ll look for anybody who wants to put that recommendation on the floor. I know Councilor Van Mierberg had it pulled for some discussion, willing to put it on the floor. Councilor Ferra, seconded by Councilor McAllister.

All right, Councilor Van Mierberg again, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I’d like to ask staff, as most of us know, in this room, Warren Cliff and Oxford is a horrendous intersection, and it’s more than just congested. It needs to be streamlined and improved like yesterday.

I’d like to know, with this posed motion, will this be pushed back in some way, further down the list of priorities, if I could get a response from perhaps Mr. McRae? Go ahead, Mr. McRae.

Thank you, through the chair. Yes, certainly there’s a recognition that Oxford and Warren Cliff is very congested, and the mobility master plan has certainly the intent and a focus on making improvements across the city and in this area. The, you know, likely the outcomes of the mobility master plan will be broader than just the intersection. And so the intent of this recommendation is to make the best use of the current federal and provincial funds by reallocating to a project that is underway, and, you know, because we have a window opportunity to reallocate funds that’s not ordinarily provided.

And at the same time, the mobility master plan will continue to progress. And the intent is that we have a more planful approach. Anything we do at this intersection will be both costly, require extensive property acquisition, and construction will be disruptive. So we wanna make sure that what is implemented, that the design will fit in with any sort of broader improvements to both the Oxford Street, Warren Cliff, Western Road corridors.

And so it’s all about improved integration and providing a better solution in the long term. So just so I’m clear, so I guess what I’m hearing is that it will be delayed. And if so, by how long? Few years, few months.

Mr. McCray. Through the chair, the timing of works there would be, you know, they’re undetermined. They’re a function of what the scope of the improvements would be.

And so that’s for both the intersection, if it becomes a broader project, and also the fundings. Where the financial part of the report retains the municipal funding to keep a project at the intersection. But at the same time, we’re also keeping an eye on external funding opportunities. And we know that the federal government is talking about the next potential of external infrastructure funding and program that could also help fund the improvements.

Can just don’t, okay, get it clarified. So the money’s gonna be pulled from this project, which we put on our list as because it was very important. Where is it exactly going, this money, and the state of Warren Cliff and Oxford? Go ahead.

I see you guys looking at each other. I’ll let whoever wants to take it go ahead. The project has a component of funding from the investing in Canada infrastructure program. So it’s federal and provincial money.

The program administrators have provided us the opportunity and all program recipients to reallocate funding. So that is approximately six and a half million dollars of external funding that would be reallocated to the Wellington Gateway project and to reduce the business case that is in the current MYB. The remainder of the funding in the project approximately 12 million dollars will remain in the budget and for the implementation of the project when the scope is better known. Thank you, Mayor.

Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, Your Worship, through you. I agree, the intersection does need work, but I’m also trying to be as wise as I can to approach this, which is why I do like the recommendation coming in. So I guess my first question would go to Mr.

McCray. With respect to the mobility master plan and the work that will be coming eventually to that intersection, if we were to approve, if we were to not approve this item on the agenda right now and that funding were to stay there, the infrastructure or the investing in Canada infrastructure program funding and we were to do that. Is there a possibility once the mobility master plan has some type of implementation that we may be doing work that we already, in areas that we have already done work before and we might be ripping up some areas that we put some construction work down and redoing it with the mobility master plan, is that a possibility? Go ahead, Mr.

McCray. Through the chair, yes, that that possibility exists and that is the basis of the recommendation that we’re trying to be cost efficient and avoid the potential for any inefficiencies and removal of recently constructed works. Thank you for that. And that’s kind of one of the basis that I’m approaching this as even though I do recognize that the intersection needs work.

I am also very aware of, and I’m sure you all aware here as well, of comments where the city did some work and then they tore it up again. And you always wonder where that comes from and I feel like this might be a situation where we could steer clear of that and actually do the work and actually have it coordinated in a way where we don’t have to be tearing up work and redoing it again. On top of that, this also will relieve some of our budget deliberation pressures. It does reduce the property tax levy with the business case itself.

So I do see those two aspects of it and I do see that we’re gonna continue to keep that $12 million of the municipal contribution or the municipal contributions within the funds that will go to that intersection as well. So this is why I would be willing to support something like this because we do have the mobility master plan. It is going to review that area. There is gonna be some work.

And just for the coordination aspect and then on top of that, the icing on the cake to relieve the tax levy pressure on that business case when it comes to budget deliberations, I do feel like this is a good move on the city’s side. So this is why I’d be supporting this item. Councilor Trovesau. Thank you very much and through the chair.

I’m really split on this because I don’t wanna do anything that would possibly impede the Wellington Gateway project and I wanna do whatever I can to alleviate some of the tax pressures that we’re looking on that. Having said that, and this is one of those situations where you’ve gotta look at the citywide greater good and where you’ve gotta look at some very specific things in your part of the city. That intersection doesn’t just have a few problems. That intersection is totally dysfunctional and it disrupts people every day.

And it’s not just people in ward six who are being disrupted. It’s a major gateway to the university, to the hospital and points and points north. And having this, having this the way it is, it’s a danger to public safety. It’s not just a problem for a few cyclists.

It’s a problem for the entire cycling community and it’s a problem for the pedestrian community. And it creates a danger for people who are taking transit. Not only is this intersection totally dysfunctional at this point, you could see it. You could see it.

You don’t have to be a traffic engineer. You could see it every day when you go to this sort of really congested intersection. And it’s not just the intersection. It’s also the approaches.

It’s also up and down one cliff for a few blocks. Actually, it’s also up and down one cliff for a lot of blocks. And it’s also up and down Oxford. There is a real problem on Oxford.

And yes, I know a lot of that was being caused by the temporary work that was being done. But you can see that Oxford is not acceptable the way it’s configured. And I would say all the way from Wonderland, I may be overstating this, but all the way from Wonderland to Richmond, Oxford is a very serious, defective, dangerous strode that needs to be fixed. So I’m really torn here.

Now, I’m not going to oppose this, okay? ‘Cause I want the Wellington Gateway project to be done. I’m really, really sad that we don’t have this going on on the west and north parts too. However, I don’t want the Wellington Gateway project impeded, it’s too important.

So my question, my direct question is, are there some other mitigation measures that we could employ in the short to medium time period? Now, now to mitigate some of the problems that we’re seeing, not just at the Oxford one cliff intersection, but throughout that corridor. And I’ll ask through the chair if Steph can answer that. ‘Cause I would certainly feel a lot better if you could come back with a few things we could do now.

Yeah, Mr. McRae. Yeah, certainly the counselor identifies many of the challenges that the Mobility Master Plan is grappling with. And it’s, so it’s gonna be a multimodal approach and it’s going to look at the corridors identified.

In the short term, we certainly do look for low cost efficient opportunities wherever possible. One of those is the implementation of our Intelligent Traffic Signals project, which we continue to implement and it creates efficiencies within the networks and particularly at congested intersections like Oxford and Warren cliff. We also look for smaller scale infrastructure opportunities. That is a challenge in this area because the right-of-ways are quite narrow and the building, the build form is very close.

But certainly we’ll continue to have an eye to that at this location and across the city. Thank you, that’s through the chair. And I will ask for an extension if I’m, I think I’m almost done. Okay, that helps a little.

But I’m wondering when it’d be possible to get a timely report back to the Civic Works Committee on what some of these other mitigation measures could be? Mr. McCray. Yeah, we can certainly take that away.

And advise the Civic Works Committee on how the network is being managed and the efficiencies improved wherever possible. Through the chair, would that require an amendment to this motion? So let me jump in on that. If staff say they’re going to bring forward something to a future committee, then we’re going to trust them to do that.

If we feel like we need to provide a direction, we can. But I think Mr. McCray just said he, I don’t know if he said you could or you would. So maybe I’ll, maybe I’ll just, before I put words in your mouth, I’ll go to you.

Would you like us to provide a direction? Are you planning on bringing forward some sort of update on the mitigation efforts given what would be a council decision once this is approved? A report was not planned, but we can certainly put it into the work program and happy to do that with or without a council resolution. So you don’t need a council resolution, you’ll put it in the work plan.

Correct. There’s your answer. Thank you, thank you for that. And my next question, and I hope my final question is, and I hope, I’m not trying to kick the can someplace else.

I’m not trying to kick the can into someone else’s ward. But here I go, are there other possible projects that are not as immediate that could be looked at for sources of funding, even if they’re not one of the 10 in this program? And I’ll just give you one example. You know what’s coming?

Yeah, I was thinking particularly about the bridge, it’s gonna be going across Richmond further north. I forget off the top of my head how much that is, but I don’t think there’s anything immediate about that. Could that be a possible source of some of the funding? Mr.

McRag, go ahead. Thank you, through the chair. The sources of funding are an important consideration. The bridge that is planned across Richmond Street north, near the North City limits, is a Parks Pathway Bridge.

And it’s, I don’t know the details of the funding arrangement, it likely has some development charges funding. So it’s governed somewhat through the development charges by-law, but I also understand that the bulk of the funding, the plan with our Parks folks to fund that program, that project, is to apply to future external, federal infrastructure programs, whatever they may be to fund that project. So that it takes the bulk of the finances of the municipal levy and the hunches, that kind of a project has appeal to these kind of funding projects, these kind of projects like that. So that is sort of the long-term nature in the work.

The work underway on that project is planning work so that it is ready to go when opportunities and when the network needs it. Fair enough, and I will wrap up very quickly. We’re looking at a lot of development pressures along the Oxford, particularly along the Oxford corridor. And I think before we proceed with any further large-scale development along the Oxford corridor, either through changing a project or through holding provisions, we need to look at the capacity of Oxford, because it’s really a problem right now.

And I’ve met with your office, I’ve met with planners about this, and I just want to alert Council that I’ll be having a lot to say about this in the future about some of the development projects. I really appreciate you undertaking to look at this and come back to the committee that I sit on. And I’m going to support this motion, but I just want everybody to understand what my grave concerns are about the safety at this intersection and along that corridor. And thank you for indulging me.

No problem, I’ll give you an extra 1.75 seconds. You’re welcome. I put myself on the speaker’s list next, so I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, I take the chair and I recognize Mayor Morgan.

So, and just so you know, Councilor Hopkins is after me and then Councilor Stevenson. So let me say this, colleagues on this. So I’m supportive of the staff recommendation, and I think it is very easy for us to start to get into the type of thinking that Councilor Tro sau just said, where else could we get money from to solve some of our challenges with funding infrastructure in the city? And we have to be very careful about how we approach this because this is not a problem that’s going away anytime soon.

Even this project I anticipate is much more expensive, much more expensive than we contemplated or were funded for. And as you see from the other components of our budget, including the one referenced here, but other things that have come before us on costs of the Adelaide underpass, we entered into funding arrangements with other levels of government, with the expectation of what the general cost would be. But through the series of all of this cost escalation that has happened within almost every aspect of life, including, and especially along the construction of major projects, our contemplated share of these projects has gone way up. Like to the point where we have to start making tough decisions about which ones to proceed with, how we’re gonna fund them, how we might shuffle some things around.

And this is a conversation that isn’t gonna go away anytime soon. I do think that there’s a really critical advocacy component of this about how we build infrastructure together in this very high cost environment with our provincial and federal partners. And I also think we have to be very conscious of our fiscal capacity at the municipal level to be able to absorb costs. And yes, in the agreements, it does say the municipality are supposed to absorb the costs.

We’ve committed to that. But I don’t think anybody contemplated costs of this scale would have to be absorbed across this many infrastructure projects, particularly in this particular funding program. So there are really critical decisions we have to make in the short term, but I think there’s also a really critical advocacy piece. So when I said I was gonna be a lot more active at SBPC, you can anticipate that this is one of the things that I wanna bring forward to colleagues for discussion and then engage in some external advocacy and discussions on it’s the type of things that I talk to other mayors about, about how are we going to move forward given the cost pressures municipalities face?

And yes, it rolls into that general how our municipalities funded, but it also rolls into the partnerships ‘cause we gotta build this capacity for these networks together, given that the incredible pressure we have as a fast growing city and the development pressures that Council Trossa mentioned. So I’m gonna support this. I think it does two things for us in the short term. It allows us to think more thoughtfully about this project, bring and submit a give measures.

It allows us to solve a little bit of the challenge we have with the cost escalation on another project within the envelope that and within the rules that our funding partners have allowed us to do to shift allocations. Takes a little bit of pressure off of the tax base and the way that we would debt finance the Wellington Gateway project potentially with the cost overruns in that business case. And so I think this is a good smart short term decision that doesn’t solve all of our big challenges with the cost of infrastructure, but I think it’s some smart thinking by our staff to try to solve a number of quick problems all at once. Not to say that it isn’t gonna create challenges down the road, but I think the master mobility plan will help us help guide us through a thoughtful discussion about the types of challenges that Council Trossa was talking about along Oxford.

But I will be honest, also exist on other branches and other parts of the city that we have to think thoughtfully about as well. And the permanent transit fund at the federal level is just one opportunity for us to think about how we fund the next generation of our infrastructure projects in the medium term. But in the short term, we have to have a discussion about those tough decisions about, you know, what are we gonna do now? What are we gonna reallocate?

How are we gonna shuffle between them and how much are we gonna absorb as a municipality? And where do we need to have, you know, some really important conversations with our other funding partners on this? So I’m supportive of this today. I really do appreciate the thoughtfulness that our staff put into this to try to solve a number of short term problems with us.

But I recognize the concerns of Councilor Troso that this is not an intersection that doesn’t have significant challenges and we need to do something in the short term, but also not take it off our radar in the mass mobility plan to solve the congestion along that entire stretch of that part of the city. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’m just gonna note that you’ve got about a minute left of your time. I don’t know whether you want to resume the chair or whether you want me to continue chairing.

So, okay, seeing the indication to continue chairing, I’m gonna go to Councilor Hopkins next and then we’ve got Councilor Stevenson and Councilor Roman, Councilor Hopkins. I’m in, I’m good to come back whenever you go to— Oh, okay. Then I will happily return the chair to you so you can recognize Councilor Hopkins. I haven’t got the hand signals down yet.

And I’ll advise to add Councilor Roman to your speakers, Liz, please. Perfect, go ahead, Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Russia, for your comments. And I will be supporting this recommendation.

I do want to acknowledge the word counselor’s concerns, though I hear you loud and clear when there are challenges, and we’ve more or less approved projects, and now we’re going in a different direction. I have had concerns with the West Leg, that was taken off the table, the North Leg as well. And in Oxford Street in particular is a challenge. And as a word counselor of the Southwest End, how we move around is becoming more of a challenge as we develop.

So lots of concerns there. I hear you loud and clear. But I am going to be supporting this recommendation. And basically it is about money.

It’s the budget, it’s the budget case that we’re all looking for savings here. I appreciate the work that staff did coming up with this. And maybe if I can follow up through you to staff with the question around, how does this change our business cases if we move this funding over to take care of the shortfall with the Wellington Gateway Project? Just doesn’t make a difference, or are we just shifting money around?

Sorry, Councilor, I’ll just assume that you’re asking about, ‘cause on the business case that it mainly impacts, there’s a significant DC portion, but I think you’re talking about the part of the report that talks about offsetting the potential of the bench ring that might be necessary to cover the tax-supported costs of this. So I’ll go to our staff. They can just articulate that a little clear on, do you have any sense of the level of the impact that might occur? Do you have to wait?

Do we actually have to issue the debentures to know for sure the full impact? Thank you through the chair. So the next step would be to submit this to the Federal Provincial to have this approved first. So it will not actually impact the budget discussions, but we would make that amendment subsequent to the approval from the Federal Provincial counterparts.

Go ahead, Councilor. Yeah, I appreciate the clarification there. It is, you know, it is a challenge for sure. I do sympathize with the Board Councilor.

I do think on the long term though, there’s the mobility master plan that we’re looking at, and these conversations must be had, and maybe through you, Mr. Chair, just a little bit more clarification on the mobility master plan. Can we see that coming to this Council, or where are we not to put timelines on anything, but just want to have a better understanding, given the challenges in the West End, and how we move around, and the conversations to be had through the mobility master plan, where are we, to some degree, what can we expect? Yeah, I’m gonna allow the answer to the question, ‘cause it’s linked to the Councilor’s support for the congestion along this, but I know we’re kind of focused on this piece.

It’s related, so go ahead, and maybe a brief update on where we are. Thank you through the Chair. Yes, so the mobility master plan is certainly active. The most recent report to the Civic Works Committee was referred to come back to this committee at the same time as the land needs study is presented to PAC, and so that is for seeing to happen in late March.

That’s a fundamental decision that the team needs from Council, a direction from Council, to in order to progress to next steps, but so after we get clarity on that decision point through this upcoming year, we will be providing policy recommendations, infrastructure recommendations, and then finalization of the plans, working out all the details of prioritization and cost and that would happen in 2025. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted that clarification that it is coming back to SPPC, the master mobility plan conversation going forward, so thank you for that.

And like I said, I will be supporting this. I have Councillor Stevenson and then Councillor Raman. Go to Councillor Raman. Thank you and through you, and thank you to Councillor Hopkins, because you touched on a lot of the things that I wanted to touch on as well.

I’m supportive of what’s in front of us today. I feel strongly as well as the word Councillor about Oxford and Morncliffe, although I won’t look at cutting projects in other parts of the north end while I’m looking at that, but I do see that the Oxford and Morncliffe Road intersection does need a substantial improvements as does the west and the north corridors of our city. And when we look at the master mobility plan, going through that document and looking at what we have so far in terms of guiding principles and our vision, I think there may need to be an acknowledgement from council that based on previous directions of council that we need to put an emphasis on moving on the north and the west part of the city first. And I think that that needs to be outlined in our master mobility plan in a more clear and articulated way.

And in light of what we’re talking about today, I think that’s even more important. So I’m just wondering how we might be able to have that conversation. I know we are going to be having a discussion at SPPC in the future about where we are on mode share targets, but that’s as the next conversation related to the MMP. But I just wanna know how we might be able to actually acknowledge that within the master mobility plan, because I think it’s absolutely essential where we say, not only we have this overall strategy, but that there is some intentionality about where we start and that we have moved funding away from projects in the north and the west in order to fund projects elsewhere.

Mr. McRae. Yeah, so in the coming year, there will be subsequent reports on things like policies and infrastructure recommendations after that. So after those, for example, the infrastructure recommendations are made for the entire network, the prioritization would happen after that.

So council will have opportunities when those pieces come to committee to make recommendations or direct staff if they feel that there should be priorities assigned. We would approach it at a technical network level, but if council wanted to weigh in early on that, that’s certainly an opportunity, or there would always be an opportunity when the plan is when that prioritization piece occurs, and that’s near the finalization opportunities to adjust then as well. So lots of opportunities to guide the plan for council. Okay, that’s all the speakers I have on this.

It’s moved and seconded. I don’t see anyone else, so we’ll open this for voting. Sir Lewis is also gonna manually vote yes ‘cause E-Scribe needs me to log out and back in. Using the vote, motion carries 13 to one.

Okay, we have no deferred matters or additional business. There’s no confidential session, so we’ve made it to the part of the meeting where we get to adjourn. I looked for a mover for adjournment. Councilor Van Meerberg and seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis.

We could do this one by hand, all those in favor of adjournment. Motion carries. I wasn’t sure how long the meeting would go, so there are some snacks if you wanna grab them before they depart for the day and the council’s lunch.