Open Council

2nd Budget Committee - 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget

Open Council

2nd Budget Committee - 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget

February 1, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:30 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Franke and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.1   Staff Presentation

2024-02-01 Presentation - Budget-Staff

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the budget presentation from the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

3.2   Amendment - Business Case P-5

Moved by S. Hillier

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-5 – Fire Department Breathing Apparatus and Breathing Apparatus Decontamination (Amended – funding deferred from 2024 to 2026), and that this Business Case BE REFERRED to the 2028-2031 MYB noting that the equipment’s lifecycle renewal is 2031.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

3.3   Amendment - Business Case P-7

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-7 – Implementation of a New Property Tax Software System and Capital Asset Reporting Tool for Financial Reporting.

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Budget Committee convene In Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1  Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

Motion Passed (12 to 0)

The Budget Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:03 PM to 1:17 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the meeting BE RECESSED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

The meeting recessed at 1:49 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (3 hours, 42 minutes)

[0:43] Testing, testing, make sure sound is okay. Gaging sound, testing. Okay, good morning, everyone.

[12:33] We could just take our seats, it’s time. Good morning, everyone. This is the second budget committee held in council chambers. The London city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the National Bank, Putoshone, Lenop walk, and Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

[13:07] The city of London is currently home to many First Nation, Métis, and Inuit today. As representatives, the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425, or budget committee at London.ca. Joined virtually online today, we have Councillor Frank and Councillor Hillier. Welcome, we are missing a few Councillors in chambers.

[13:45] I think it’s just Councillor Van Merbergen that’s currently not with us. Everyone else here is here just in chambers for everyone knows where we’re at. Looking into committee for disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none online, I see none in chambers. Okay, our first item is a staff presentation. I will hand this over to staff to present from the media section. So just a reminder for everyone in chambers, if you toggle your screen, could help you.

[14:35] Okay, good morning, everyone. And thank you for the opportunity to say a few words this morning as we get started on budget deliberations. In terms of what I wanted to touch on first thing this morning, I thought we’d start with a bit of a recap of the various public engagement activities that we’ve completed over the past month and a half or so. And there are actually as well two pieces of information that you have not seen yet.

[15:08] So I will walk through as well. The results of the Get Involved business case survey that has been available for the public to complete. I will also walk you through the results of the business case survey that was conducted with counselors, give you a sense of the results of that as well. Before we get too far into budget deliberations, I thought it would be a good opportunity as well to provide a bit of a refresher on some of our key financial principles that we rely on just so that they’re fresh in your mind and something to keep in mind as we work through the various budget decisions, and then we’ll talk a little bit as well about the strong mayors process and the impact on the budget as well as the timelines and as well the intended process for working through these deliberations.

[16:01] So it’s been a busy, I’d say month and a half over the last six weeks or so since we released the budget back on December 12th. We’ve done a wide variety of different public engagement activities and events. I’m not going to go and talk about each and every item here on screen, but we have attended well in excess of 15 different events. Some were pop-up events, some were community group meetings, some were counselor award meetings.

[16:38] So we’ve been out to a number of events, talked to a number of different folks. We’ve used a number of different channels or methods of engagement as well. Everything from our Get Involved site, our emails and phone calls to the budget team as well. We had our online open house, our online information session, our in-person open house as well. We’ve used advertising in newspapers and community magazines as well.

[17:13] Online advertising, we’ve advertised in various city facilities and on social media as well. So pretty comprehensive use of different public engagement avenues and tools over the past six weeks or so. Now, as I mentioned at the beginning, you’ve obviously heard from your constituents through many different mediums and channels. You’ve had obviously many different discussions and conversations, no doubt with your constituents, received, I’m sure, a lot of correspondence.

[17:47] So you’ve got a lot of information already, I’m sure, but there are a couple of pieces of information that you maybe do not have or at least had not received prior to the release of the agenda yesterday. The first piece being the results of the Get Involved Business Case Survey. So this was the survey that we offered on our Get Involved Portal, our public engagement portal. This was using, obviously, the Get Involved tool, allowed us to limit it to one person, one vote.

[18:23] So ensuring that principle was maintained. So there was a registration required in order to access the survey. So the survey could only be taken once per person. So this is the results of the survey and just to recap what the survey asked. It basically asked folks to indicate which business cases they support. So there were no limitations on number of business cases that folks could select. They could select zero. They could select up to 74, 74, being the total number of property tax business cases, excluding the legislative changes.

[19:02] So this is the result. I’m not gonna go through in complete detail all of these, but I’ll just note that there were 116 total responses to the survey and the top five business cases in terms of responses in support were P58, library facilities, capital asset management, P26, community gardens program expansion, P32, naturalization of boulevards and reduced roadside cutting, P59, library security systems upgrade, and P62, environmentally significant areas management.

[19:40] So you can kind of see the number of responses for each business case indicated in the bar chart on the right. And I’ll keep flipping through. So this is just structured in order of the number of business cases receiving the greatest number of responses. So the other survey that we actually, before I get to that, I should mention just key themes that were outlined in the, I guess, free form comments section of the Get Involved Survey as well.

[20:22] You can see these on screen. Again, I’m not going to go into any great depth on these, but these are kind of some of the general themes or things we heard that people entered into the open form comment box on the Get Involved Survey as well. So in terms of the counselor business case survey that was conducted, the purpose of that survey or the intention of that survey was to allow counselors to express their top five priorities or their five highest prioritized business cases in no particular order.

[20:59] So that was clear in the business case instructions. So basically the ask was what are your top five business cases? This is the result. So there were 12 counselor surveys completed and this gives you a sense of where those priorities landed. So seven survey responses had P-51, transit service hours growth in the top five. Six survey responses had business case P-28, public safety and infrastructure modernization in their top five.

[21:36] Five survey responses had business case P-20 in the top five and then you can see from there the number of responses that included each respective case in their top five. So I’ll flip to the next. And again, this slide is all the other cases that just received one counselor indicating that that was in their top five as well. Okay, so before we get into deliberations, I wanted to just go through a few financial principles that I hope you keep in the back of your mind as we work through this process.

[22:15] These are principles that are outlined in our strategic financial framework that Council approved this past year and have really served us well for a long period of time. So I really encourage you to keep these in mind as we work through the various budget decisions. So firstly, one time funding is appropriate to fund one time costs, but should not be used to implement permanent programs with ongoing costs. So, you know, an example of one time funding would be reserve funds. For example, reserve funds can be used to fund one time costs, but they should not be used to fund programs on an ongoing basis because once that money in the reserve fund is gone, it’s gone.

[23:00] There’s no ability to continue supporting that program. The next one is Council should exercise caution in taking on programs or services where there is pressure to potentially fill in for programs or services that are generally the responsibility of other levels of government. This is not an absolute in the sense that it’s a never, never do this kind of situation. That’s not the case. We just encourage you to proceed cautiously in considering those types of decisions and make sure that you are very aware of what you’re getting into by taking on those types of programs or services.

[23:42] When considering new initiatives, it’s important to consider the total cost of the initiative. So not just one time, but also the ongoing costs and weigh that against the benefits to the community as well as any risks of proceeding or perhaps risks of not proceeding as well. So I think the business cases in the budget document have tried to capture and articulate a lot of those considerations, but it’s important to keep those factors in mind as you work through the budget decisions. Be very mindful that once you introduce a program or service, it becomes very difficult to reduce or eliminate that program or service.

[24:24] Inevitably, there are always individuals who find value in a new program or service once it’s introduced and to take that away becomes very difficult on at least some portion of the community. So just be mindful of that and think about potential exit strategies where appropriate as well, if you are considering a new program or service that you’re not intending to do on a permanent basis. It’s important that we keep reserves and reserve funds at an adequate level to ensure that we maintain sufficient liquidity, not only for our kind of short-term obligations, but also looking out into the future as well.

[25:07] We wanna maintain flexibility to respond to opportunities that may arise into the future, take advantage of opportunities as they may come up. So it’s important that we have some element or some degree of financial flexibility to do that. We are quite firm in our perspective that debt is appropriate for some large-scale growth and service improvement capital projects, but we really try to avoid and have done a great job in recent years in avoiding the use of debt for lifecycle renewal capital projects.

[25:45] We strongly prefer taking a pay-as-you-go approach to funding lifecycle renewal projects. And that’s kind of in keeping with the principle of intergenerational equity. So really, we need to think about which taxpayers are ultimately paying or getting the benefit of capital projects that we’re constructing. So where there are significant growth or service improvement capital projects, it may make sense to spread that cost out over future taxpayers, but we do not support doing that for lifecycle renewal of existing assets.

[26:23] And just in general terms, it’s important to be mindful of our overall debt levels as well. We want to ensure the ongoing financial sustainability of the city. We’re obviously very proud of our AAA credit rating. We want to maintain that. And so we want to really focus on ensuring that we maintain that and maintain the general financial sustainability of the city into the future. And that also has an impact on future tax and rate payers as well, because obviously there is a debt, a cost of debt, and an added interest expense associated with debt that has an impact on taxpayers and rate payers into the future.

[27:02] So we just need to be mindful and strategic in our use of debt as we make decisions about what we want to invest in. OK, I am going to hand it over to Annalisa right now, and she will take us through the strong mayor’s portion of the presentation and how we’re going to work through deliberations. Thank you, Kyle. So based on the new legislation that is applied in this case, I’m going to walk you through now that we have a context in terms of the mayor’s budget that was released yesterday.

[27:38] So in terms of the legislation, the mayor did, in fact, put forward a mayor’s budget that was released yesterday. That becomes the base budget that we are working from. So that supersedes anything that staff has put forward. That is the budget. And through the legislation, there is a mechanism that allows proposed amendments to be brought forward. So that is really where deliberations over the next couple of budget committees are simply focused, is on amendments that are put forward to what the mayor has put forward in his budget release.

[28:13] So the legislation requires a 30-day period. So the new special council meeting that has been put forward on February 29th is what is going to finalize and ratify any amendments that have been brought forward through the course of budget deliberations. So what this essentially means is, is that based on what the mayor has put forward, council through the budget committee’s meetings over the next eight sessions that we have put forward, as many as we would require, should a counselor wish to put an amendment forward, that would follow the normal process.

[28:50] So you would put that forward. You would have a seconder. And then based on that, those amendments would then be ratified on February 29th. On February 29th, should there be no further amendments and that budget is passed by council— or those amendments, I’m sorry, are passed by council, solely the amendments is what’s focused. That then forms the budget that has been put forward. There is a 10-day period that kicks in at the end of those amendments that allows for the mayor to veto any of the council amendments that have been put forward to the budget that he put forward.

[29:27] So should the mayor not veto any of those, then the budget process is complete at that date. However, if the mayor determines that he wishes to put forward a written veto of any of the council amendments, that then would invoke the 15-day period for council to override with a 2/3 majority and would extend that process beyond. And those 10 and 15 days can also be shortened based on the mayor’s override as well. So that gives you a bit of the context in terms of how we’re working on.

[30:00] So it’s a very different process than what we’ve historically been used to because the focus is solely on the amendments that are put forward. So if an amendment isn’t put forward, there’s nothing on the floor. And the budget through the passage of time would ultimately be deemed approved. So that’s one of the key changes just to walk you through in terms of what the differences are, from where we were normally through a budget process. So based on the changes, we’ve put forward what we would say is a suggested process to be able to work through any proposed amendments that might be brought forward.

[30:37] So simply to provide some structure and some ability to be able to ensure we have the appropriate staff to answer any questions based on any amendments and that we can try to provide a little bit of structure given the process is a little bit different and hopefully make it a little bit easier as we work through. So the very first place we want to start is to put forward any proposed amendments if there are changes suggested for legislative change business cases. So those are clearly marked as what is legislated in the mayor’s budget. So we would be looking if any counselor wishes to move an amendment to those cases.

[31:12] After that is complete, then we’re proposing that we would look at the property tax base budget to maintain existing service levels so that if there are any changes or amendments to be brought forward, we would bring those forward because that base certainly is the foundation of all of the business cases that then potentially if there were amendments would set the stage for different changes in terms of impacts, et cetera. So that’s the next piece. So hopefully that’ll give a little bit of ability for the counselors to get used to this and the public to get used to the process as amended.

[31:47] And then we’re looking to then move towards any proposed amendments to the business cases P1 to P7. Those were initially categorized in the civic admins budget as a administratively prioritized. So we’re suggesting that would be the next step and then moving through the process for all the other business cases from P8 all the way to P74. And at the completion of that, then we would look to if there’s any proposed amendments for the water and wastewater and treatment budgets. And that would work through everything that is before that the mayor has presented.

[32:25] So in context for that, one of the things as we have done in previous years is we have our model that demonstrates any changes. So as proposed amendments come forward, if someone wishes to see exactly what that impact is, we have the graphs and the ability to bring that forward. So you can see the impact over the four year budget. If that’s helpful, we can bring that up periodically as we work through the process. Whenever the counselor feels that that is helpful to give an update as well as provide an update to the public as to where we are as we work through the process. So essentially, that’s what we’re, hopefully we’ll provide a little bit of structure and make it a little easier as we work through this process.

[33:04] And with that, I believe we can turn it over to the mayor who will be presenting his proposed budget, but I’ll turn it back to the chair and she wants to add anything. Thank you. I’m gonna allow for some questions and answers at this time. I’ll note that there was a message as well for myself circulated either morning that went through some of those outlines. So just taking questions about timelines and the staff presentations, either Mr. Murray’s or Ms. Barbones, and I’ll start with Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair, for taking questions. I know this is all new and I really appreciate staff’s presentation.

[33:44] I do have a question around the amendments and my first question, can amendments be, we’re starting to receive a lot of emails on amendments right now. Can amendments be brought forward at any time? We just received the new, the mayor’s draft budget yesterday. So it does take us a little while to go through it. So through you to staff or maybe you can answer the question. Yeah, I’ll start and staff could certainly chime in as this absolutely is a different process.

[34:16] The mayor’s budgets, the mayor’s budget. There’s really no discussion of policy or questions on the floor. It really is only speaking to it if an amendment is made. That’s what starts the discussion. I’ll let everyone know if you have a pen. Right now I’m aware of amendments to business case P5 which is administrative prioritized and I’m gonna go through the budget and the layout that Ms. Barbone did state that it will help us have ourselves prepared and staff behind the scenes ready for us. We have P9 and P37 which both showed up on the councilor’s top-ranked polls that Mr. Murray just showed us and other business cases would include business case P27 and P38, as I said, I’m just trying to, as we have amendments, we go through the process, just giving them organized in which category they fall in to help us flow.

[35:14] We can bring amendments forward at any time. Ideally it’s kept within the budget committee days as budget in the end as long as there’s amendment, it would be passed at council and ideally we’re not doing amendments at council but as always committees where it goes to council and council makes the final decision. Follow up. Thank you for that information. So amendments can be brought at any time at budget session only. Thank you for that. I should have asked this question right off at the beginning and I do apologize but I know this is very unusual not to have the public here in the gallery.

[35:53] In particular, our agencies, boards and commissions, how are they being aware in our advisory groups? Are they being given a Zoom link so they understand themselves what this process looks like? Thank you. Our gallery is a little bit sparse this morning, Mr. Wallace here as always, I’m recognizing you and some staff but we are live streaming as always to the city’s website and Zoom. So I know some agency boards and commissions are working from there and the clerks do have a list of the executive directors for each agency board and commission so if we get to a question point and we want that agency board or commission to weigh in, they absolutely can do it on Zoom.

[36:35] They’re welcome here in person but we don’t know what day or what time we’re getting to them. Councilor? I just want to make sure they had the Zoom link. Thank you. Councilor Trossa. Thank you, thank you very much. We’re in a committee so we can stay city-grade. I have a few questions and I’ll try to get to them as quickly as I can. The first one was not covered in your presentation but in the past we’ve had discussions about indicating something on the tax roll about the provincial mandated portion of the increase.

[37:14] I still feel strongly that I want to come forward with that and I don’t want to use, we’re on five minutes now. It’s hard because there’s 72 business cases so I’m not sure how I’m going to do that in five minutes but for now let me just ask preliminaries. I want to know that you can answer these together. The second thing I’ve been asked by a number of people in my ward is there’s some type of equity allowance. Do we have a fund that people can apply for? I know provincially you can get $500 if you’re a senior and you meet certain requirements.

[37:53] Is there something similar at the local level or are we possibly able to top that up? My next question deals with- Councilor, I’m just going to interject. It really is just questions pertain to what staff has said. Any other questions that isn’t contained in their presentation or budget really is offline questions. Well, and still this is something that some of us have been asking for months and months and here we are so I think these are reasonable questions to ask. I don’t want to get to the point where I’m told it’s too late for you to bring that inclusion and the tax bill up so I want to make sure that that’s timely and does that need to be a motion that we do or is that something that you’re going to do?

[38:36] Councilor, the tax levy for the provincial one was discussed. I’ve discussed it with staff. It would need to be something brought forward by a member of council. We can do that during the budget process or on that last council day, I’m aware of it. If staff just wanted to give an update ‘cause it had come forward before through committee. Okay, and on that other question, you can get back to us at some point. I think it’s important that councilors be given the opportunity to ask questions about a particular PPX requests before we decide if we actually want to put a motion on the floor.

[39:14] So short of putting a motion on the floor, when do we go through the individual requests with the proponent here so we could get that information? Thank you. Our opportunity to bring those questions forward was behind the scenes in the last six weeks in the budget drop-ins. Today, really the only process is if there is a amendment on the floor for an item, that opens the conversation. The mayor’s budget in its entirety is not on the floor. Okay, as for myself, I am working through with a number of proponents to see whether they would like an amendment brought forward.

[39:55] And some of these organizations have their own internal boards and governing structures to go through. So I think it’s important for us to be respectful of the fact that each councilor might not be able to put it on the table today or tomorrow. Specific amendments of respecting people’s process. I have quite a few that I wanna work through. Now, my next question really, really does go to specific business cases.

[40:30] So I think for now, I’ll just yield to some other account counselors for preliminary matters. Thank you, I’ll just follow up on one point. As you did mention, our budget committee days, we have days set aside being Thursdays and Fridays for February, we very well might not need those days. We very well might be done in a day or two based on how many amendments come forward. And as part of normal process, those dates would be released if we’re not using them, but the public budget, public participation meeting on the 27th stays and the council budget days on the 29th as we’re legislatively bound to those 30 days.

[41:08] So we need to be done within the 30 days, but we could be done much shorter than then based on amendments coming forward. Looking to see if there’s any follow up questions on staff’s presentation. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had a question regarding what our options are as a council as we navigate this. If we find that we’re not as ready to have the amendments and we wanna ask staff questions, is it possible to adjourn earlier today, be start again tomorrow or likewise adjourn till next week? Do we have those options?

[41:44] I will say that ‘cause essentially the budget days are one long meeting, we recess at the end and not adjourn. That’s just me procedurally at the end of the day. I can’t see that we’re done. If that, we’ll see how today goes. If that really is the tone of committee that they would need a pause or landing at a certain time today, that’s fine. I will note that on budget days since we have the full day set aside, my intention every day is to end around four or four or 30 just to make sure that you can go home or schedule those phone calls as well. Any other further questions?

[42:19] Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I just wanna clarify in terms of an amendment is it being noted on a budget case and amendment enough to satisfy opening up discussion on an amendment? I’ll go to the Mr. Shultez on this one. I don’t know if we can just, would it be a new, it being noted, is it, I guess, germane to the actual conversation versus, we’re getting into governance and procedure of trying to add that being noted, like very different aspects.

[43:02] Could you clarify? Thank you. I guess what I’m looking for is more support and direction on how to add an it being noted on items where I think it furthers discussion on the business case. So for instance, if a number of Councillors wanted to have more discussion here on a business case, could we procedurally add an amendment that included an it being noted so that we open up the discussion on the business case?

[43:36] And so I’m asking, I guess, strategically as a chair, if you can share how I do that so that we can do that strategically. Thank you. Thank you, just one moment. I would say it’s in line what I previously said, but just for clarification from the clerk is I take his guidance to go through this process.

[44:21] Thank you through the chair. So then, and it being noted would have to meet the same tests as a main motion to amend. So a main motion to amend going on the floor, would of course need to be germane to the discussion, purpose for the special committee purpose of these meetings and the purpose of the deliberation. And it being noted or an additional amendment to that main motion to amend would also need to satisfy the germaneness test. That is a ruling a decision made by the chair on a case-by-case basis. A little bit helpful.

[44:56] If I may follow up, thank you chair. So how much support will staff provide and the chair provide in order so that we can have the discussion be as robust as we need it to be by allowing for that those it being noted, where we need to further discussion to better understand where we should be going with some of these cases. I think that what I’m hearing is that there’s a desire for some cases to be discussed more.

[45:30] And we don’t wanna say, move an amendment to say, adjust by a dollar just so that we could have a discussion. So I’m trying to find a way forward and would appreciate the help of the chair. I would deem that a dollar change would not be a material change the business case itself. I will also note that we did have six weeks to ask questions and staff behind the scenes. They’re still available at break. I know that their phones and their emails open now. I will also note that the mayor’s budget was done and are strong mayor’s power.

[46:02] And this is the budget we’re with. And I know we’re used to the normal conversations and discussions and that’s not what this process is. So it really would need to be an amendment of a material change that’s germane to the conversation to move us forward. I respect that it’s new. I don’t mind the questions in looking for that way forward, but it really is the mayor’s budget. And we’re here just to discuss any key things. We would like to either add, remove. You can suggest scaling it differently or pushing out the timelines would be all potential amendments.

[46:45] Yeah, I’ll do a follow up there. And I believe another question on this side. Thank you. So just to follow up. So based on that feedback and much appreciated because I always like to know the parameters of which we’re working within and being that this is a new process. My understanding was that the mayor was providing us with the leeway, I appreciate that we’ve had opportunity to ask questions behind the scenes, but the mayor’s budget came to us yesterday. And that means that a new discussion starts with a lot of partners and organizations and I want to be authentic and true to those discussions and be able to have those openly with organizations and also to do that in the public realm.

[47:29] So I wanna make sure that those are in the public. So I am trying to find ways forward to be able to have those without it being an amendment until we know for certain where the organization or the ABC is on that as well in some cases. I also think that it allows us the opportunity to explore the mayor’s budget. And I know he’s going to give us a presentation, which I very much appreciate, but I hope that he will then be open to some false questioning on the budget that he’s putting forward. Thank you.

[48:05] Thank you. I also note that as we send this chambers, as you all know, we are counselors and our board member hats come second in this space, but I realize we’re all trying to juggle board needs behind the scenes in the concerns in the community. I have Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Troso, follow up. Thank you and through the chair. I wasn’t implying that I was acting on behalf of any of the boards that I sit on, but thank you. Thank you, Councilor Hopkins, and then I’ll recognize Councilor Troso.

[48:39] Yeah, thank you for recognizing me again, just as a follow up on the, it being noted, I do want to say I just received the mayor’s draft budget. Yesterday, there’s some changes to a number of the business cases. And I really think it’s important that we have an opportunity to work with the ABCs with the changes that have occurred within the mayor’s draft budget, and we do need time to assess that. If it being noted gives us that opportunity to ask, to have more of a fulsome discussion and allow the ABCs to understand the changes.

[49:21] And even for those of us who are on those boards representing them and speaking on their behalf here through the budget session, I think we need a little bit of time and the opportunities to have those discussions. So I really just think that is going to be important to our process. So thank you. Thank you. I’ll get to Councilor Troso in a minute. I just want to comment that this is a legislative process that does not allow for a lot of the debate of the mayor’s budget is presented as it’s presented.

[49:56] But as always, we have the annual update as well. So I realize it’s a different conversation in a different format, but legislatively, this is what it is. I have Councilor Troso. Councilor Ferra, Councilor Stevenson, I’m also going to flag that we haven’t even heard the mayor’s presentation yet. And maybe some of the questions you have might be addressed in it as I will allow, something I will allow. There is an opportunity for Q and A after it, but just more procedural or asking for clarification on things he presented that’s within his budget.

[50:30] Councilor Troso. This is a general procedural question. If a Councilor, for example, is inclined to want to approve the request with some conditions of additional reporting and accountability, how would that be addressed? Thank you, just noting that this is strictly the budget process for the monetary component.

[51:06] If you’re looking for governance and reporting out different changes, those we brought through at any time, but through the proper standing committee. If that’s the ruling, I think the unanticipated consequence of that might be sort of forcing some of us to put amendments on the table denying funding in situations where we might have been okay with the funding if there were some additional provisions. And if that’s what we have to do, so be it. But that will generally increase, I know in my case, that is going to increase the number of amendments that I’m going to be seeking.

[51:50] And if that’s how it is, that’s how it is. But I think we really, I’d rather see some flexibility and we’ve not been through this process before. So we— Legislatively, I cannot give you that flexibility of the governance and the reporting out structures went strictly a budget discussion. I appreciate where you’re coming from, but that would be a committee opportunity. I had Councilor Ferra and then Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. So I see the sentiments of colleagues here, just because the mayor’s budget was dropped for us yesterday.

[52:24] So I agree that more time would be nice, but I do understand legislatively that if there’s no amendments on the floor, then the budget is approved just like that. But I have seen many amendments filter through the email in the last maybe 30 minutes. So I’m assuming that this budget deliberation will go on. So my concern of not having the time is decreasing, just considering the amount of amendments that we have seen already. But I will say more time just to review the mayor’s budget, I do appreciate the mayor giving me some time yesterday to speak about it and his presentation is coming to us so we can ask some questions.

[53:00] But I feel like this is not gonna be only today or tomorrow I feel like we’re gonna probably have a few meetings just looking at the amount of amendments that we see right now. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, just two quick things on the accountability and the reporting. I think the residents expect that from everything. So I think that should be the default that they know that we’re gonna get that. We expect that and we’re gonna do it rather than need to say that every time there is an expectation and there will be an expectation, especially over the next four years.

[53:34] And the other thing is with this new legislative process, but we can recess this at any point, correct? And then do what we need to do behind the scenes and come back. So I think we do have that ability to control the pace in which this automatically gets approved. Yeah, someone could move recess at any time. It would still be a vote of committee with majority voting to recess. Just noting that we have staff on standby and I’ll note that it’s not just the staff in this room, it’s the ones other computers and in committee rooms lined up.

[54:16] So as we change things, we just need to be very sure why in our next steps and why we’re doing it, realizing that staff’s along with us and agency boards and commissions are also trying to figure out where we’re at and when in addition to the public. Okay, so that’s all the hands from the staff presentation. I’ll just need a motion to receive the staff presentation moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. And that’s just gonna be a vote to receive that in eScribe coming up in one moment. It’s a privilege, Councillor Trostav, housing vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[55:31] The mayor’s presentation is gonna be done the same as staff’s presentation was for format. And once again, I’ll need a motion to receive this presentation once it’s done. And then following the presentation, we’ll need to go into close, following the presentation will be your question period. And then our next step would be a close session for a few items before we get into our discussion. Just letting you know where we’re going. Mr. Mayor, the floor is all yours. Thanks, that’s a good way to not let me start.

[57:19] So thank you for the opportunity to present the budget, which is my legislative requirement to do so to the Council so it’s been tabled. It now is the municipal budget. And as has been said by our staff, the opportunity to us as a group of Councillors to amend it over the next 30 days. Just a couple of quick comments at the start. I certainly understand the points about you just saw this and you wanna think about it. There are other mayors today who will be tabling a budget that no one has seen any part of.

[57:56] And so the process that we designed in consultation with the budget chair was to say, let’s have something available on December 12th that people can start to talk about that we can shape things around. Yes, I made some changes to those today. I’m gonna go through them in some detail, but I hope you can appreciate two things. One, that we did try to do something where there would be access to a considerable amount of information leading up to my obligation to table a budget. And two, that although we’re meeting today, as Councillor Stephens has said, there’s no obligation for us to pace the meetings as they’re designed, but given when I table, there is a clock that starts, giving Council every opportunity you can possibly give, even right off the start to have opportunities to dig into the budget and fulfill their and your legislative obligation now to make changes if you feel they’re necessary to the budget.

[58:42] It’s something that it’s important to reserve your right to do so on the pacing and timing that you think is necessary. Let me also thank a tremendous number of people who help. Budget Chair Palosa for all the work that she did and working with you, staff and others in both getting to this point as well as the work that she’ll do in sharing these meetings for us for the next little while. And of course to Ms. Barbone, Mr. Murray and their team, I know that they’ve been out to your award meetings. They’ve been available for comment. They’ve had public sessions. I know I had Mr. Murray here until seven o’clock one night helping with some of the slides that I needed for my presentation today.

[59:18] And I greatly, I greatly on behalf of Londoners appreciate the work that the finance team has done to allow us to have the discussions that we have. And I know that you do too. So, let’s see here. I’m not used to doing this. How do I move the slides? There we go. Okay, so you’ve seen this, I think this chart, and if you haven’t, this might be the first time. So you have the draft budget with none of the business cases in it that is before you have the budget percentages that I tabled.

[59:53] I just wanna give one reminder. We are essentially have the 2024 budget now. That we will make amendments to, although we will establish a framework for the multi-year budget, we still are obligated to have annual budget updates each and every year. And I wanna tell you as a member of the previous council, each and every year we’ve taken time to try to dig into those numbers and bring them down over time. And I can tell you every single multi-year budget, we were able to bring the subsequent years after the first year down through the annual update process and the service review that will be ongoing over the next few years. But this is the starting point.

[1:00:27] I will say two for colleagues, if we would have approved everything, if we would have tabled every single ask across the board, the tax increase in 2024 would have been 14%. So 8.8 is going to be high for many, but I’m gonna go through the details about what that is made up by. These are the percentages and the numbers over the years, as you’ve seen in many of our budget. The one note I wanted to make on this slide is, and I heard this on the radio a few times this morning, these are calculated based on the average assessed value of 252,000 for residential property.

[1:01:03] Now, what people will say is, wow, my taxes are gonna be way more than that ‘cause my property’s worth way more than that. So just remember, this is the average assessed value because assessed values are frozen at 2016 levels. What your house is worth today and what you can sell it for, what you may have sold it for, is not what the assessed value is on your tax bill. That’s governed by MPAC, and that is the actual average assessed value of a house in the city of London. That is the average assessed value that people are being taxed on here, and that is driven by MPAC, and MPAC valuations which were frozen at 2016 levels.

[1:01:37] And that could be, if you have questions about that, you can talk to our finance staff about exactly how it works. Not a great system for transparency, but it is a system that we operate on in the province of Ontario. So adjustments to the base budgets, there are a number of adjustments that were made to the base. I’m gonna go through each of these in sections. This is just the consolidated total of them, and I’ll start with a couple of groups of them. Adjustments one, two, and three. The tourism, the UTRCA, and the London Police Wages, these are all pieces of information that came before SPPC and were referred to the budget process.

[1:02:16] Essentially, a number of these were just incorporated into their asks. An example of tourism, they hadn’t had their numbers yet. They updated them. That update was, I adopted into their base ask. UTRCA raised their ask through their review of the budget process. That was adopted into the base, although there’s a subsequent change that I’ve made to it. The London Police Service Wages adjustments were based on the collective agreement that was ratified by the board there. Those adjustments have been made into the base because they float to this meeting and you’ll see it on the correspondence.

[1:02:49] I want you to know, these were built into the base of the budget that I tabled yesterday. And so they have been dealt with effectively. So council can receive those later today. Obviously, you can make adjustments to the base budget through amendments. But I want you to know, I’ve taken those pieces of correspondence. I’ve incorporated them in, as we normally would as a council in a different budget process. Adjustments four, five, and six are adjustments that I made to the base budgets. So if you recall, Museum London had a base ask of about 8.1%. I adjusted it down to make their average ask across the multi-year budget 5.4%.

[1:03:29] Why 5.4%? 5.4% was the average that the Board and Commission came in. Civic Administration came in at 2.2. Civic Administration with capital financing and came in at 4.7. The average Board and Commission came in at 5.4. I spoke with each and every one of these boards that I’m gonna talk to you about, either their chairs or their CEOs. I asked them to take a look to bring down their asks every single one of them. Some did, some rolled back and said, we can’t, some didn’t even respond. So I took a number of actions to lower some of them to their base level.

[1:04:04] So the museum is lowered to 3.9 to 2024 because that gets their average increase to the average increase that a Board and Commission did. The library decreases in 2024 from their ask of almost 20% to 5.5. That brings them to an average increase over the period of time to 5.4. I’ll talk about library a little more in a minute. RBC Place, they actually had a Board meeting and lowered their request voluntarily through an adjustment in their capital planning structure. And so their 12% increase through a discussion with me, their Board met, they lowered it to 4.5 in each and every year from 12.1 in each and every year to an average of 4.5.

[1:04:44] So I just wanna appreciate the work that their Board did to have that meeting take a look at their capital plan and make that adjustment. And UTRCA, they had a 2025 budget ask of 30%. I’ve lowered that to 15%. I’ve had a subsequent conversation with the Chair. Yes, this is something that we’re going to have to have a discussion about if no amendments are made to it because there is a legislative process that we would need to follow to ensure that stands. If the UTRCA is not willing to accept that change, we have 10 or 11 months to figure that out because this is a 2025 change.

[1:05:20] There’s no change that I made to their 2024 budget. So that’s, sorry, one slide ahead of myself. The land ambulance costs. So as you know, land ambulance can essentially just bill us. It’s one of those services that we don’t have much of a discretionary play on. I had a long conversation with both the authority board representatives and land ambulance staff. They, I did not touch their 2024 budget, but I talked to them about what was driving their budget in 2025 and beyond, which was in the mid-8s, I think, was their ask.

[1:06:03] And a number of that was accounting for population growth that would occur in the main census area like the city of London. And so I said to them, if it’s population growth that’s driving your numbers, really these should be assessment growth asks. And so through a discussion with them, they were willing and supportive of me making adjustment to their outward projections and moving a million dollars per year in each of the subsequent years after 2024 out of the tax supported budget. But be aware that they will be making assessment growth asks for that growth-related money. Those asks may not be a million dollars.

[1:06:36] They will be based on the actual growth projections as we get closer to those points in time 2025, 2026, 2027. I want to say thank you to the authority for actually allowing us to make this move. This takes significant pressure off of the property tax base. It moves growth to where it should be in assessment growth asks. And that discussion will happen through that process, but again, not until the 2025 and beyond years. This adjustment nine has zero impact on the tax base, but what it is, this is a transparency move. There may have been some capacity within contingency to absorb some of the labor negotiated increases that the London Police Services Board had, rather than just have that appear in their budget because we were able to absorb some because of the contingencies we had.

[1:07:25] I actually moved it over to the police budget line for complete and frank transparency to say, if we had this aside, this is what their wage increase came in at. It should all be in the police budget upfront in the budget document. There’s no impact because it’s basically moving from contingency into the London Police Services budget line. And this is all related to the four year working agreement that the board negotiated and approved. So let me just talk about some additional commentary on a couple of the things that I said. The London Public Library, which I know will be a point of discussion that will happen by this council and the community, I just wanna be clear that the lowering of them to the 5.4 average by lowering 2024 from 19.9% to 5.5 represents increases for the London Public Library of 5.5, 6, 5.1 and 5.2.

[1:08:16] Each of these increases are more than twice any individual previous year increase in any multi-year budget that we’ve given them. These represent the four largest increases in the base budget that the London Public Library has received in the last decade. So I just wanna be clear that although the library did not get what it asked for in its base, it is still getting more than it has ever gotten before in a multi-year budget and the four highest years of its allocation are the four years of this multi-year budget.

[1:08:50] The basis for conventional and specialized transit as you would have, I don’t know if you would have, I’m not sure who dug into the base budget as much as I did, but there is significant base increase requests from London Transit for both conventional and specialized transit. I approve those. The average increase for conventional transit that LTC was asking for was 8.5%, including an 18.6% increase in 2024. So for specialized, that was an average, an average increase of 11.5, including a 34% increase in 2024. Those base increase requests are included in the budget I tabled.

[1:09:24] I just don’t want people to miss that as we talk about funding the transit business cases, there are significant base budget asks that were approved as part of this discussion. And London Mill Sex Community Housing, I did not adjust their budget down even though they were above the average. As you know, housing, and I’ve heard all of my colleagues wrote this year, housing affordability is a critical component. The asks and the needs that they had there, there was very difficult for that to come down. I’d had a number of discussions with the CEO, but I did leave that as submitted, which represents a 10.1% increase in 2024 and a 6.8% average increase across the four years of the multi-year budget for our housing service provider that we are the main shareholder for.

[1:10:12] The legislatively required business cases, I approved as is, mainly ‘cause there’s not much of a choice we have. So I want you to know for all of those pieces, there were no changes that I made to the legislatively required business cases. And of course, on the business cases I supported, when you read through the document, there are a great number of them. A large number of them were supported as is, but there are a significant number of them that I supported with changes. So I want to go through and very clearly highlight the changes I made for complete transparency on the process.

[1:10:49] So these are the approved business cases that I made adjustments to from what would have appeared in your Sir Locks binder, P4. So this was the staff administratively prioritized, urgent repairs and lifecycle renewal to City Hall. I approved everything in that business case with the exception of the new permanent glass barrier at the top, in my opinion, I left. This one is fine as is for me for now. So everything in that business case was approved, but I stripped out that permanent barrier.

[1:11:24] In P5, the fire department breathing apparatus and breathing apparatus decontamination, the funding envelope was not changed. It was just moved from 2024 to 2026 in the budget, anticipating not actually replacing that equipment to a little later on. So I adjusted it actually in the budget, no change in the amount, just a change in the year that it was allocated to. Municipal housing development, resourcing, another change here that doesn’t change necessarily the global amount, but shifts the years that the staff are coming online for, giving the priority prioritization of housing.

[1:12:00] This actually shifts some of the FTEs up into 2025 from 2026. And if you have questions about that, our staff can go through it in some more detail. No overall change to the finances here, but a change to when the FTEs are deployed, which of course, when you hire people earlier can make some small adjustments, but it’s the FTEs coming on a little bit earlier. LMCH service plan improvements. This was a substantive business case that I spoke to them about. The overall original ask was I think just slightly over 7 million.

[1:12:35] What I did was this and in talking with them, we made some adjustments to this one, lowering the total ask to 5 million. There’s a capital timing change to the 330,000 in 2024, 200,000 in 2025, 200,000 in 2026 in consultation with LMCH. This will create some changes in the way that they do things. I can give you a couple of examples, and this is in consultation with the CEO. There’ll be a change in the timing that they bring on some of the cleaning services. When they bring the cleaning services in-house in 2025, it reflects some challenges that they have with the vendor transition and the timing for staff ramp up on that, so they’re just shifting it out a year based on some logistics that they had there.

[1:13:22] They were going to create community support staff, increase the community support staff complement, and rolling out community office buildings through their regeneration plan. So instead of asking for community office locations in their buildings as a standalone in the budget, they’ll roll that into the regeneration plan and build those community offices out as they regenerate buildings rather than make it a standalone ask. So it will be incorporated into their capital plan and the refurbishment of their stock rather than a taxpayer asking this particular budget. And there will be a slight reduction in the staff related to security moving with a focus on, basically reduced levels with a focus on evenings and weekends and the prioritization kind of hot sometimes that that staff is needed.

[1:14:12] So just an adjustment in the deployment of that. That’s what leads to the adjustment in the overall budget for LMCH. A development planning and data reporting, there were seven FTEs asked for, or seven resources I should say asked for there. That was reduced to four resources in consultation with Mr. Mathers. The highest priority resources were all kept. The ones that we could defer out were excluded from the business case. So there were three, these three positions were excluded from the business case, but the highest priority positions that staff needed were still included.

[1:14:49] The City of London Community Arts Investment Program. Although this is not the level that the London Arts Council asked for, it is an increase of $100,000 representing a 14%, 14.3% increase in the total funding available in Cape Funding. It’s the first increase that Cape Funding has had in over 20 years. You’ll see a lot of this. People may have asked for something. They may have asked for more. They didn’t get everything they wanted. They may have gotten some. With a tax increase where it was, these are the kind of tough decisions that I felt I had to make to try to meet the obligations of our strategic plan, but not put additional upward pressure beyond the pressure that already exists on the tax base.

[1:15:33] There’s an increase of $150,000 to expanded washroom hours, not the amount of the full business case, but I did not allocate where those hours would be distributed. And I think it’s best to leave it to our staff to determine how the hours would be expanded between the two locations that they’ve identified. P-42, which is the Community Improvement Plan review. I’m anticipating some colleagues want to discuss this because there’s some that I did not approve. I only approved initiatives 12 and 14. It’s important to approve of those initiatives because the housing related CIPs will be using housing accelerator funding money.

[1:16:08] We have to approve these to be able to deploy that money effectively. And there are also enhanced CIPs to encourage commercial occupancy in the core areas, part of the core area vacancy strategy. So given the state of our downtown and core area, I felt it was important to continue with that CIP. The other CIPs are not included in the budget at this time. P-44, I only funded, this is the core initiatives, I only funded item six and seven. One was enhanced coordinated informed response. Again, given some of the challenges in downtown, boosting some resources there for the challenges that are being faced there, I felt was appropriate.

[1:16:48] But most of the other options and priorities in this were stripped out because part of one of the key components and something that I know Councilor Ferreira brought up and Council support him on was that we have to be really clear about establishing a new downtown master plan. And that downtown master plan or core area master plan, whatever we want to call it, will drive where we invest from after that point. So the other initiatives were stripped out. The prioritization is on develop the plan, support with community informed response expansion. And after we develop the plan, we can talk about how to prioritize investments in the core area.

[1:17:26] P-46 is kind of similar to what I just said. I only funded action 12, which was meant to start in 2025. This is developing the overall economic strategy for the city. This is what I talked about in the state of the city. But I want to start this right away. So I’m making a draw from the Economic Development Reserve fund on a one time basis to start this work in 2024. I’m not starting the tax supported obligation until 2025. But given, given we’re going to need some funding to execute economic development initiatives, I also added a new addition to the Economic Development Reserve fund starting in 2025 of a million dollars so that we’re starting to build up capacity in the Economic Development Reserve fund so that when the strategy is ready, we can actually deploy with some of the money that’s been set aside.

[1:18:14] Just trying to do some smart fiscal planning here. If we need base money, we have the ability to pull that out of the base of the draw into the Economic Development Reserve fund and a base in some other component of the budget to fund either staff or initiatives that may be related to an overall arcing economic development strategy. Enhancements to the Industrial Land Development Strategy, I eliminated the staff position, kept the capital funding so that we can execute the strategy with existing staff. Transit Service Growth Hours, the most popular one that counselors listed in their survey.

[1:18:51] Very difficult one for me to navigate through because I know the importance of transit. So two important critical pieces were funded in this. And I want you to remember this is beyond the base level increases that I’ve approved in the base budget for conventional and specialized transit. We need to proceed with the zero emission bus pilot program that is funded in the business case. We will not know how electric buses perform on London streets through a variety of years without funding this case and actually putting subuses on the street that we can get some data from.

[1:19:23] And also given all the presentations we had on specialized transit, paratransit, all of the discussions before Civic Works Committee, all of the discussions this council’s had, I prioritized improvements to specialized transit and paratransit in the service growth hours budget, targeting an additional 38,000 hours of service for specialized transit in addition to a substantive increase to their base budget. So this is where in P-51 I targeted the resources is towards specialized transit. I know some people want to increase conventional transit but given our limited capacity to fund everything, I tried to focus on where I felt the biggest problem was and where we’ve had some significant discussions and directions from this municipal council.

[1:20:08] Climate emergency action plan. I funded initiatives 1A, 1C and I amended 3B including it and the reserve fund contribution has been adjusted to 2 million, 2 million, 3 million, 3 million. The thought here is there are a whole bunch of things that we can do but one of the most important things we should do is create a new reserve fund with a permanent source of funding over the next few decades to actually start to draw our initiatives for the climate emergency action plan out of. So this creates a new permanent reserve fund with new permanent flows of money into it to fund the CEAP initiatives.

[1:20:49] Many of those initiatives were not funded outside of that plan, I didn’t include them in the budget but this money will start to be allocated and staff and council will get to make the decisions on how are we going to deploy this new reserve fund to meet our climate emission targets. And I want to mention too that with any new reserve fund once you create base contributions in successive multi-year budgets, you can start to ramp those up over time without as much of a big impact on tax. So you can add $1 million a year, $1 million a year and suddenly you’re making $4 or $5 million annual contributions into this.

[1:21:23] I ramped it up a little slower given the tax pressures that the community is facing. The library facilities capital asset management. So when the library talked about they have some issues with the roofs and some of their assets, I have given them a significant one-time funding of an I’m looking at Mr. Murray, $5.6 million. $5.6 million one time for them to make emergency and needed repairs to their facilities to shore up their capital assets.

[1:21:58] But I did not give them the permanent funding for their capital asset management plan because they are in the process of working with our municipal staff to develop their capital asset management plan. When that plan is developed, that plan will drive their capital needs over the next little while. So what happened here is they get the money to fix their problems. They develop the capital asset management plan with our staff. That drives future asks and future investments on the capital side for library facilities. Alternative work strategies and interior renewal.

[1:22:33] This business case was reduced. The impact is instead of doing one floor of City Hall per year, it’s one every two years now. So just a pacing out of the refurbishment of this building. A number of floors have been done. There’s lots more to do. I’ve just changed the pacing. As I want to thank Anna Lisa Barmon and her team for taking a careful look at this business case and finding an option that allowed me to scale this back a little bit, but still keep on track for the lifecycle maintenance of this building. Digital modernization, not a huge change here in consultation with staff.

[1:23:05] This has been, the starting date has been moved out from 2024 to 2025 in a sense to take some pressure off of 2024 and realizing that we’re already a little bit of a ways through 2024. This really could start in 2025 without any significant impact. Other adjustments I made that were not in the business cases, these are not things you would have seen. These are new, is for those who followed the election campaign, I did make a commitment to make a significant investment in our neighborhood parks and recreational plans. I didn’t want to burden the tax base with that.

[1:23:39] And so we have just over $4 million in the Community Investment Reserve Fund. I moved that money from the Community Investment Reserve Fund over to help accelerate parks and parks-related initiatives across the city in each and every ward with no impact on taxpayers so that as we face some challenges with parkland dedication and changes to provincial legislation, we have some money in that pot to make the neighborhood-related recreational service changes that all of our constituents demand on a daily basis. I envision this to be many, many, many small projects in all parts of the city to, you know, where we focus on all the big things.

[1:24:18] People love their neighborhood parks. They want to see improvements in their neighborhood parks. Some are very outdated. This actually gives us the capacities in municipal council without drawing the tax base, put some money over there to accelerate some stuff. The other one I did was council has long debated clearing on sidewalks should be five centimeters, the provincial standard should be eight. We moved from five to eight. The complaints have not necessarily changed. I’m going to move this back down to five since it doesn’t seem to be creating a noticeable impact. This actually saves us a significant amount of money in 2024. And again, I don’t know if you’re feeling the same way I did.

[1:24:53] I haven’t noticed a difference in complaints about sidewalk clearing at all. I know other Councillors haven’t. This is an idea I know Councillor Layman and Councillor Lewis were floating around bringing. I just put it in the budget. So it’s something that can be discussed. You can make amendments to it, but it’s in there now. And that standard changes to take a little pressure off of 2024. I wanted to let you know that I did try to align the business cases with our strategic plan. I greatly respect the work that Council did with the strategic plan. And so you’ll see if you actually went out and spread the business cases that were approved or amended in this across the strategic plan, they’re spread across the different ones.

[1:25:32] Now, you can’t really judge this by how many are in each category. P-51 is a large investment. So it may only be one item there, but it’s a significant investment. And also, I would say I struggled with some of these, that mobility and transportation does that fit under climate action. I just went with the staff categorization in the original business case, and I only stuck to the additional business case that ended up with the legislative ones in here. And this is just to give you a sense that my goal here was to try to spread some of those investments across Council’s strategic plan respecting the work that we did as a Council. I want to add some additional commentary on the business cases, public safety.

[1:26:11] So you heard the state of the city. This budget does include the single largest public safety investment in London’s history. Of the 8.8%, public safety increases represent 5%, 5% of the overall tax increase. And that includes approved business cases and base cases for the London Police Service, as well as an approval of the enhanced by-law enforcement business case as well. This will be a point that will be important for Councilors. If you are looking to drive down the budget increase, you just have to realize that there is like a lot that we invested in here.

[1:26:48] And if public safety is a priority, this is where the rubber hits the road and where it lands in the budget. And this is the scope and scale of the investment that’s being talked about. On that, sorry, I’m going to go back. On this too, I want to mention something. And I can answer some questions about this if there are any later. This investment does come with an actual, real and genuine commitment to a historic level of accountability and transparency from the Police Services Chief and the Police Services Board.

[1:27:26] The Chief, and I don’t know too many municipalities that have this, is committed to coming before this Council on a regular basis, time frame that we’ll figure out, to present data metrics, talk about the investment that you’re making in Police Services, and be accountable to all of us and answer our questions in this chamber before us. And I think that that’s an important commitment. Not only that, but he will take actions outside of this Council chambers by the formation of a new advisory committee that he’s going to create.

[1:27:58] He’s going to be doing quarterly public crime reports, reporting out to the committee in different ways, contemplating the idea of a more public facing dashboard oriented crime reporting system that is more user friendly. He’s committed to increasing engagements and being present at community events. And so I was not willing to make a significant investment in public safety without an equally significant investment and commitment to accountability and transparency before this Municipal Council. So again, I can answer some questions but that was some more detail later, if necessary.

[1:28:31] But I wanted to add that context to what is the most significant part of the 2024 budget. Housing, another critical priority for Council. I want you to just see the scope of the housing investments that continue to be in this base budget. Not only are there base budget and business case investments to streamline and speed up processing times, there are significant new investments to our roadmap to 3,000 affordable units, increasing, including $10 million over the multi-year budget. There is support for LMCH’s regeneration plan on the capital side of 33.4 million over the MYB, support for the service implementation plan, 10 million a new investment for strategic acquisitions, and a continuation of the community housing subsidy investment, which is critical as RGI units expire from other sources of funding, we need to fund them or we lose RGI units in the city.

[1:29:23] So there are important affordability measures in this portion of the budget that are pretty critical to our housing commitments. Transportation, also another significant council priority. Specialized transit, as you said, 38,000 RSI said, I guess. 38,000 new service hours, approximately 20 more, percent more service hours. The support for electric bus pilot project, but I will be clear after discussions with the LTC, there’s a deferral of the electric bus transition business case funding until the results of the pilot are available. I have had significant discussions with both representatives at LTC about this and our staff to ensure that we are making the right smart decision here.

[1:30:06] I will tell you just a couple of points of my consideration for this. There is data showing that this is from the commission, that we really need to figure out how buses are gonna perform on our streets to be able to ensure that we properly scale the electrification of the fleet. Current industry results for buses in operation in Canada are indicating that buses are performing slightly below the rates that were anticipated in our original business case. And so they’re having to return to the garage for recharging sooner than anticipated. It might put upward pressure on the number of buses that we need to supply the transit hours that we have to.

[1:30:39] This is not something that we should wing. We need to get it right. So the pilot project will drive data in London, on London streets for the commission. Then they will move towards what is the electrification. I’ll also flag that by the time we get to electrification, the federal program for electric buses will expire. There will be no significant program to fund or support the funding of electrical buses unless we see a new federal program come. So delaying this not only is supported by the commission, but allows us to time our acquisitions with more data at a time where maybe there is a new federal program or a provincial program that can assist in the cost of that significant capital acquisition, climate action.

[1:31:23] The budget includes the new permanent contributions to a climate action reserve fund. I don’t think that’s the actual name of it. So sorry to our staff, I’m not trying to name a reserve fund. But I want to mention that the wastewater budgets often get overlooked. There are substantive new investments. There are new investments, I should say. I don’t want to judge the scale of them in the MYB each year to continue to deal with the ongoing problem that we hear about sewage bypass and overflow elimination, mitigating the overflow challenges that we have within the system.

[1:31:56] The capital budgets and business cases that I have approved in there continues to have council make progress on its commitment to address these. There’s also support in there for the couple of items that I mentioned before. I just listed the actual programs here. One of them really important to leverage FCM funding. So taking it out of the budget would have lost the opportunity for external funding. I’ve left some of those climate initiatives in. But again, I think the most critical piece here as I mentioned before is the creation of a new permanent funding source for council to fund all of its current and future and unanticipated even initiatives that we may initiate here.

[1:32:35] And finally, and I’m almost done, Madam Chair, there are significant reductions in this budget too. And once in the annual budget updates, it’s become so much more transparent because it comes as a business case that council has approved in the past. But it gets just baked into the process of the regular budget development process. And I think our staff lose a massive amount of credit because they just do this good work and it just goes in the budget. So I’m gonna highlight it ‘cause it’s important. This multi-year budget includes $46 million that staff have found in cumulative savings.

[1:33:14] $3.2 million in one-time reductions and 10.7 in permanent ongoing savings that they conducted through service review. So for everybody who says, we need to dig deep. We need to like find efficiencies. We need to do program reviews, zero-based budgeting, Lean Six Sigma. Staff are doing that and this is the results of that work. Over the course of since we started the service review programs is 2016, the total cumulative amount of savings that we have driven through service review and all those programs is $242.9 million cumulative dollars by 2027.

[1:33:49] And that is at least because we haven’t done the service review for 2025, 2026 or 2027 yet. That is the base. That is the minimum that we are gonna save through the good hard work of staff through the service review project. I think it gets overlooked. On the other reduction, the business case was approved for the one time return an offset of tax pressure of $15.5 million with the unused contingencies that were earmarked for COVID-19 allocated in 2024. I think that that’s a responsible thing to do given the upward tax pressure.

[1:34:25] That’s where it landed, if you take that out, it will bump, I think the tax percentage by a couple of points it looks like. So that’s an important one time reduction in 2024 and a return of that. I talked about significant reductions. I would characterize this budget as significant investments in three high priority areas, public safety, housing affordability and homelessness and transportation. If you are looking to bring the increase down, I will be very clear.

[1:34:59] There are a lot of window dressing things we can do. You pretty much have to dig in these areas to make any significant move on the tax rates. And the tax rate is as it is because we are making significant improvements to this area. There are other municipalities who have upward pressure on their tax rates. Other people tabling in the same range that I table my budget in or higher and they’re not necessarily getting the same number of new investments in high priority areas that Londoners are. So these are investments.

[1:35:32] They should be expectations that the public has for better, new and increased service that we will be accountable for. So I just want to be clear, this budget contains investments in these high priority council prioritized areas which we have talked about time and time again throughout the course of the year. And as always falls at the end, water and wastewater budgets, I didn’t make any significant changes to them. There’s a small impact from the UTCRA change, but all of the business cases in the water and wastewater budgets were approved and included in the budgets I tabled and more discussion can happen on those, but I’ll leave those for now.

[1:36:13] And that, and I appreciate your time, is the presentation. But I do have an ask of council before we get into the debate. I want us to be really respectful of each other’s differences of opinion in the debate. And I want us to be very cautious about the language we use. It’s pretty easy to say, to characterize something as a cut. It isn’t really actually a cut. If someone asks for five million dollars and you give them three, that’s not a cut. That’s a new investment of three million.

[1:36:47] It may not have been what they ask for it, but it’s a new investment. And so we can disagree on the level of new investment, but let’s not characterize things as cuts to services that are not necessarily cuts to services. That will lead us into a more combative, more divisive debate than we need to have. And I think we can actually work through this process in a fair, articulate way where everybody can share their opinions and their thoughts. And I will say now, I have fulfilled my legislative obligation to table a budget under the legislation.

[1:37:21] And now that obligation shifts to council for the next 30 days to make the necessary changes or not, that they feel need to be made to the table budget. Then I thank you for your time. I’m happy Madam Chair to answer a few questions that I can answer if it’s in my head. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll say if you wanna grab a glass of water, feel free to do so. I will say that we are at committee. You can speak more than once. I’m gonna time for five minutes just to kind of make sure we’re sharing time. I’m happy to extend that as this is the opportunity for questions of what you’ve just heard from the mayor.

[1:37:57] Anyone from members how I chair? Feel free to ask a couple questions and then let another council ask a few questions and we’ll circle back around. So it takes what it takes just, I know I’ve sat and struck the beginning of your questions need to be the moment at the floor, but this is your opportunity to ask questions in the mayor. I will start my speaker’s list. I will be timing and I’ll start with Councilor Troso. Thank you very much for that presentation. It did answer some of my questions. I particularly appreciated what you said about the police budget. So one question I have for you is are you willing to engage the London Middlesex Housing Corporation at the same level and make those commitments?

[1:38:39] ‘Cause it might help the discussion. Thank you for that, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, I’ll just be clear. I don’t think the London Middlesex Housing Corporation is unwilling to come before council with us as the shareholder and have a conversation about how often they’d like to get information from us. Like I think with this is we could pass all the motions we want, we could demand things, we could tie it to their budget, or we could just ask. And in my discussions with Mr. Chisholm and some board members, just on the adjustments that we were able to make, there, I don’t feel there’s any unwillingness to share openly and transparently information with council.

[1:39:25] I think we just have to define what we think that looks like and have a conversation about how often. Now, we will have formal shareholder meetings with LMCH as the shareholder, and that is a very specific process. But there’s the annual update process and if council’s looking for something more, I think through their relevant committee, can we can define as a council if we’re looking for more engagement or what type of engagement we’re looking for, much like the conversation that has been had with the police board and the chief. I haven’t done that myself, but I think that that’s something that is very reasonable for us to ask.

[1:39:58] But let’s do it with an ask first rather than a demand. Thank you for the chair, that’s very helpful. And I will take my questions up with caps just so the caps people know that’s coming. My other question, is this the appropriate time to ask detailed questions about the adjustments or should they be saved until they’re on the floor by way of amendment? ‘Cause I would like to know a little bit more about adjustments four and five through the chair. Yeah, I would say that’s certainly fine within reason now, ‘cause we don’t have to be an amendment on the floor later, so let’s get some money for me.

[1:40:39] Yeah, so my specific question is, it’s from what I can tell from this document, you used 5.4% as the average, which is where you landed. And I’m not trying to put you on the spot or embarrass you, but I need to understand this better. In going from what the numbers were to 5.4, did you look at specific factors with respect to, well in the case of adjustment for it, museum London and in the case of adjustment five, LPL, or did you just use 5.4 and that’s where you landed?

[1:41:18] Mr. Mayor. Thank you chair. So it wasn’t my initial, it wasn’t the initial spot where I landed to be frank. 4.7 was, because 4.7 was the average that civic admin came in, 2.2 plus the capital financing. However, knowing that there are upward pressures on some boards and commissions, and knowing that some were able to come in on average around there, and knowing through discussions with others who were willing to take a look and engage and where they could come down to now, again, RBC place was able to come down further than 5.4. I will tell you, even Elden House went back and looked and said we could save $3,000 and I didn’t include that.

[1:42:00] It like, it’s everybody took a look, but I will tell you the library did not return with any feedback on what could be saved. And the museum said, we need everything. And so their boards will have to figure this reduction out. And there will be impacts. But there is huge upward pressure on the tax rate as colleagues have seen.

[1:42:35] And on the library side, a 19.9% increase is a lot. And I also reflected on what their previous increases were over the course of successive multi-year budgets. And so what is 5.4? It’s more than 4.7 and it’s the average that the boards and commissions came into. Could it have been 5.3 or 5.5 for sure it could have? But there needs to be a starting point to drive that. And the boards then can take their base budgets and allocate within their responsibilities to do so.

[1:43:08] And if they feel that there is a massively critical issue that they can’t deal with, there’s the annual budget updates to come back. But for those who did not suggest some level of savings through that process, I made two decisions without their approval in those two cases. The others like RBC Place came back with their own recommendations. My only follow-up question to that then is procedural. Would amendments be made on adjustments four and five just like in the case of business plans?

[1:43:48] Or would it be the same procedure if I wanted to amend four and five? Yes, it would, and the process is we’re, ideally we’re gonna do the legislative ones first and then we’ll discuss the base budget. So what you’re thinking of like start drafting it ‘cause we’ll get that earlier in the process than later. Yes, and I will do that ‘cause I intend to pursue those. Thank you very much. Point of information or yes, Mr. Mayor. Just for the Councillor’s context and just be as supportive as possible ‘cause I would strongly encourage you to talk to Mr. Murray because you need to know the way that I structured the reduction, it’s focused in 2024.

[1:44:28] So the library’s increase actually comes down in 2024 substantially. It actually went up from what they asked in 2025, 2026 and 2027 because I did not reduce their specific asks in those years. So because the first year came down, the percentages are higher on the subsequent years. So if you’re looking to undo that through an amendment, I would just encourage you to talk to Mr. Murray about how to structure that properly so that you don’t maybe create an unintended consequences on the way that it was spread across the budget year. Thank you. - Thank you.

[1:45:02] Through the chair, I will do that. I don’t know if I can do that today, but I will take your advice. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely, our finance team remains available realizing you might go in with one intention and accidentally reduced future money they would have got based on how the structure works over the years. I have Councillor Stevenson next and then followed by Councillor McAllister. Thank you. I wanted to follow on the comments of the library and wondering around options. I know staff have done everything that they can to find savings as has the mayor and I know I appreciate that.

[1:45:37] If there were certain things that we knew the community really was passionate about, it doesn’t preclude us from at a later time digging into something and finding something in the base budget that we could let go of and then say fund our libraries more, right? I understand that we’re setting the budget today, but we still have that option as council to, through the chair, you know what I mean? We’re not locking this down, right? We have future opportunities to explore other ways to achieve some of the things we may want. Yeah, Council on the 29th, it would be your last opportunity through the multi-year budget to make amendments and then there’s always those annual updates.

[1:46:17] As they come back, we revisit all budget fund every year for the annual update. So mid-year, there isn’t an opportunity to explore something and present it to council to say, ‘cause we’ve done it before, right? Where we’ve said one of the councilors has really wanted something talked to staff and they’ve found a way, we always, I’m just trying to say it doesn’t always have to be done right now. There is always that option later to find a way if things were to change or we were to find one. Yeah, well, the finance team talked to the most appropriate ways to continue a conversation and bring it forward.

[1:46:57] Thank you through the chair. So I would say if we’re talking about potential program or service changes mid-year, the most appropriate approach would be to then work through those conversations and have that, the impacts of that referred to the next annual budget update, if there are impacts associated with it. If it’s a simple reallocation that has no overall net impact on the budget, that is simpler to do, that is easier to do ‘cause it doesn’t require any additional funding.

[1:47:28] So if we are in a situation where we need to make adjustments to funding, whether it’s increases or decreases, that would get referred to the next annual update. Councillor McAllister, and then I’ll have Councillor Ferra. Thank you and through the chair. I also just thank the mayor for your presentation. It’s very helpful in terms of just providing some more context and really my question kind of has to do this in terms of giving you more of an opportunity to speak to this a bit more. I appreciated the slide in terms of what you called out, the fact that public safety, housing, and transit were the priorities, but I was wondering if you could speak a bit more to the discussions in terms of the police, because as you indicated, 5% of the 8.8, for instance, next year is entirely police.

[1:48:16] So I think we should use this opportunity to speak to the public in terms of the rationale, because what I hear from my constituents is calling the police if I don’t have a place to live is kind of a pointless exercise, right? So I think it’s important to remind the voters in terms of public safety, we’re still below the provincial threshold. It’s top of mind for a lot of Londoners, obviously, but just in terms of the logic that went into the breakdown, because we did see obviously there were reductions for housing, for transit, but with the police, I think there is just this impression right now that essentially they got everything they asked for.

[1:48:59] So I just want to give you this opportunity to speak more in terms of the rationale for the police being at the top. Mr. Mayor? Yeah, and I’m going to be cautious here, because I don’t speak on half of the board, right? And the board, in consultation with the chief, approved a budget and a new operational plan around that budget, around their plan to improve a number of key metrics of public safety through the almost year-long engagement that they did with members of the public on where deficiencies were with the police service.

[1:49:33] And when Chief Ty came in and was hired, one of the commitments he made to the service was, we’re going to do things differently. And so, there is the tradition of throwing money at a problem, which usually doesn’t solve it, but putting money towards an operational plan that actually does things differently, which is what the board approved, a different approach to frontline policing, restoration of well-known things like the core area, response unit, engaging in a new way of supporting the frontline officers to keep them on the street going from call to call more with a targeted goal of reducing the queue is all some examples of components of a different operational plan that the board decided to fund and then forward to municipal council.

[1:50:19] And I know the chief has been out doing his own engagements as has the board to explain the details of that to members of the public. So, I can tell you, I am supportive of that new operational plan, but I am equally supportive of that, if we’re going to spend money on this, we need to get value for that money. We need to see the metrics change. We know that response times are bad. All of the second and third level response times have gone up at the expense of maintaining the critical level one emergency response.

[1:50:57] And there’s been a slight decline in that from about nine minutes and 17 seconds to about nine minutes and 30 seconds for. There’s someone shooting, we’ve got to get the police there. That has been maintained. But for the second level of calls, things like category two and category three are code two and code three as the police call it. Code two calls have gone from maybe an hour and a half to seven hours. Code three from maybe six or seven hours to four days. And so, let me give you an example of the difference between those calls, just so you understand.

[1:51:34] Code one is my intimate partner is attacking me in my house. I need help. Lights and sirens, people got to get there. Code two is my intimate partner attacked me and is gone and isn’t in the building anymore. That’s code two. Doesn’t feel like a code two to the person who was attacked, but that’s a code two. That’s what’s gone to seven hours from an hour and a half. And then code three is, hey, last week my intimate partner attacked me and I have the courage now to make a call and I need to make a report.

[1:52:08] And that’s the, so you’re not getting same day service, you’re waiting four days. So that’s an example of a different code classification and what it means. And that is where the great frustration has been for Londoners. But I can tell you too, the level of a traffic enforcement that has been available as you shore up what is more violent and calls and more intense police responses has been at the expense of traffic enforcement. And so when people say, I hear the loud mufflers going around and I don’t think people are obeying the traffic rules, that’s because there has been a decreased level of enforcement in those places, shifting resources towards the shootings, the violent attacks, the more intense police response that’s needed from those sorts of crimes.

[1:52:54] All of this can be done. And of course, the backlog of the queue. Officers starting a shift with 200 calls in the queue. Starting your job and not even getting to the stuff that came in that day, for the most part, is like it’s obviously hard on the officers on the front lines as well. Because they’re going from frustrated person to frustrated person to frustrated person, never catching up. So let me just loop back. One of the key changes the chief is making to try to write that is, how do we keep the front line officers going from call to call to call?

[1:53:27] Because they’ll get on a call that requires an investigation. And then guess what they do? They’re driving back to the office to do the paperwork and to engage on that. The new plan would have a different investigative unit, different bodies, new bodies, which would go out and take over that call so the front line officers can try to clear the queue. There’s many, many more things in the operational plan. Counselor, and I think if you want to get a lot more detail, you could talk with the board or the chief. But I’m supportive of that plan, but only with the added accountability, which is the commitment that was made.

[1:54:01] That’s why it’s in the budget. Counselor, follow up? Thank you, through the chair. And I mean, I know you’ve talked to this before. I appreciate what you’re saying. Public safety is still top of mind for Londoners, and you’re not wrong in that. I think it’s just important for us to remember in terms of our priorities. Like obviously you’ve highlighted the top three, but just in terms as we move through this four years, that public safety is important, but also people obviously staying housed is also equally important.

[1:54:33] And I just wanted to remind my colleagues in terms of the investments we’re making, that yes, public safety is important, but we do also have to recognize the struggles and the situation that Londoners are in, and we have to equally invest in those other areas as well. Thank you. Thank you. I have Counselor Ferreira and then Counselor Hopkins. Thank you, through you. Thanks for the presentation and explaining the questions here. Just following up from Counselor McAllister’s comments, just to make sure that we look at every area of service that the city needs.

[1:55:08] I just wanted to follow up with the Museum London stuff. I do see that there’s an attempt for like a harmonization to be fair with the other agencies and boards like RBC Place, but I do look at the absolute amount. So like considering with Museum London, that’s 81,000 a year compared to maybe the land ambulance costs at a million, two million, three million in 2027. And I feel like with the 81,000 from what I see and from just discussions with Museum London, that is critical for their operation.

[1:55:41] So I just wanted to know was there any way or any kind of process that involved the actual absolute amount? A little with the 81,000 comparatively speaking with the millions dollars worth of that? Mr. Mayor. I took the approach of everybody can do their part if we could find a way. And so it was an initially in ask. So the absolute amounts may not drive the tax rate, but I heard someone say in the budget process, not a member of council, this is a drop in the bucket, which is true.

[1:56:21] And even if you approve this, it doesn’t change the actual tax rate. But if you say that same thing for the 100 things that we could say that for in the budget, it’s now a half full bucket and it does move the tax rate. And so yes, we can look at I think 100 different things in this budget and say, this is a small amount, but all of those small amounts add up in many different ways, which is why you see me pull apart business cases and say, yes, but not all. Yes, but not all.

[1:56:53] And I want to be clear. Museum London is still getting, on average, a 5.4% increase each year, like on average each year than they’ve got before. I was on this council and there was a time where a 5.4% increase would have been something we would have been like, there is no way that that is going to happen. But we realize that cost pressures are different across the system. Could they use more? For sure they could, as could the library, as could RBC Place. They would love to do their capital plan sooner, as could anybody else, as could everybody who submitted a business case, as could the arts council, as could.

[1:57:29] So all of those drops add up. So I understand your point, but I would say the frank answer is no, like the amount probably didn’t matter because the principle of the thing is, let’s see if everybody can take a little bit less and work with that for the most part. But you will see areas of high priority. I tried not to do that, right? There’s not a lot of weight. Like I didn’t touch the housing base budget ‘cause we had all these other increases we had to make. And it just, it made no sense to try to do that there.

[1:58:03] Whereas there was others that I think I could, I could ration that with. So that might not be the best answer that you’re looking for, but it’s the frank answer. It’s a whole bunch of drops in the bucket, add up to a full bucket. Councilor for error, follow up? Thank you for that. Okay, moving from drops, let’s talk about two buckets or a few buckets, going to the conventional service hours. So I understand in our conversation, you did say it here to the conventional service hours, do you have a significant base budget, which you did not cut? And that was, we were hoping that that would be sufficient.

[1:58:39] But I’m looking at that comparatively with the London Police base budget, which also had some increases as well, but there was the additional business cases on that. And my concern is with the London, with the conventional service hours, from what I understand, if we don’t add those hours, we will not be able to expand our services at all. We’ll barely be able to even support the existing services as it is. And from what I know, that simply will add up to people not being picked up at their stops. And that will increase, especially considering we have an increasing population and just looking at the demand right now.

[1:59:14] So I just wanted to see the thought process on that aspect. Mr. Mayor. My thought process is it’s hard to fix everything. Paratransit has been a very clear priority for this council and members of the public who have been grossly underserved for years. I don’t feel I can fix everything and I don’t think I can do everything for everyone. And so I focused on paratransit. At the same time, I did not reduce the conventional transit base budget. And let me just characterize so it’s clear how much that ask increases.

[1:59:48] The municipal contribution on just conventional transit will move from 35.8 million in 2023 to 49.4 million in 2027. So if the commission is saying we can’t make better service with that amount of substantive increase in the base budget that it’s all just cost of doing business, I think the members of the commission have to take a second look at whether they can shift some things around and maybe meet some of those high priority needs. I do also believe that if municipal council has priorities in the interim and annual budget updates to say we want to prioritize more investments in expansion to industrial service or we have a program we’d like you to consider that it’s fair for us to fund those and annual budget updates.

[2:00:33] But I did not touch the base budget. I allocated as much as I possibly could to paratransit in the expansion case. And no, I did not approve the expansion case for conventional transit at this time. Councillor, I have Councillor Hopkins next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you Mayor for your presentation, very much appreciated. You gave us a lot of information here to digest. One of the things I did notice was that you were able to amend a number of business cases by moving operations or work that needs to be done in one year, 2024 over to 25.

[2:01:19] And I really appreciate the work and it must have been a lot of work going through every business case and assessing everything. So thank you for that. I do have a question though, around the police budget. And this is my third police budget and every police budget I have done, I have scrutinized. And I am trying to see how I am going to scrutinize this police budget because it is huge amount, 5% out of the 8.8.

[2:01:58] And I feel it’s my due diligence to do that. So I also heard you supporting it 100%. There are a number of business cases. So my first question is around and I’ve heard this from a number of presentations that it’s all or nothing. And I just want to sort of understand how you looked at, I know you supported, you’re on the board services, but what did you take into account or did you take into account maybe taking something in or removing it just like you did throughout the business cases that we had.

[2:02:47] Number one, Mr. Mayor. So I’ll give, I’ll say two things to this councilor through the chair, of course. First off, I do support the budget. And I am very convinced by Chief Ty Trong and his team’s assessment of where the deficiencies are and where the needs are on each and every aspect of that budget. And I know it’s based on the consultation that the London Police Services Board did, but let me take off the board hat for a second and go, I’m a municipal councilor and I have been for a number of years.

[2:03:26] There are a number of boards and commissions who have other recourse to pursue if they don’t feel that they’re getting the money that they need and the London Police Services Act does give the Chief and the Board some authority to if we don’t believe on them to pursue other recourse. And I’m not saying that that’s something that they’re going to do because again, I support the plan. But I think when you try to compare the police, why didn’t I go through and pick and choose pieces out? Is because I actually know legislatively that municipal councils don’t have the operational discretion to say, hey, London Police Service, I don’t like this part of your budget.

[2:04:06] I’m not funding it. Does council have the authority to say, we’re lowering the overall police budget? Yes, do they have the authority to say, we’re lowering it and you cannot do this thing? No, the police board can take that money and do that thing anyways, even if it’s a reduced amount. And on the amount, they have other recourse. So I think that there’s also obviously some advice we could get from our slistering camera on the types of boards and commissions that may have other processes that we should be aware of. But I don’t want any of my comment there to reflect on not being supportive of the ask.

[2:04:40] But I think we all have to recognize the reality of the legislative authority on different things that municipal councils do and don’t have on a number of these. We have the absolute authority, in some cases, to fund very specific things. On the police and public safety side of things, we do not have the ability to pick operational items out of a police services budget and say yes to this, no to that. Councilor? Thank you for that. And my next question is, I think, I want to follow up with Councilor McAllister’s questions around housing homelessness and housing and the importance that is in our city.

[2:05:27] I know when I was campaigning 99.9% of Londoners think that that is really important. How we deal with that. And in particular, housing, and I do represent Ward 9 and housing is a big conversation and how affordable it is to maintain. When you were looking at the safety of our city and the homeless housing conversation, were you able to sort of pick throughout, through the business cases?

[2:06:10] And I’ve been trying to do that, where there is security and where there is asks to, from our boards and agencies, to create security responsibilities and integrate that. I think the library board is one, there was an item there for a staff person, working with mental health issues even. So I just want to sort of see, from your point of view, if you were able to balance those requests throughout the business cases with the police request and how that worked out for you.

[2:06:58] Mr. Mayor. Thank you through the chair. So I would say trying to balance that is probably the hardest thing that I’ve ever done since my time on council, because for those who know me, I’m not really a huge fan of tax increases. I like to try to find creative ways to bring it down, whether that’s sources of financing or doing that. And it’s not just us, every municipality, like look at the budgets that are being tabled. There is this huge upward pressure. But one of the differences that we have is we are actually still making investments in this budget in those critical areas.

[2:07:31] And housing is one of them. On the idea of, there’s a number of organizations who have started spending money on their own security. And I want to separate mental health from just general security. And I think if we make a significant investment in the police budget and we’re putting more officers out there and we’re expecting a higher level of public safety, it takes pressure off of those other organizations and the private sector and the businesses who may be paying to have someone at their door because there is not a requisite level of safety that’s necessary.

[2:08:06] So I think there is a balance here that can play out over time where if Chief Strong’s investments play out as they are anticipated to, maybe some of that pressure for additional investments in security and different agencies, boards and commissions and the private sector, of course, can come off and be reinvested in other areas and supports as necessary. On housing counselor through the chair, it’s probably the second largest area of investment in this budget. And it is focused around the multitude of options that we have before us as a council to try to meet that affordability.

[2:08:43] It touches on and supports business cases that streamline our development processes so that we can get to the 47,000 units in general supply increase. It gives money, significant new money to the roadmap for $3,000 of over $10 million. It supports LMCH’s Regeneration and Service Improvement Plan so that they can refurbish their capital. It does put money aside for strategic acquisitions so that we can participate in our own affordable housing builds like we have multiple times before. And it involves the continuation, I would say the frustrating continuation because it is absolutely necessary of money set aside for expiring our GI units so that we can maintain those rent-gear to income units in our city at the levels that they are and hopefully increase them over time rather than have them expire and not be here in our city.

[2:09:31] So there is a range of housing investments here that try to hit all of council’s priorities and all of the things we need to be involved in and so that’s why I went back to that slide. If you add up, you know, public safety, housing affordability and homelessness and transportation, you’re gonna get pretty much, you know, pretty much all of the movement and the budget on on the tax rate side. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis and then looking for hands for the next speaker or should there be any?

[2:10:05] Thank you, Madam Chair. However, Councillor Hopkins question through the Mayor’s response addressed my question to him about outlining the legislative opportunities that the police have through the Ontario Civilian Commission to levy their bill on us. And I know that we may discuss that more as this process continues, but I think it’s been addressed adequately for now, so I’ll pass. Yes. I would just add, I gave my opinion. I am not the city solicitor.

[2:10:38] People are looking for formal advice. Do not get formal advice for me, right? We Councillors give don’t, I don’t give legal advice. I was asked my opinion on why this, it was included in an answer. If Councillors want a definitive question on that, you go into camera, you ask legal council for specific advice. So I appreciate Deputy Mayor saying, I resolved the issue, but it is important for me to note, I am not a solicitor and should not be interpreting legislation. I mean, I can read it, but I don’t take my advice. Thank you, strong Mayor Powers do not extend quite that far. I see Councillor Frank next, so going to that, that speaker and then looking for anything further.

[2:11:20] Thank you, yes, actually Councillor Hopkins questions kind of spurred one of my own. So you mentioned that you were not planning on reducing any amounts in the police budget because they have that recourse mechanism in place, but given the UTRCA also has a similar one, I’m just curious as to why you’re willing to go through that process with the UTRCA and not the police. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know you touched on this briefly, but if you expand. I sure can and through the chair, I really appreciate this answer because there is a difference and that I have had a conversation with the board chair of the Upper Thames Conservation Authority.

[2:11:55] And there is a very specific reason why I did not do anything to their 2024 budget is because they can levy fees on us. But in 2025, I did reduce it because I think there’s a meaningful conversation we can have with the Upper Thames about some of the pressures that have been put on them to pass costs onto this. And I would say one of the low hanging fruit that the chair and I identified that we could create a joint advocacy position on is the inability of them to charge some cost recovery fees, not from the municipality, but from others for some of the work that they’re doing has been capped.

[2:12:30] And some of that pressure then comes to the budget ask. So by reducing their budget by, I know it’s a large percentage amount, but it’s about a quarter of a million dollars, I think. We, and I’ve committed to the chair to have that discussion throughout the next 10 months to say, let’s see what changes could be made, but I will fully recognize that at the conclusion of that 10 months, if they wanna bill us for their services, we’re gonna have to make that adjustment in the annual budget update to do that. But I’m optimistic of this being a much more collaborative move than it may appear on, you know, I’m reducing your budget.

[2:13:09] And I would say that the discussion I had with the chair was very productive. So that’s the difference there is like that context of the discussion we had. And I think we have a joint discussion that we could engage in on some topics of interest there. Councilor. Thank you. I appreciate that background. I had one other question. Based on the resident satisfaction server that we did last year, homelessness and poverty was the top concern with one in two Londoners saying that it was their primary concern, which is about 47% of respondents.

[2:13:43] And I’m sure we all agree that homelessness was the number one thing we heard during our campaigns. In the resident satisfaction survey, public safety was a concern for one in 10 residents, which is 10%. So I’m just wondering what rationale you had for choosing to cut some of the housing-related business cases given the much higher importance that the community put on homelessness in regards to public safety and the survey, Mr. Mayor. So I would argue I didn’t cut anything from the budget. Everything represents a new and additional investment on the housing space.

[2:14:17] It may not be to the level or the funding of every business case available to us. But I will say there’s the resident satisfaction survey as one example of a point of contact that we’ve heard about how Londoners are feeling. I know counselors have had their ward meetings. I know we’ve all done our other engagements. And I can tell you from feedback coming into my office, public safety rates, much higher than I would have in, like if I were to go by the feedback that I hear is mayor, much higher than maybe the resident satisfaction survey may have articulated.

[2:14:49] And I also say that you have to seize the opportunities when they come. If this was just the police showing up here and saying, we want X numbers of new police and we’re gonna do better. I’m probably not too interested in that and probably interested in saying what we do about that. Funding and having the opportunity to actually fund with a new chief, a new board, an operational plan that is quite detailed. I think is an opportunity for us to make movement on something that is maybe not as high in the resident satisfaction survey as some other things, but is an opportunity to actually make movement on something that we probably have a once in a generation opportunity with the vision of a new chief who like I can tell you from sitting down with this person, I’ve never seen anybody so passionate about changing the way we do things, willing to shake up an organization and change like a general culture and perspective on how to do things as I have seen in chief tie.

[2:15:47] And I believe in that and I wanna support him as best I can. But that doesn’t mean I didn’t fund the other, you know, a number of other areas in a number of ways that are high on the resident satisfaction survey. Also, I would say that aligned with council’s strategic plan and when we did the survey of business cases, you’ll see that I think of all the top eight or nine business cases, they are funded either totally or partially for the prioritization that council picked for their top five as well. So I think there’s a million ways to say we could have done this differently and that’s what happens when you have, you know, over 70 business cases.

[2:16:22] That we could all have our opinion on how to do it. This is my proposal that I have now tabled and is the municipal budget. But like I said, there’s opportunities for councilors to change this through their legislative responsibility in the next 30 days as well. Thank you, Councilor Franco follow up. I’m good, thank you. Great, I have Councilor Rama next. Thank you and through you. I just wanted to echo first the sentiments that were shared around appreciation for the work that’s been done on the mayor’s budget.

[2:17:01] I have to say that, you know, I appreciate that this is the first time we’re all going through this process and that you’ve explored options to make it inclusive with all of us in terms of the process but also the engagement with the community. I did have some questions. My first one is actually related to the funding for the parks and recreation master plan. So I’m trying to understand where some of the funding wasn’t included from the business cases but there was the note about the funding within the master plan and looking at that funded from another source.

[2:17:45] I’m just wondering if you can speak to, if you see any of the items that are in the parks and rec business cases being addressed through that funding. Mr. Mayor. So a great question Councilor through the chair of course and I appreciate your recognition of the amount of work this is and I also have to say now this work was possible without my staff supporting me and the finance team and the budget chair and a number of others who help facilitate the process. That being said, I would say there are parts of it that are enjoyable and there are parts that are the most difficult decisions that I’ve made.

[2:18:21] So on this one specifically, there are a number of ways that I could identify this. Could have brought a motion before Council outside of the budget process ‘cause it’s allocating money from a reserve fund to another space. The specific reason why I included this, which was a campaign promise that I’m gonna check the box beside now, regardless of what happens to it, the specific reason I included it in the budget process was to give Council the ability through the amendment process to potentially do something different with this. I believe this is the right thing to do but it is here because it is absolutely an option on how to allocate community investment reserve funds.

[2:18:59] And so it is here before you because now I put it in the realm of your ability to shape and legislatively change that piece if you feel that you should and you could pitch an amendment and see if your colleagues support it. I still think that given the decrease in parkland education capacity to collect under provincial legislation and given what I have seen from just my time as a Councillor, the value and of course through the pandemic, the value of our open spaces and how we have underfunded them.

[2:19:33] My kids telling me like this is a fun park but it doesn’t have enough stuff. Like for all of the people and every time I have a group of kids coming through the hall, what could I do for you guys? Make our parks more fun, right? This is our opportunity to take what is actually leftover taxpayer money through the surplus process, put in the community investment reserve fund and return it to parks and recreation services across the city. I put it in there because I believe no matter how many challenging pieces we have in this budget, this is something that can bring a lot of joy to Londoners across the board. But out of respect for council, rather than try to do it later and say, oh, I wish I would have known this money was there when we were doing the budget process, I put it in the budget process so that it’s very transparent to all of you.

[2:20:17] If you want to pitch a different way to use this money, you now have the opportunity to do so. This is my best use for it given the commitments I’ve made and the value that I place on our recreational services. Mr. Ramen. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, on the neighborhood decision making where P27 where you have included that in the budget for an increase of 250,000 each year. I’m just wondering if you might be able to comment on parks allocations within the NDM.

[2:20:54] So in my word, or you formerly your word where your kids were saying there aren’t park amenities, this is something that I’m noticing quite often. And so one of those things that I was looking at was whether or not to amend to include a portion of that that would be solely for parks. But I know that that’s not the way that NDM was intended and because it is a program that you were spearheaded, I just, and now you’re spearheading in your budget, I wanted to get a sense of where your thinking was on that and how you see that feeding in.

[2:21:31] Thank you, I’ll also note that this business case P27 is one pledge for an amendment when we get there. Mr. Mayor. So I’ll be through the chair very honest and frank. For the stuff I care about, I’ve probably given myself a bit of a challenge here because I basically supported a program that I love and care about very much neighborhood decision-making, one that I brought to the city back in 2016, fulfilled a commitment that I made a couple of years back or just over a year back to increase funding to it, but also created an opportunity for additional funding in parks.

[2:22:09] And it is my unfortunate expectation that I anticipate one of the things that council may be successful in removing from this budget is probably neighborhood decision-making expansion, which I will vigorously defend in the debate at the appropriate time because this money could also achieve some of the same goals, although without that democratic engagement. And so my suggestion would be if people are looking for something to pick on here, reallocate some of this funding to somewhere else and let those, there’s not a lot of areas in this budget where taxpayers get to decide how to spend their own money and NDM is one of them.

[2:22:49] So the frank answer is there’s probably changes coming to one of these two areas and I fully realize that having put them both in the budget, but I think that’s what this process is about, is being transparent about where there are sources of financing, letting you see where they are and letting you make the changes that you’d like to make and my kids will write you a letter about the parks that they care about as the word counselor. Follow-up? Thank you. To follow-up, P-38 and P-39. So I wanted to chat just briefly about your thinking on P-38 and P-39.

[2:23:22] So P-38, you know, we have the ask for the Community Arts Investment Program and the expansion and the funding there at 100,000 and there is the note there that says the first increase in over 20 years. We have a similar request for P-39 from the Grand Theatre which I believe is a strong request as well that I see they’re asking very similarly, we have not had an increase in over 20 years.

[2:23:58] And so I’m just wondering from your thinking on that item, why the Community Arts Investment Program receives 100,000 and the Grand did not get added for the same 100,000 even though the request was more. Thank you all, so note that there’s a potential amendment for this flight in coming for P-38, but Mr. Bear. So yes, great questions and this is actually quite fun for me through the chair. I love the question because this is something that I thought about quite a bit.

[2:24:33] Could I have split it and funded both to a lesser degree? Yes, did I fund the Arts Council to a lesser degree than they asked for? Yes, a requisite increase to the Grand Theatre’s ask would have been about $75,000. I know they asked for basically a 50% increase in their funding allocation, but if I went around that 14, 15%, that’s where it would have been. I funded the Cape Program for two reasons. One, I think given the UNESCO City of Music meetings that are happening this year in our designation, the Cape Program has a great ability for with some expansion to fund a number of additional music opportunities this year that might align with that well.

[2:25:17] And two, the Grand Theatre received a significant capital support from this council very recently for work that was done at their building. And so I feel although they had an operating ask, we have been there to help the Grand in a very significant way on the capital side of things very recently, and I do support that organization. The Arts Council has not had the same level of recent support in the same way through the Cape Program that the Grand has had from this municipal council and this municipality.

[2:25:48] So I balanced it because of those considerations to fund one but not the other. Councillor? Thank you. My final question for now is around P53. And just noting some of the comments you made on the London Police Service Budget and the increased need for traffic enforcement and for more road safety, I’m just wondering if you can speak to why P53 where there’s an opportunity to use some road enhancements to increase safety, particularly in part one and two of this as we await the province to create standards for bike lanes.

[2:26:33] I’m just wondering if you can speak to your thinking on how, ‘cause I see that going in hand in glove with the police ask, so I’m just wondering if you can speak to that. Thank you, I also flagged that P53 has an amendment coming when it’s time, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, that’s actually good to know. So this is a really easy one for me, frankly, is this is one that I actually had and I can see my kind of ongoing notes to the process. It was in fully, it was kind of in, it was out, it was in, I struggled with it and then I made an opportunity cost decision between balancing some of the investments across the different parts while trying to be conscious of the tax rate not going too high.

[2:27:18] And so it ended up in all of those iterations being out by the end of it, but I would say there are certainly components of that business case that I do quite like, but at the end of the day, there’s a lot of things I like that I said no to. I don’t disagree with any of the comments you’ve made and I think that it’s given there’s an amendment coming. This is probably a discussion that I’ve had in my own head that Council is gonna have openly on the floor now and I’ll be interested in participating in that with the amendments, I’m not surprised it was raised. I kind of flagged the ones that I thought would be raised and this is one of them, but I did go back and forth on this one throughout the work that I did on the budget process.

[2:27:54] At the end of the day, there’s only so much money. This is one that was on one side of the line and not the other. Thank you, looking for any further questions. ‘Cause I will need a mover to receive the presentation ‘cause it’s in our slide deck. Okay, so we have a question for Councillor Stevenson, but I will note that just for you can get the use cry ready that Councillor McAllister is gonna move the presentation and be received when it’s time and Deputy Mayor Lewis will be the seconder. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just taking the opportunity to ask the Mayor about P9 and P37, which are both homeless initiatives.

[2:28:38] And I just wondered if through the chair, the Mayor would be just willing to share. I know we try not to venture into areas that are more the responsibility of the province. And at a time when we are looking at a high property tax increase rate and people concerned that their risk of remaining housed is at play to choose the homelessness prevention services from this particular pool of funds, just wondering if the Mayor’s willing to share there, why we’re choosing to do that.

[2:29:17] I’ll just note for those following along that this is the Indigenous Housing and Holley’s House. And I’d be expecting a amendment on this one as well. Yes, so these two were included not just because I actually think that they’re good projects, but when I actually went back to Council’s strategic plan and said I kind of want to make sure that I respect and balance that, if you remove P9, I have nothing listed under Reconciliation Equity, Access and I only have one item under Safe London for Women and Girls and Women Identifying Individuals like our, sorry, gender.

[2:29:55] I don’t have the title in front of you, my apologies. This was an attempt for me to try to balance some of Council’s priorities in the strategic plan and ensure that I included, but I felt were good projects in a way that didn’t ramp up all of the investments in one space or another. And so I had a star beside P9 as one that would probably get discussed, potentially by Council. And the other one, the other one I included, but I don’t know if colleagues will say that, but it is about a balancing of both my own preferences, thoughts, priorities, what I heard through the process from Londoners and the engagements I did, as well as trying my best to respect Council’s strategic plan and the scope of that, knowing that we can’t do everything.

[2:30:36] But I also didn’t want to do nothing or near nothing in some areas. Councilor. Thank you just to follow up. Yeah, not questioning the challenges you faced or the validity of these projects. Just the concern about as we were warned in the initial budget presentation to be cautious about stepping into an area that’s more the priority of another government. So I don’t know if you have anything to comment just on that particular aspect of it. I get the other parts about the strategic plan. Maybe there were no other business cases that fit those ones, but there just is that perception or that concern.

[2:31:13] I saw the mayor of Guelph with his t-shirt. You know, it’s provincial, ask another question. We may get that question from residents. Thank you. Absolutely, that question can go to you. I have Councilor Pribble after that. I’m just mindful of the time. I know, I just mindful of where we’re at and breaks and the process ‘cause I don’t like to not finish something before we break. So just keeping our questions concise and you know the speaker’s list, Mr. Mayor. Yes, through the chair to the Councilor.

[2:31:48] I think we have the general parameters of, you know, the fiscal framework and what we shouldn’t weigh into. There are also times through my time on Council where you’re kind of stuck in a really bad temporary situation that hopefully you can rectify later. So yes, I do actually believe in the general principle that we should not be filling space that other levels of government are vacating. And in some places, you know, I’m making the decision to do that. In others, there are spaces where either by legislative requirement or by absolute necessity, we have to, we need to step up and ensure our GI units continue in the city.

[2:32:24] At the same time, we have to be cautious. We have a number of things scattered throughout this multi-year budget related to impacts of presidential legislation, whether it’s Bill 23 or Bill 109, should, and I’m optimistic about this, should, the province actually want to make us whole in a meaningful way as Minister Clander has indicated and I’m optimistic and discussions are continuing. I know he’s bringing forward legislation in late February, early March on a number of housing initiatives. I don’t know if it includes making it whole. We may actually be in a positive situation where despite the fact that we’re kind of in some provincial space, that we maybe have the ability to have it properly funded.

[2:33:02] But I think from time to time, we have to be in those spaces on behalf of Londoners, although we have to be very cautious and very measured about how much we take on in the scope and it should always be related to a discussion about the needs of municipalities and how we’re funded, which is a very live discussion as Councillor Hopkins would indicate and Councillor Frank at FCM, AMO, OBCM and others. So I would say to the Councillor through the chair, I think you’re making a good point of principle, but I think there are also on the ground instances where we will have to make those tough decisions sometimes to step for a period of time into space that other levels government aren’t willing to link to incredibly tightly to a conversation about the way municipalities are properly funded.

[2:33:54] Councillor, you’re okay with that? Okay, Councillor Pribbles, next. And just keep our questions concise if we can. Thank you. Sorry, and answers, yes, I don’t discriminate. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the Mayor. I had actually the same for P9 and P37 and I looked at it kind of exactly what you were saying in terms of we have areas of focus and to become of a certain initiatives and we gotta make sure we stand behind our words which we set up last spring. But my question is as well, I certainly think for this in terms of they are both good positive initiatives, but for us to explore the opportunity of the high level of government and also potentially could it be funded if we have certain either reserves or some funding currently.

[2:34:42] And the reason why I’m saying it as again, we all know that the percentage increases high and we all, I know all of us around us, we would like to have it lower, but is this an opportunity that either we can really honestly, even if it is there for now, really work with the higher level of government and look into our reserves or current funds, if we could fund it through that, thank you. Thank you, I did you wanna respond, Mr. Mayor? Okay. Yes, so to the first question through the Chair, yes, we should always be talking to the levels of government about how to fund, I don’t disagree with the Councilor.

[2:35:16] Second on source of financing, I’ve tabled the source of financing in this particular budget. If you feel like there should be a different one, that’s an amendment that you make through working with staff through the process. For now, this is a long, complicated, jenga puzzle of pieces that I put together to try to create a complete package. I’m not saying that there aren’t other ways of doing different components of it. This is the way that I put it together. There’s always sources of financing. The only thing I’ll be cautious about with sources of financing is just be careful with temporary financing for things that really need to be permanent.

[2:35:52] We get ourselves into trouble in future budget years or subsequent multi-year budgets when we need to get into the point of making that decision on permanent funding. I think it’s a good use sometimes, but we have to be careful in the long run on those. So I think the Councilor makes a good point about source of financing, and this is the way I did it. Thank you. My speaker’s list continues to grow, and like I said, I would like to follow up, finish up, it takes what it takes, but I’d like to finish the Q and A before we go to lunch, and then I have something else for you to do between that time too.

[2:36:26] So your lunch is ready and waiting, but like I said, I prefer to follow this portion, finish up this portion just before we go. So I have Councillor Trouson next, and then Councillor Lehman. Thank you very much through the chair. And again, I’m asking these questions now in the hope of maybe not having to put something else on the floor, but I really need more justification for why pillar nonprofit, because I think that that also then has a downstream effect on a lot of other emerging, maybe even smaller entities that they’d be supporting that we may not even know about yet.

[2:37:04] And is there some backup plan for how we’re going to help smaller nonprofits build capacity? So I am sort of considering putting this on the table, but I’d like to understand your reasoning better. Okay, Mr. Mayor, you’re welcome to answer. We could also go to staff for other opportunities for funding for smaller nonprofits. I’ll leave that to your discretion. I’m gonna start the answer ‘cause I’ve had this specific conversation and consideration, and I would give my opinions for you to the Councillor. I felt that there was really two ways that nonprofits could be supported within the municipal structure in a meaningful way.

[2:37:43] One is the pillar business case, which was forwarded with the parameters that are outlined in that business case, and some are all of it could have been funded. The other, which I mentioned at the state of the city, and I will say I mentioned to Ms. Cassidy at pillar, is through the design of a new overarching economic development strategy that has a much wider perspective, an overarching plan, and a role for all of those organizations that we have traditionally associated with economic development, like the LEDC, Small Business Center, Tech Alliance, maybe the universities, the airports, the chamber, other drivers, that not for profits actually have a significant role to play in economic development as well.

[2:38:30] And although not funded in the budget I tabled, when we developed the overarching economic development plan, I would say that it’s anticipated that there’s probably an important role that not for profits play in the types of things that was mentioned in their plan in capacity building and economic development generation, particularly in the not for profit sector, which is a large sector that generates economic activity as well. So I didn’t put it in there. I anticipate there’s probably a further discussion in the development of the economic development plan, and again, couldn’t put everything in, so some things didn’t get across the line.

[2:39:10] Thank you, Mike, my concern would be that some of these groups are small enough and emerging enough and not quite there, yet that they would be on the radar screen of the Tech Alliance or LEDC, but I’ll take that up later. Following up on the question of related to the parks is the ESAs, so I wanted to ask about 60, well, especially 62 because I’m getting a lot of calls about that, it’s in my ward, but also 63, which is related, thank you.

[2:39:47] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, if you would like to respond? Yeah, I don’t have a fantastic response for the Council for this, there’s again, a number of things that were on the margins and on one side of the line and not the other, and these are ones that were not for me. Certainly, business cases I read in some detail considered carefully, they weren’t included in the table budget. It’s been pointed out, thank you. Mr. Chair, it’s been pointed out to me that there’s already an amendment on that. Before we break, I’m wondering if it might be possible for us to get a master list of where there are already amendments so we don’t have to reinvent them.

[2:40:28] I’m trying to take my legislative responsibility very seriously here, but I’m sort of losing track of things. So that would be very helpful if we could get that information and maybe regroup and take it from there. Yeah, that’s what I have to say, thank you. That’s okay, there is a master list. Anyone who’s been sending me things, I ask that you send it with a mover and a seconder. I’m not favorable to the I have idea, maybe someone will back me on this process for this just to help expedite this process along and make it clear.

[2:41:05] There is a master list, it’s typed up, it will be circulated a break for everyone can see it, and then at least you know who the mover and seconder is so you can judge your own core issues when you talk to people. Councillor Lehman. Thank you, Chair. I just wanna ask a quick question regarding uncertainty around development charges. Is the Mayor confident in this budget that there is enough consideration for this uncertainty that the province has indicated despite the fact that we are doing making massive strides in rezoning efforts in our planning and building division, that we will be penalized in some considerable amounts with the government with holding development charges.

[2:41:59] Is there enough room in our reserves to handle unforeseen financial impacts? And are we comfortable handling this in annual budget updates? Mr. Mayor. Yes, I’m gonna defer ‘cause on the more technical issues related development charges I’ve relied very heavily on the advice of our staff with respect to these areas. And so I would ask if the chair would allow me to defer to Ms. Barbong to give the answer. Yep, staff.

[2:42:32] Thank you, through the chairs. So with respect to development charges, so many of the changes with respect to the development charge legislation that was most significant for the municipality does not take a fact until the new by-law is put forward. So that is the good news in terms of the impacts with respect to the existing are not as significant as the ones that have been deferred. That being said, the province has, before Christmas, identified that they are having consultations with municipalities to determine, and some of those they have identified that they’re looking to make changes.

[2:43:12] So we are not as worried at this point in time because we know the province is continuing to have conversations. Where we have immediate impacts, that is where the legislative business case comes in for the exemptions related specifically to affordable housing that are essentially need to be funded because those exemptions take place. That’s the limited extent of the legislative business case that was included as part of the mayor’s budget. So we are monitoring, we have an annual report that we do in the next couple of months that we bring forward legislatively, so that will have a great deal of monitoring included in that, and we’ll be able to provide you with a lot more information with respect to how we’re doing, but we’re not foreseen any significant impacts beyond what has been addressed in that legislative business case at this point.

[2:44:02] They are down, but we have processes that we’re able to determine, and that’s where the GMIS process comes forward if we need to foresee anything. So that is something that’s greatly monitored, and there will be a report in the future that speaks to that. Follow-up, Councillor Lehman? Thank you. Okay, this is my last call for speakers on this. Respectfully, thank you. Okay, seeing none, if you open E-Scribe, Councillor Vame-Ribrigan, is this a question on this, or are you trying to move something else?

[2:44:40] Thank you. Does anyone have a gravel? I mean, this hike, hike’s a plural, is massive. We find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. These, certainly for the length of time that I’ve served, this would be the largest property tax hike.

[2:45:17] Councillor Vame-Ribrigan, as soon as of getting to a question. And I have a question. I need to have it. But I first have to lay out the fact that the police need the investment, and thank you, Mayor, for your proposal on that. That still leaves 3.8%. I’d like to know, maybe we could flush it out a little bit more, where the boundary is between the base budget and the business cases. So, for example, at what point in the base budget, if the ask is too great, does that become a specific business case?

[2:46:00] Where is that line between the base budget and the business cases? If we just maybe expand on that. Yeah, do you want me to go to staff procedurally for some clarification? Ms. Barbone or Mr. Murray? Thank you through the chair. So I think to answer your question in general terms, Councillor, I think the base budget is strictly costs to maintain existing programs, services, service levels, that sort of thing.

[2:46:34] Business cases come into play when you’re dealing with any changes that go beyond that. So there are a number of different things that could ultimately end up in a business case. So it could be things like new programs or services that are being contemplated. It could be increases to existing programs or services that are being contemplated. You could be looking at business cases related to changes in provincial or federal funding arrangements as we have a number of legislative change business cases as well.

[2:47:06] There are other business cases related to significant material capital project increases as well. And there are business cases related to potential reductions. Again, where there are a service level, impacts related to those potential reductions to programs, services, or service levels. So again, base budgets are strictly the cost to continue doing what we’re currently doing. Councillor, follow up. So if a particular department or what have you says to maintain the existing services, we need 8% more.

[2:47:47] Like, is there some kind of function or some kind of methodology that would strain that out? That’s what I’m trying to get at is at what point is the level beyond just a simple ask to maintain services when you see the increase being a little too high? Do you reject that? To staff, and you can also state what the staff’s base budget was coming into this, which. So just to kind of clarify, I guess, with specific numbers, just to give a sense in terms of what’s in the mayor’s budget as far as the base budget is concerned.

[2:48:31] And this is in the chart in the mayor’s budget, but the base budget increases are specifically 5.7% in 2024, 4.6% in 2025, 4% in 2026, and 5.5% in 2027. And that is inclusive of both civic service areas and agencies, boards, and commissions. Now, in developing the budgets, each budget cycle, at the start of the process, we issue budget guidelines to all civic service areas and agencies, boards, and commissions based on the direction that has been provided by council in the kickoff to the multi-year budget process.

[2:49:12] So those guidelines, that guidance was provided, including a clear expectation of what council was expecting and what the council articulated in the target setting report from last April. So that was incorporated that direction. It is then up to all civic service areas and all agencies, boards, and commissions to develop their budgets on a line-by-line basis to incorporate what they need to continue doing what they’re currently doing. So the multi-year budget is the opportunity to do that full reset to basically go line-by-line through their budgets and to right-size or to assess what they need to continue delivering the programs or services that Londoners are currently receiving.

[2:49:58] So are there specific thresholds that we put in place to limit increases, to answer your question specifically, no, there are not. Those are things that, as they’re identified, they certainly may result in questions or a greater understanding that we try to gain on those increases. And you’ll see in some of the budget materials, those pressures specifically articulated. But there is no to your question specific cap or number that folks are limited to.

[2:50:32] Councilor. Thank you, appreciate it. Okay, looking for a final call for speakers on questions from the mayor’s presentation. There is a moved and second motion to receive the presentation. That’s an e-scribe. I’m opening the question. Second, Councilor Robin, you have another question for the mayor? Thank you. I’m still trying to understand where there’s policy changes that are available to the mayor to make based on the strong mayor’s powers and what’s in the municipal act.

[2:51:09] Still trying to wrap my head around that. But I had a specific question related to the police budget. So I hear and I see that there’s support from your budget for what’s in the police budget ask. Specifically, I wanted to understand how or if you contemplated whether or not there’s the opportunity to roll that funding. So if the police do not spend their full budget in 2024, can it roll into 2025? And then thanks to Mr. Murray, who answered my question for me, but that that’s based on our policies until change our policy on overages.

[2:51:53] We would have to do it in governance working committee. But I’m wondering based on the municipal act, do you have the power to do that without us having taken to go through the process, as we’ve heard, with governance working committee being quite a lengthy process if we wanted to make a change that could have an impact on the budget and how we contemplate that going forward. I’m just wondering whether or not that’s in your powers. Yeah, question to staff or the mayor first, you could defer on that.

[2:52:25] So I don’t know if staff hasn’t answered that, but I’m not aware of any power that I would have over the police services board that has their own act to do such a thing. I will through the chair with your indulgence, make a comment, and I don’t like to switch hats into meeting, but as a member of the police services board, I can tell you that my approach on any board I’m on is if there’s a way, even if you’ve asked for money, to find savings through a process or some new information or whatever that is, like I’m a strong believer in ensuring that we return those to our funders where possible and available.

[2:53:02] The carryover of surpluses or unspent money from year to year for many of the boards and commissions often uses like a stabilization fund or a reserve fund approach to deal with fluctuations in the budgeting process. I don’t have the actual information about the police board’s actual stabilization or reserve fund components to that in my head. I can only give my general approach as both the council and a board member to how I approach this, but I’m not aware of any legislative authority that I would have over the police services board on anything like this.

[2:53:40] Staff, thank you through the chair. So just to add to that, what would govern any surplus, whether it be civic service areas or ultimately boards and commissions is how that dealt with is through generally surplus deficit policy. So that policy, I do not believe policies in general are not governed through the Strong Mayors Act and Mr. Shelters can correct me if I’m wrong in that regard with respect to the Strong Mayors powers, that typically doesn’t get covered. So that’s where the policy component, if there was a change with respect to that, would be a policy discussion regarding the surplus deficit policy and there are bylaws in place with respect to the police services reserve fund that was passed by council.

[2:54:22] There was a consultation with respect to creating that bylaw that was brought forward. So again, that bylaw is a stat and ultimately done through council. Councillor Ramen, that concludes your questions. Thank you, appreciate the answer. Thank you, calling the question in E-Scribe. My favor.

[2:55:02] Councilor Beymerbergen. Perfect. Housing in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. Next, I’m gonna look to committee for a change of order that we can deal with closed session items. When we come back, we get that information before we go into a conversation. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor. No, okay, I need a seconder before people put their hands for other things. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins, Mr. Tressa. Yes, how much time are we gonna get for lunch?

[2:55:42] I deal with that after this and this is one of the things of keeping our comments tight. So this, I will get to that and it will be discussion point as well. Any questions on the change of order only? Seeing none, opening the question in E-Scribe. Housing in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you as for those questions. When we come back from our lunch break, we will be staying in the chambers for closed session.

[2:56:16] So any members of the public, we’re gonna be leaving you when we get back. So staff and ABCs can judge at their time accordingly. Staff, traditionally, we break for 30 minutes. It is a lunch ready in the Councillor’s lounge, but as it’s our first day, and we’ve had a lot of information, would committee prefer 30 or 45? Councillor Hopkins, a preference? Yeah, I’ve moved 45 minutes. We have a mover for 45 minutes, a seconder in council. So moved by Councillor Hopkins, seconded by Councillor for 45 minutes. Looking for a discussion on lunch of 45 minutes.

[2:56:51] Councillor Troso. Yeah, in light of the fact that, oh, we’ve digested this morning. And in light of the fact that some of us really wanna sort of catch up with the list of amendments and take it from there and maybe have some consultations with people. And I don’t wanna disrupt the procedure here, but I really need more time than that. And I just have a number of phone calls to interested bodies that I need to be making. And I just don’t think I can do that over a 45 minute lunch period. I will note that I have heard from colleagues that you’ve preferred to adjourn earlier than later today, but we still need to get through closed session.

[2:57:32] That leaves staff waiting for longer periods and agency boards and commissions, so. Could we adjourn after the closed session, after coming back in? We can consider it. So how about that? So I’ll test the waters after closed session of where we can go next, but it gets us through lunch and through closed session. So at least you’re fully informed going to other things. So calling the question on a 45 minute lunch. Oh, sorry, calling the question has already been moved and seconded. So hand vote. I’ll eat fast.

[2:58:13] Travis, I need your mic. Oh. Motion carries. Back here at one o’clock or online logging back in. Thank you. Okay, if everyone take their places, we’re going back in session.

[3:09:49] Now that we’re back from recess, I’ll need a motion to move in camera. And the committee clerk’s just gonna read up the reason to go in camera. Item 6.1, solicitor client privilege device, a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. Hey, I’ll need a motion to move in camera. Moved by Councillor Ferrer. I seconded by Councillor Raman.

[3:10:21] Votes now, I’m gonna be open and inscribe in one moment. And I’ll note that Councillor Hillier and Frank still remain online. And others are currently absent. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to zero.

[3:11:06] Thank you, just a moment as we move in camera. Recording in progress. Thank you, everyone.

[3:14:30] We are now streaming and the public chambers are open, looking to Councillor Lehman to report out. Thank you, I’d like to report out the progress is made on the matter for which we went in camera. Thank you, that would move us onto the actual budget itself. Looking to committee that there’s legislative cases, the mayor had made no amendments to anything that staff had originally tabled. I have not heard from any colleagues on the legislative ones for amendments in advance.

[3:15:07] So just looking to committee to see if there’s anything I’m not aware of. We don’t need to approve them, just they’re already there in existence. There’s no comments on them. It really is at this time going by blocks if someone has an amendment to put on the floor for a legislative case. Councillor McAllister, an amendment to put on the floor? Not the amendment, but I just wanna speak quickly to, ‘cause I know what I’d been mentioned earlier by Councillor Trosto and I believe some other colleagues had talked about this previously, but in terms of the legislative changes being called out separately on the tax bill, I’ve been advised that it is something that we can have on an insert, but that would be something that could be brought through corporate services is not something that we need to do as an amendment.

[3:16:00] Yeah, I would say it’s not a today budget thing. That’s a policy procedure thing. I would say even if you want to work on a motion for that, you can bring it on the 29th, the budget day or through committee, and I know staff has had some updates behind the scenes they could share with you of the process of on the bill versus insert, so please follow up with staff. Looking to see if there’s legislative amendments to come forward, okay. Also being mindful as we go that some Councillors have asked to use the full day, some have asked not to.

[3:16:35] For administrative prioritized cases, there’s seven cases I know of one amendment, which would be key five. First of all, I was just looking to see if there’s anything in addition to P5, just from what we’re getting into before we start that section. Is everyone fine if we proceed with the administrative prioritized cases and the amendment that was pre-circulated regarding P5? Okay, there’s a mover and a seconder for this.

[3:17:12] Looking to Councillor Hillier, I believe you’re the mover. There’s a thumbs up for Councillor Hillier. The seconder is still Deputy Mayor Lewis, and I will turn it then to Councillor Hillier to introduce the proposed amendment. If you want to work and ask Deputy Mayor Lewis to go first. Yeah, I got it, thank you very much. And through the chair, I’d just like to mention that when you look through this, you realize the equipment being discussed is good until 2031, first place 2032, and the life circle we’re new is 2031.

[3:17:47] And I would like to get full value out of it. And I would like to push this off and discuss it at a later date, possibly two years out. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis, if you have the wording for the amendment I had in front of you, just realizing that people online streaming might not have it. Sorry, proceed as I just gave it, sorry. Sorry, did you want me to read out the language?

[3:18:20] Was that what you were asking? Yes, and then you can go into your speaking comments. Sure. So the language is that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027, multi-year budget be amended to remove business case P5, fire department breathing apparatus and breathing apparatus decontamination. The amended funding by the mayor was to defer it to from 2024 to 2026, and that this business case be referred to the 2028 to 2031 multi-year budget cycle, noting that the equipment’s life cycle renewal is due in 2031. So that’s the language there. I read this business case.

[3:18:54] I recognize that there are two business cases, both of which the mayor has included for the fire department in this multi-year budget. The other one that’s in there, I fully support, but on this one, as Councillor Hill, you’re indicated, this equipment is supposed to be in service until 2031. It was noted in the business case, actually, that there were some complaints about the equipment and the Ministry of Labor conducted an investigation and deemed that the equipment was fit for use. So given that, and given that we are supposed to get another seven years of life out of the existing equipment, I am proposing that we do not fund this in this multi-year budget cycle, and that it be referred to a future multi-year budget cycle.

[3:19:43] Thank you. So the amendment’s moved and seconded. It’s on the floor, open for questions and comments. If anyone wishes, I will say, if not, we just go to a vote like normal, and if it passes, it’s removed, and if it fails, it stays in there. No one has to speak to anything, but you’re welcome to it this time. I will start my speaker’s list with Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if there is any staff that are able to respond to some questions regarding the Joint Health and Safety Committee commentary in this, the follow-up ergonomic assessment that was done, and the comments that are in the business case on the ergonomic assessment.

[3:20:31] There is, so please proceed with your questions. Perfect, thank you. So I do note that an inspection was done by the Ministry of Labor, that they looked at the concerns, but that they were not recommending immediate change, but that this then triggered a full ergonomic review, and that the review then went into some particularities around how new equipment could be utilized to help deal with some of the strain on people’s bodies. And I’m just wondering if you might be able to comment further on that, the new models of equipment.

[3:21:09] I’m not sure if, I’m trying not to have a question that maybe needs to go on camera on this. So I’m treading lightly, but I just have concerns about any occupational health and safety issues, and any potential leads based on this type of equipment not being changed. Thank you, staff. Thank you, and through the chair, I’ll start on this, and then I have Deputy Chief Richard Hayes on online too, that can speak more technically about the equipment.

[3:21:49] So the self-contained breathing apparatus came into service in 2016, and the approximate life cycle of it is 12 to 15 years. However, recently firefighters have brought forward numerous health and safety complaints due to the increased height and weight of the equipment. They brought these forward to the joint health and safety equipment as the committee, as the equipment’s causing back strain and potential injuries. And this could lead to staff off work and increased WSIB costs.

[3:22:22] Therefore, we brought in an ergonomist to do a full review, and one of their recommendations was to accelerate the replacement timeline in order to replace the short-term administrative costs. So we have tried several different techniques over the last couple of years to help adjust to the height and weight. However, because we are still getting numerous complaints on back strains and potential injuries, we’re recommending that the equipment be replaced with new equipment. We understand that the National Fire Protection Association standards are going to be incorporated into new self-contained breathing apparatus and ready for market in 2026.

[3:23:06] So it was our recommendation in 2024 to be able to research what works best. We understand that there’s a number of new regulations and new equipment coming into the place that has different weights, different sizes, padded waste frames, and a lot of other that helps kind of mitigate that excess of weight for the long duration sometimes that firefighters have to wear this equipment when fighting a fire. And I will turn it over to Deputy Chief Hayes, just in case I have any further questions.

[3:23:45] Thank you, Deputy City Manager. Through the chair, I’d like to add too that in looking at the newer equipment, we’ll have the ability to purchase updated equipment that has different types of strapping, different padding, adjustable harnesses, pivoting harnesses for the lower back, and then an overall lighter size of equipment that would be more usable and functional for the firefighters. Thank you, a follow-up question.

[3:24:25] Hey, looking to other committee members, if there’s a question of either staff or Deputy Chief Hayes, tasting none, ‘cause at this point, I would call the question of accepting this amendment or not. Okay, so eScribes open or opening? Sorry, eScribes glitching at the moment, apparently, or just full tight. Okay, we’re just re-entering it to system glitched and erased our progress.

[3:25:19] So it’s getting re-entered, so just one moment. Okay, as we’re fixing that tech problem, let’s eat in the motion twice. I’ll ask if there’s gonna be, if anyone’s aware of any other administrative prioritized cases, they’re gonna have coming forward. Okay, that vote is open.

[3:26:37] Using the vote, it carries 12 to three. Sorry, could you repeat that? I was thinking. So another, so that’s dealt with. And one just came in in regards to business case P7, which is also an administratively prioritized case.

[3:27:12] This is an implementation of a new property tax software system in capital asset reporting tool for finance reporting. So this one just came in by Councillor Stevenson with a seconder of Councillor Pribble. It was not pre-circulated, just came in. So the clerk’s just putting that in the eScribe. So I would go to Councillor Stevenson to introduce this. Thank you. The reason why I’ve pulled this one is the cost on it. We’ve got the total tax levy impact on this business case at a million 880, which is over half of the entire budget for the base budget.

[3:27:57] And we’re adding four additional staff to the 30s. So it’s a huge increase in costs. So if maybe, and maybe I’m misreading it, but that’s what I see is the annual tax levy impact on the business case on page 387 says a million 880 and the total base funding is only 3,358. So we’re increasing the cost by 50% and adding four people. And so I don’t know if staff have any comments, but it seems like a lot.

[3:28:35] And if we’ve been making do so far, I’m wondering if in this season, I’m inclined to say we get to make do a little bit longer. Okay. And just clarify that Councillor Pribble is the seconder of this. I need to hear it verbally. So like, and staff is available for all these cases. So absolutely. So turning it over to staff, Ms. Barbone, would you like to start with this one? And then we can hand it to other specialized staff if you need me. Thank you. So with respect to the tax system and the tangible capital asset system, our system is extremely antiquated.

[3:29:11] There is some very little ability to make any change whatsoever to incorporate in what potentially, so one of the things that we hear on a regular basis is we’d like to pay online. We’d like an online system. We’re not in any position to be able to offer any of those changes with respect to the tax system. It is very, very antiquated. So one of the things with a change, so the longer we delay, the longer there is a risk that if something occurs, or if the province makes a very significant change, that there could be an inability or a risk in the ability to implement.

[3:29:51] So that is what we’re trying to manage with a system that is that old. Could we take a risk and try to push this out? Certainly that’s council’s prerogative, but the tax system is the backbone of our entire organization and the funding. So that is the risk that the council would be putting themselves in to, if something were to occur. So certainly our intent is to try to manage the change out over a period of time. One of the reasons that the cost is higher is that the cost when you move to a new system, there are license fees.

[3:30:26] So those are in operating cost annually each and every year. So this is an estimate we’ve put in at this point in time. That would obviously be subject to whatever system we’d have to go through a procurement process to identify that. So that’s really what that is. We would need some staff to be able to go in and support the implementation of that process. So there are two FTEs that we’re requesting with respect to the tax system. And one is for our tangible capital asset system, which is to meet our financial reporting obligations. We do not actually have a system in place to support that.

[3:31:03] The work is done manually. So it takes us months to complete some very simple tasks that could be done through a system that would automate how we account for our capital assets. The PSAP changes that came into place were in early 2008. We have never been able to implement anything ‘cause it’s never been supported to date. So could we continue with what we’re doing? We absolutely could, but there is a very significant impact on the efficiency and the ability for us to implement any new changes as the standards continue to change. And it is all manual, which is one of the key reasons why we can’t produce financial statements until June each year.

[3:31:42] So these are important backbone systems to report out for the municipality. It is what brings in the majority of our revenue. So that’s the risk that we’re trying to weigh. And certainly that’s a decision that council ultimately would have to make. But I can tell you that as we’ve had the discussions about putting on the special levy, those kinds of things will be impacted by the ability for us to go in and use the current system that we have. So things may not be as quick, or we may not be able to go through and make changes as quickly as we would like.

[3:32:18] But certainly there is a decision point that this could be extended, but it does not come without any risk. Okay, Councilor Stevenson will do a follow up and then I have Councilor Perable. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the antiquity of the, I probably don’t fully appreciate that. And being prioritized, I understand the need. The concern for me is we’re talking about a substantial increase, right? We’ve got a department cost, a base budget of 839,000 with 30 people, and we’re talking about, you know, adding another 629,000 a year, and four more people.

[3:33:05] It’s just a huge, it’s just a, like I can’t get my head around how we’re selling an updated system that needs more people and is gonna cost us more. So for me, it’s gonna be a no right now. Councilor Perable, and then I’ll have Councilor Ferra. Thank you, Mr. Chair, to Ms. Barbon. And she mentioned, you mentioned that there are potentially savings. And if they were savings down the road, would it be kind of treated the same way that they would go into the reserves?

[3:33:40] And we are, sorry, into the surplus, and then the Council decides of it, is that where it would go, if there would be any savings? Ms. Barbon. Thank you through the Chair. So specifically, I think you’re referring to the licensing fees. That is the majority of the cost to be able to implement. So when we would go out to tender, this is our best estimate at this time, based on similar systems, what we know of other municipalities and the average cost of systems that they utilize, and through some preliminary scanning that we did. When, if this were to be approved, we would go out through a procurement process to go out to seek a new system and look at the implementation.

[3:34:20] That would determine what the final cost is ultimately for the licensing fees. If there was a variance, absolutely, that would be brought forward through a annual update to put those savings and reduce that on the tax levy. But unfortunately, when a lot of these cloud-based systems, they all work on a licensing fee, and that’s the cost. We do not pay a licensed fee currently. That is why there’s a significant increase, is because the system is so old, it doesn’t offer. We purchase the system, we own it, till we dispose of it at this point. So there is no additional cost.

[3:34:52] So if we go to a new one, this is with many of the systems that we procure today. There are ongoing licensee fees that you commit. You also get some additional support and other processes that you’re paying for that with that. But if there was an absolute savings, that would come through an annual update to reduce the tax rate for sure. Thank you very much. No more questions. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you. I would say the city treasurer said it really well. Like the current system is very antiquated as the business case very clearly articulates.

[3:35:26] You know, it brings us to be, we’re vulnerable to risk on that. The ongoing support is not guaranteed. So that’s something that I’ve run into before and I know that’s always a headache, especially once you find out that the support’s not there and you still are using the system, we’d be nice to get around that. With the new legislation that may require updates to the software system and just the security risk and the obsolescence of it all, I wouldn’t necessarily be in support of that. But I’d also just point out that, you know, we are talking about a property tax rate increase right now that is going to be, it’s looking to be well above what we’ve seen in the past.

[3:35:59] So I would think that the taxpayer would like to see, you know, that new online portal, that new ability to see what they’re paying for. And just to give that information to the tax base, especially when it is with respect to our main source of revenue, I feel like this system would be a very prudent choice to be kept into the budget. So I would be not supporting the amendment and keeping P7 in the budget. Thank you, looking for further speakers. Hey, and it is committee. So there’s a second round. I’m still timing for your five minutes.

[3:36:31] Councilor Stevenson. Thanks, just a quick question to make sure I’m seeing this correctly. That the licensing fees are in that 600 or estimated, 600, $700,000 a year, which is like 75% of the current department right now of 30 people. Stop, through the chair. The increase in 2027 of the annual tax impact is 629,000. So that’s the annual, annualized cost. The cost in the tax department, all there is right now is there are some miscellaneous fees, but it’s majority staff.

[3:37:10] The staff, we’re looking to add someone to support the implementation of the system, which is extremely a very, very significant project. But with respect to that, yes, relatively to the number of staff that we have in that area, the license fees will be absolutely extremely significant. Hey, Councilor Pribble. Thank you, I just want to, I did second this and I did second this because I do have some questions, but when it comes to the voting, I will be keeping it in. I will not be voting against it. Okay, looking for any further speakers before we call the question.

[3:37:47] Yeah, don’t go too far. Okay, I see nobody online, nobody in chambers opening the question. Closing the vote, the motion fails two to 13.

[3:38:21] Thank you, looking for any other amendments to come for the administrative prioritized cases. Seeing that this time, looking to committee that there’s base budgets, as discussed in the presentation this morning, I have no current amendments to those. So looking to committee to see if you prefer to deal with base budgets next, or business cases next. ‘Cause I know some people want to do some work behind the scenes, Councilor Troso, a preference. Sorry, through your mic, just for those on Langston here.

[3:38:58] I think with respect to the base budget adjustment for the London Public Library, and I know the London Public Library has things all over this budget, I’d like to request that we allow the director and the chair to come in and be with us. I know they very much like to, and maybe put them together rather than take them in order. So we’re just not dealing with them all over the place. I would like to make an amendment to the base budget for both P3 and P4, but I’m also going to request that we take a recess at this point, because I think that now that we’re getting into the gist of the business plans, there’s been some movement, and there’ve been some additional things said, and I know I would benefit, and I don’t know if other Councillors would benefit from having the opportunity to go back and talk to some of the proponents.

[3:39:55] And at the very least, if they have a couple of different things on this agenda over the next few sessions, let’s get them in together so they don’t have to keep coming back and forth. Okay, it is not my intention to mix together base budgets, water budgets, and business cases. It just, the numbers run differently behind the scenes, and sometimes changes to one, affects the other. So there is a procedural order of, we might change one thing, and we have to go back because we did things in a certain order. Yep, but there’s other things once you get into it, and then you want people here, and I don’t want Councillors to do it, but it’s one and done that if you didn’t get your question in, and they’ve left, that you can’t bring them back.

[3:40:38] I’ve also heard from some colleagues that they prefer to make the best use of this day as we are on limited time constraints, and staff is on standby as are some A, B, and Cs. There is a motion to recess, which I would have to ask. Okay, so Councillor Troso had asked for a motion to recess, I would have to have a seconder, and then we’ll, okay, so a seconder for recess by Councillor Hopkins, and this would be, I would assume, recessing to tomorrow morning, not till next week, Councillor Troso.

[3:41:19] Yes. Okay, okay, there’s no debate on recess, so we’re just getting the wording into E-Scribe for recessing till tomorrow morning. I can’t do a handbook, can I? I speak to it. No, there’s no speaking procedurally to a motion to recess. So if you want to keep going today, it would be a no, if you want to recess with the day be a yes, and if we keep going, my intention would be to hit the start of the business cases that Council had high support for, being numerically in order case P-9, which was a Councillor Stevenson amendment, that was already circulated in advance to you.

[3:42:13] So I’ve been told that that is ready, and the vote’s open in E-Scribe. Fosing the vote in the motion carries, nine to six. Okay, you’re recessed, have a good afternoon.