Open Council

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

Open Council

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

February 2, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:32 AM; it being noted that Councillors S. Franke, P. Van Meerbergen, and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

3.   Scheduled Items

3.4   Amendment - Adj. #4

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Adj. #4 – Museum London Reduction to 5.4% Average Increase and to include the 6.3% Service Program Operating Budget (Base Budget) as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023.

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

3.5   Amendment - Reserve Fund

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to reduce the current Industrial Lands Reserve Fund contribution by $1 million for 2024 only, noting it would have a 0.1% reduction on the 2024 property tax levy.

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

3.6   Amendment - Business Case P-9

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case # P-9 – Giwetashkad Implementation.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

3.7   Amendment - Business Case P-26

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-26 – Community Gardens Program Expansion to Support Food Security as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023.

Further that the implementation be delayed until 2026 and $150,000 be drawn from the Community Investment Reserve Fund for a new garden build resulting in a $12,000 property tax levy for the 2026 and 2027 for operations.

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

3.8   Amendment - Business Case P-29

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to reduce Business Case P-29 – Police Vehicle and Equipment Requirements by $90,000 each year.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Committee recess at this time, for 1 hour and 15 minutes.

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Committee recess at this time, for 30 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 11:45 AM and reconvenes at 12:20 PM.

3.9   Amendment - Business Case P-31

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include funding for “Action #3: Extension of Parks Operations Services” of Business Case P-31 – Parks Operations Service Delivery Enhancements as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0, Capital Expenditure: 0

2025 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0, Capital Expenditure: 0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $316,000, Tax Levy: $316,000, Capital Expenditure: 0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $316,000, Tax Levy: $316,000, Capital Expenditure: 0

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.10   Amendment - Business Case P-37

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-37 – CMHA Holly’s House.

Motion Failed (1 to 14)

3.11   Amendment - Business Case P-38

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include administration fees (15%) to Business Case P-38 – City of London Community Arts Investment Program Expansion (Amended – Reduction in Funding from Original Case).

2024 Operating Expenditures: $15,000, Tax Levy: $15,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $15,000, Tax Levy: $15,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $15,000, Tax Levy: $15,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $15,000, Tax Levy: $15,000

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-38 – City of London Community Arts Investment Program Expansion (Amended – Reduction in Funding from Original Case).

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

3.12   Amendment - Business Case P-42

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to fund 50% of Initiative 10 in Business Case P-42 – 5-Year Community Improvement Plan (CIP) Review Implementation (Amended – Initiatives 12 & 14 only), starting in 2026.

2024 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0

2025 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $87,500, Tax Levy: $87,500

2027 Operating Expenditures: $87,500, Tax Levy: $87,500

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

3.13   Amendment - Business Case P-27

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by E. Peloza

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-27 – Neighbourhood Decision Making Program Expansion.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

3.14   Amendment - Business Case P-34

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-34 – City Hall Main Lobby Security Guard.

Motion Passed (11 to 3)

3.15   Amendment - Business Case P-39

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include funding at $100,000 a year for Business Case P-39 – The Grand Theatre: Increasing Community Access to & Participation in the Arts as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

That upon general consent, with no objection being raised, pursuant to section 35.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Committee decision with respect to item 3.15 Amendment – Business Case P-39 BE RECONSIDERED.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include funding at $100,000 a year for Business Case P-39 – The Grand Theatre: Increasing Community Access to & Participation in the Arts as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023

Motion Failed (6 to 8)

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Committee recess at this time, for 15 minutes.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 2:25 PM and reconvenes at 2:32 PM.

3.16   Amendment - Business Case P-48

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-48 – Canadian Mental Health Transitional Case Worker – London Public Library as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023 for one-time funding of $65,000 for 2024 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

3.17   Amendment - Business Case P-53

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include only Road Safety Initiative #2 “Improvements to the On-Road Pavement Marking Maintenance Process” of Business Case P-53 – Road Safety Enhancements as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023 for 2024 and 2025 at $200,000 each year, funded from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.18   Amendment - Business Case P-63

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-63 – Silver Creek Ecological Enhancements as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023, and that the implementation BE DELAYED until 2026.  Annual funding is as follows:

2024 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0, Capital Expenditure: 0

2025 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0, Capital Expenditure: 0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $200,000, Tax Levy: $200,000, Capital Expenditure: $200,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: 0, Tax Levy: 0, Capital Expenditure: 0

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.19   Amendment - Business Case P-2

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing Business Case P-2 – Vehicle and Equipment Replacement to spread the reserve fund repayments over 6 years instead of 5 years:

2024 Operating Expenditures: - $417,000, Tax Levy: - $417,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: - $417,000, Tax Levy: - $417,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: - $417,000, Tax Levy: - $417,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: - $417,000, Tax Levy: - $417,000

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

3.20   Amendment - Business Case P-56

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by adjusting funding to Initiative 3.b of Business Case P-56 – Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) Implementation Support by reducing the contribution to the new Climate Change Investment Fund by $750,000 in 2024 and increasing the contribution by $250,000 per year in 2025, 2026 and 2027:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$750,000, Tax Levy: -$750,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $250,000, Tax Levy: $250,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $250,000, Tax Levy: $250,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $250,000, Tax Levy: $250,000

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the meeting BE RECESSED.

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

The meeting recessed at 3:57 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (6 hours, 9 minutes)

[10:18] If everyone can grab a seat, log in and settle in. colleagues online could just turn on their cameras. So I know you’re here if I could recognize you when I get to that point. Good morning, everyone.

[10:58] This is a continuation of the Second Budget Committee meeting that we started yesterday, realizing our meetings, we recessed for the day. So this is just a continuation. We’re here in council chambers joined virtually is Councilor Frank and in chambers, I’m expecting Councilor Hill here to join virtually, but not there yet. And Councilor Van Merberg is he’s not here either. He just won’t. Oh, he just don’t join in. Perfect, good morning, Paul. Every Councilor Troso is missing at the moment. I do not see Councilor Hill here yet.

[11:37] And Councilor Lehman somewhere ‘cause his pile of treasures is here. 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. We’re gonna email budget committee at London.ca. As this is a continuation, as stated yesterday, my intention was to begin this day with the conversation. Should anyone have anything in regards to base budget? I do not have anything as chair that I’m aware of, but looking to committee to see if they had anything prepared.

[12:23] And if there’s nothing we will continue into, sorry, Councilor Frank. Thank you, quick question. I think I have something based budget but I was waiting for staff to finish reviewing access this morning. I’d rather prefer that, but I understand you’d rather probably do base budget right now. So I guess what’s your preference? I can put it on the floor, but it might be messy. Hey, just a second. Councilor Troso’s joined us in chambers. You know, we’re discussing base budget if anyone had anything. And we have nothing at the moment.

[12:56] So the finance team, Councilor’s questions. Thank you through the chair. So I believe Councilor Frank’s question was in relation, perhaps to the industrial lands, reserve fund potential of reducing the contribution to the industrial land reserve fund. And I believe the Councilor was specifically considering a $1 million annual reduction to that fund. I can advise that doing so result in taking the reserve fund into a negative balance out into the future if we’re not putting forward a corresponding reduction to the capital plan.

[13:39] So taking just a straight reduction to that annual reserve fund contribution without corresponding adjustments to the capital plan is not viable and would take that reserve fund into a negative balance. Councilor, I’ll leave you with those comments to ponder as you will, or would you like to make an amendment at this time? I think given that information I won’t, it looked like there’s $14 million in the reserve fund. So it seemed quite healthy, but actually, I do have one follow-up question then through you to staff if I could.

[14:12] Hey, I’m just be very careful as we process this, that it wasn’t necessarily to be a Q&A back and forth. It was to be amendments on the floor only as nothing’s actually on the floor. Could you follow up a finance through an email? Absolutely. Perfect, they are available in their inboxes. Thank you for that as it is a different process as nothing’s actually on the floor. Looking to council to see if there’s anything else for a base budget before we proceed. Councilor Trostow.

[14:45] I believe you have received a motion with respect to Museum London from myself and Councilor Ferrara, so I believe that will be on the floor. And you also received a communication from the director of the London Public Library and I do not have, I do not intend to put a motion on the floor today regarding that, but you have received a communication from him regarding the need to consult with the full library board. And I have nothing else on the basis.

[15:17] Just one moment please for council’s information, that email didn’t get circulated until 9/11. So it’s gonna be in your inboxes. Sorry, two. Oh, it’s sent to me at 9/11. Okay, so it was sent to me. Colleagues don’t have it. So councilor, you can put whichever one you like first on the floor and then I’ll look to your seconder and then we can begin conversation. I only submitted one motion for the base budget this morning and you received another letter, but the only one I have to put on the floor this morning for the base budget is with respect to museum London and you have received that.

[16:07] Okay, I believe, I received it. I don’t believe council received it. Could you read it out for the public as well? Councilor, just what you’re putting on the floor, please read the wording. Could my seconder do that? Yeah, absolutely, Councilor Farrah, if you’re his objective, make sure that you are his seconder and then if you could read out the motion or I can have the clerks do it, they can find it in the system. Okay, to be clear, I’m not moving your seconding in this, but I do have the wording, I could read it out. Councilor Trauss, I was the mover.

[16:40] Councilor Farrah, I believe is the seconder. That the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove number four, museum reduction to 5.4 average increase and include the 6.3% service program operating budget, base budget, as set out in the civic administration, draft 2024, 2027 multi-year budget, referred here by the strategic policies and policy committee on December 12th, 2023. That was a mouthful.

[17:16] The wording’s just going to E-Scribe for those who would like to read it. So we’re just gonna allow a second for that to go in and E-Scribe, Sarama. Thank you, I just have a process question. How much time would you allow for us to be able to read things in E-Scribe that are being proposed that maybe haven’t had the full opportunity to be circulated? I’m wondering if it’s your process that you’d like us to recess or if you’d like us to, or you have an allotment of time that you’re willing to give us.

[17:56] I’m just trying to understand because there’s so many. Thank you. I appreciate that. Ideally, this is why things would have been circulated in advance that we could have had an opportunity to come with it in the system and prepared. I will allow what you feel some time to read. I’d prefer not to recess or we could just be recessing throughout the day all day. Follow up, Councilor? Yeah, thank you through you. I appreciate that we should have gotten these in earlier. I totally do, I can tell you I was working last night till about 11, but we were also not wanting to put too much on staff as well.

[18:34] Last night, staff were texting some of us I know and boards and commissions were in touch till the wee hours of the night. And my understanding is they were looking to send everything this morning. So we would have only been receiving things at about, I think my last email was 9.20 and I’m still waiting to send mine. So I just wanna make sure that we have enough time since most of the amendments we received this morning. So I just, the public needs to understand it’s not that we didn’t do our job here or our homework.

[19:09] It’s the way this process is also unfolding. So we need to be gracious with our time with each other. We have many days here that are booked. So I just wanna make sure that we have full understanding and that we’re in support of giving ourselves the time we need. Thank you. I’ll note that other counselors are also working on more amendments still behind the scenes. At some point, we need to get through this. We only have 30 days. We could keep recessing. I don’t wanna push the process, but it does need to be a process realizing staff and everything is on standby too.

[19:45] But we do have a motion on the floor at any staff advice for those virtually and online that if you refresh, it’s in eScribe and for those joining in chambers, it’s now up on the screens behind us. So I’ll give you a moment to pull that up in eScribe. Just for colleagues, it is in eScribe.

[21:10] Just you need to log into the February 2nd budget meeting and then hit current item and it will come up for you. Yes, thank you. I’d also like to point out that the CEO, the director of the agency is here and she would like to address the, she would like to give a sort of more background. Yeah, I appreciate that. But there’s no question too. And as always, process wise, we have some people in the gallery as executive directors and staff.

[21:47] Some are virtual as well. We have staff in chambers and staff in committee rooms. We need to answer our questions. And as always, as we go through this process, Mr. Murray has his magical tax spreadsheet that can show you the decision points along the way, should anyone wish to see it and have it modeled prior to a vote. So just making sure that everyone can now see it in eScribe. Sorry, just a couple of people are still having the issue of finding it in the system.

[22:22] So I want to at least make sure that we’re all starting from the same conversation piece. Okay, perfect. Okay, Deputy Mayor Lewis, did you have, so this item is on the floor. We have now found it in the system. It’s up on the screen for the public. So starting a speaker’s list on this item. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m going to start with this particular item, but what I’m going to say, I’m not going to repeat multiple times today. I’m going to say it right out front on this item.

[22:57] When it comes to additions to the budget that are going to increase the tax rate, I am going to be, no. And if I have additions and this one is a great example, should this addition pass, then I will be looking for commeasure savings in another museum, one in business case, like their elevators, and looking to put forward another amendment to remove that. For me, the tax rate is where it is already higher than what I can be happy with, but it is what it is, because of the investments we need to make in key areas, policing, housing, transit.

[23:30] I’m not going to repeat all of that. I’m also going to say, we had the Civic Administration budget in December. We had six weeks to go over that to engage with the public, to engage with reports and commissions. We got the mayor’s version of the budget two days ago. We’ve had time to look at that. We’ve had time to consider. But this is not a PPM situation. This, we are now at decision points. I also won’t be supporting recesses. We recessed yesterday.

[24:03] People had time to make use of the rest of the day yesterday to process what was there. And so for me, this will be a no. If it does pass, then I will look to amend the elevator business case and have it removed. And that’s going to be the approach that I will be taking to these amendments that are before us today. Anything that’s an addition will be a no or I will seek to measure it’s savings in another area. Thank you. And just a reminder, I’m timing as always, just to make sure we share our time equally.

[24:41] Sorry. Okay, so Councillor Stevenson, then I see Councillor Pribble. And then I’ll keep making notice we go. So please. Thank you. I will just say that I could repeat everything that the deputy mayor just said, 8.8 is already, as Councillor van Merbergen said, very, very difficult for people. I will not be supporting any additions. And I just don’t, I don’t need to repeat it, but this is about what can we do with what we’ve got here? If each one of us is going to bring forward what it is that we care about so that we can say that we did, we’re going to spend a lot of time here and not get anywhere.

[25:20] I will not be supporting any additions. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you. I can honestly say that I agree with my two full Councillors what they just said, both of them. It is very difficult already, the 8.8. Having said that, what the deputy mayor said that he’s going to be looking for savings if he puts through any additions. And I will certainly do the same, but I’m not going to confirm right now that it will be in the same area. So I’m going to make a decision if I do make addition.

[25:54] I do, I’m looking for decreasing other areas, but I will base it on what I feel is the best for half a million of Londoner. So it doesn’t have to be that if I do one area that the cut will have to be in the same area. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I just, Councillor Ferrera and I will note that Councillor Hill here’s online now as well. All right, thank you, through you. So like I see what the colleagues are saying and I do want to see us make some reductions in some areas too, which I, Councillor Fragon, I do have a motion that hopefully will be coming out soon that will do that.

[26:34] But I do want to also speak to our approach of how we are setting our budget, you know, like I hear a lot of the property tax rate increase and we’re just looking at that high level. We can’t be just looking at the high level property tax rate increase. We have to look at that, obviously keep that into consideration, but we have to look at it from the bottom up too. We have to see what kind of value that the business case or sorry, the base budget in this case will bring to the city. I would point out that this increase is quite low, relatively speaking to other ones and I believe that it’s way more bang for your buck. These, this base budget that the museum London is looking for, this is reflecting the hard costs to maintain the existing service levels that we have been speaking to, that we have recognized all over the city.

[27:15] The 5.2% base budget rate increase just to maintain existing service levels. This is a reflection of that with museum London. It also will include things like the collective agreement, security, cleaning and insurance. I would note that I’ve been told that security for the museum London has gone up by 72, or sorry, insurance has gone up by 72% in the last six years. That’s significant, that’s very high. And the service, and some of these services that they’re providing will also bring in fees that will be paid back to the city of London. So I would also remind you that museum London has zero admission fee.

[27:51] It’s a low barrier, zero barrier access for people coming to the museum London. So the impact that this, these dollars will bring for the city, for downtown, for bringing people in, is significant. It’s the best value of your dollar. And I think just considering that the value is quite, the absolute ask is quite low, that this is a good way to go. So I would ask you to reconsider, look at the base budget, look at what the services they’re providing, providing from the bottom up. Obviously I have my limit too. I don’t like to see us go anywhere near that 8%, but we need to be prudent on how we make our decisions here.

[28:26] So I would ask you to please consider that aspect. Look at from the bottom up and look from the top down. Don’t just look from the top down. Please support this. Okay, thank you. I’m just looking for first speakers and then I’ll start the second speaker around, just so we know where we stand. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I really appreciate everyone’s comments. I am finding myself in a bit of a dilemma here. And I know based on the strong mayors’ powers, we now have a mayor’s draft budget in front of this.

[29:03] And we do have a huge increase. How we drop that increase down, and I heard loud and clear that we’re not going to be adding anything to this 8.8%. But the reality is, that’s what it is. And how do we support organizations like Museum London, Arts and Culture in our city, given that we have gone through COVID itself, a lot of these agencies do not get any extra funding and are struggling.

[29:42] And to me, we’re caught. So we’re going to pull here and we’re going to drop over here. But the reality is, what do you support and what is important? These agencies are important in our city. And to just say 8.8, we can’t do anything. Therefore, I’m finding this process very, very difficult. Because the reality in the end, the mayor’s budget, he can veto everything that we do and say.

[30:23] So I’m challenged here how to proceed. And I will be supporting Arts and Culture in our city. It’s that simple. How we go through this whole process is to be determined. But we’re looking at each amendment. China understand in the short period of time that we’ve had to understand it. And to look at these amendments that are just coming to us right now. I’m even having difficulty trying to find them. I’m just struggling. But Arts and Culture in our city is important.

[30:58] Thank you. Thank you. And I’ll just reference it that anything we put in, the mayor can veto, but then it comes back to council with two thirds. And it is a process. I had Councillor Stevenson next. And then looking at everyone else would like to add in. Thank you. I just wanted to respond to some of the comments here. I mean, there is no question that the Arts and Culture and everything that we have in our city is incredibly important to me anyway.

[31:35] And we are talking about a 5.4% increase. That’s a really high increase in comparison to what they’ve experienced in the past. And I get that it might not be enough. But our residents and our small businesses are in the same struggle, right? It’s not like we have one industry or one organization that’s struggling. It’s varying amounts everywhere. And so if we start to do for one, then we need to start to do for others. And it becomes, you know, really unmanageable. And so for me, what I have been saying to people is, I wish there was, it was an easier time.

[32:18] And I could say yes to more things, but I can’t. But I do value the arts community and the museum and all the other institutions that we have here, the good organizations, amazing organizations that we have, such that even with an 8.8% tax increase, I am not willing to do any cuts. And we’re supporting, I think, a reasonable increase. And, you know, the gift in challenging times is it fosters creativity. And I think amazing things are gonna come out for the next four years as residents, businesses, and organizations figure out how to do what they can’t see as possible right now.

[32:59] And that’s where we get to come along and support as a council too, as those ideas come forward to us over the next year. And I also think that in terms of taking from one place and putting to another, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe we have that opportunity all year long. That’s not something we have to do today. If we decide that there’s something that we’d like to re-allocate throughout the year, we can do that at any point. So we don’t need to feel that has to be done here during the budget committee. And if I’m wrong, please correct me. Thank you.

[33:31] And if you were incorrect, I would correct you. But there is the annual updates in which we can adjust people’s budgets or re-address budget cases as well as they come forward that process. Sorry, I’m just updating the time as we go. And I do have account survey. I do have a speakers list. If there’s a follow-up, sure. And then I will have Councilor Van Merberg in after you. Just because I realize there’s the annual budget update, which will affect the property tax increase. But I’m saying within our budget, at any point through the year council could say I’d like to move money from here to there, like we did for the public washrooms, like we’ve done for other things, as long as we’re not increasing the total.

[34:12] And if Mr. Murray could confirm, ‘cause I heard him say yesterday, that if we are moving from one thing to another and not changing the overall budget, council can do that. So that opportunity to dig deep and look to see what we might like to move from and to may still be a possibility outside of these budget committees. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. Yes, that is correct. We have the ability to do adjustments that we term housekeeping and housekeeping being anything that has a net zero impact on the overall tax levy budget.

[34:49] We have the ability to do that throughout the year. So there is not the same restriction that there would be on things that have an overall impact whether it be an increase or a reduction on the tax levy. Those, we need to go through the budget process. Thank you. I have Councilor Van Merbergen and the mayor and Councilor McAllister and Councilor Pervall. Councilor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. I’ll be a big no on this current motion. Clearly our community is looking for us to find savings reductions in this proposed very high tax rate that 8.8%, not adding to it.

[35:29] Anything that adds to this already huge tax rate is not supported. I would say that with 100% certainty is not supported by the vast majority of Londoners. Again, it’s incumbent on us to be looking the other way, not adding, but subtracting, bringing this rate down. To add to it is simply unfathomable. So again, I’ll be voting no to any of these types of motions, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[36:02] Thank you, so I appreciate the debate. I just wanna add just a little bit of context in my decision making on this when I tabled this proposal and I understand the Council just wanna restore it. But just to be clear, ‘cause I heard the idea that maybe we’re not supporting the arts, this is still an increase to museum London’s budget. So when I brought this down, I only brought down the 2024 piece by about $80,000 to bring the average down to 5.4, the 2025, 2026, 2027 asks are all as submitted, they’re not lowered.

[36:38] So one year, lowered one time, and also approved in this budget, and I think the deputy mayor referenced it, is a $460,000 addition to assist museum London in the repair of their elevators drawn from the capital levy, does impact the tax rate, and that’s in there. So I don’t want anybody to have the impression that we’re not giving additional support to museum London, their budget will go from, tax support, a budget will go from 1.927 million in 2023 to 2.381 million by 2027. It just won’t be $80,000 more in 2024.

[37:17] So I know that that will have an impact. I don’t think that there’s any part of this budget when you don’t give people everything that they ask for, that there isn’t an impact. But I just wanted to be clear that there is a net increase and a net level of increased support for the museum contained within this budget proposal. And I respect that counselors want to go back to where it was, but I don’t want anybody to leave the room thinking that this is a reduction in their base budget. This is a smaller increase than they were asking for.

[37:55] Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, and through the chair. So I’m just wondering, this was just the 80,000 that’s being requested. And in terms of where this moves the needle, I thought it’d be helpful in our discussions. I know we do this in our annual update, just in terms of like how much of the needle does this move? Mr. Murray, I believe that would be a request for your modeling, or you just remind us of, if it’s a 750,000 reduction to remove point one or whatever that math is, just to remind us today.

[38:33] Thank you through the chair. So just in general terms, each 1% on the tax levy is in the neighborhood of approximately seven and a half million dollars. So by extension, each 0.1% would represent approximately $750,000 or so. Councillor, does that satisfy your question? Or did you want to see the modeling knowing that 80,000s? Well, that would be so small that it would be the cumulative impact that you would see it on, right? So thank you.

[39:06] I had Councillor Pribble next. Thank you. There are two cultural arts cases that will be in front of us, and I just want to say my point of view why I will be supporting both of them. I think we have a great opportunity, and I look at kind of, yes, we all look at different ways in terms of ROI, return on investment. We recently received a designation of UNESCO, and I really think there is a great opportunity for us to move forward and to include the initiatives that both of these organizations put forward.

[39:41] I do think that, and I mentioned it a few times before, one of the pillars in terms of their reconciliation, equity, I really think in terms of arts and culture, and I’m talking from my personal experience when I came to Canada that really arts culture sports is the one that brings people together in the best possible way. So I will be supporting it these two, and as I mentioned, I do have, because 8.8 is very, very high, no doubt. I do have some other proposals to decrease it, but it’s not our budget, but it’s not in arts culture and this area.

[40:23] So I just want to like, you know, please look at the big picture in this. UNESCO, as I said, we are the only one, we are the only one in Canada. Let’s try to get the most out of it, we can, and again, it has to do with destination tourism dollars coming in and keep putting ourselves on the map of Canada and on the world, and I really think this is a great opportunity. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor ramen, you’re next. Thank you. Just on the modeling piece again, not for this one in particular, but any changes that we approved yesterday as well.

[41:02] How do we look at that from a modeling perspective as well? Yeah, I’d say at any decision point time, you can ask for it or you can ask for it any time. Mr. Murray? Through the chair, yeah, and we’re actually happy to put it up right now, so you can see kind of where we stand based on what happened yesterday. There was really only one change that impacted the tax levy increases based on the discussion yesterday, but we’re happy to put that up on screen right now if you’d like to see it and we can show you what that looks like. Yes, please.

[41:35] It’s a good exercise for this morning of how that system can work. We’ll just need a minute or two to get it set up. Okay, I will fill that void by answering another question that came in this morning that I remembered and got back to you. Some counselors had asked where are these base budgets bound, just as a reminder, and they were in Appendix A of the original bound document you got from staff starting on page 175 and the museum specifically lies within page 180. If you hit the toggle button, you can see it on your screen.

[43:05] Thank you, yes, it’s just helpful to see what we’re going to see in terms of modeling and get a sense of where we’re going to see the impacts as we go. I just wanted to say that I too am struggling with this currently leaning towards supporting the mayor’s budget on where he was with museum London, just hearing the dialogue that’s been happening today. I worry about some of the impacts if we do move to restore the funding. And I do see it as that the mayor did take into consideration the 2024 funding for museum London and look at only the decrease in that line of 80,000.

[43:50] And I think that considering all the requests on the table right now that is where my support lies. Thank you. At this point, I would like to chair in the chair to Councillor Layman as I’d like to make a comment. I will do that now. The chair, I will recognize Councillor Plaza. Thank you, Mr. Presoning Officer. I’m not anticipating you’re going to hear from me much today as handing over the chair takes extra time. And I’m hoping as we move through this process that absolutely we’re getting a feel for it.

[44:27] I appreciate that. This is the process, but I am mindful that this is a, I know it’s just in the first year, but it’s an $80,000 conversation and always mindful of the amount of time we take on things. So throughout the day, as we move on, this is the first one, but as we move on, I’ll probably remind you of that. As for this business case, being the budget chair, I didn’t actually support the 5.4. I wanted 4.7 for all the agency boards and commissions. That’s the line that we held our staff to.

[45:03] And I thought, why are we punishing staff when I’m sure they had a list of things that they wanted? Someone’s referenced, this is a great investment, absolutely. It is by a donation only, a safe, equitable space. It was a proud past board member. They do amazing work. And I’m not saying that any of the organizations who made an ask aren’t worthy of it, just mindful that there’s limited resources to go around. This is the tough decisions that we have before us. And I don’t wanna just keep saying there’s always updates, but there’s always updates.

[45:41] Someone said, you know, a great investment and it is. I will also note tourism London doesn’t have their business case currently put forward. And for every dollar we invest in them, they bring back $3 in economic return and also do great things with city and music, arts, culture, and also bringing great quality of life to residents. So those are gonna be my general comments as we move through this process. Grateful for the agency boards and commissions who do the amazing work in the community. In any other year, if we were talking about 4.7 or 5.4%, that would have been a huge increase.

[46:19] Absolutely huge. In past years, it would have just been a couple of percent. Just this year with the tax rates and where we’re at, we’re questioning, can it not be more? So I appreciate where we’re at. Like I said, you won’t hear from me much today, but that’s the overall sentiments as I came forward of balancing needs with civic administration and other agencies, so thank you. Thank you, and I’ll return to the chair to the budget chair. Thank you. On my speakers list, I had Deputy Mayor Lewis, Councillor Troso, Councillor Ferrera, Councillor McAllister.

[46:55] And I am still timing, trying to hold this to those five minutes, so Deputy Mayor. I’m just gonna check quickly chair, how much time do I have? You’ve used a minute 24 prior to this. Thank you, I’m not gonna hit five minutes. However, I’m gonna build on what you just said. I’m a member of the tourism board, and I heard the discussion about how important this is for tourism. Tourism itself does not have its business case in, and as a board member, I have no intention of putting it in. I will say, I also heard about the UNESCO City of Music. There is a MAT fund through Tourism London that our boards and agencies as well as outside private partners can apply to to do special new events around the UNESCO City of Music.

[47:39] In fact, the board just approved a $100,000 MAT ask specifically around UNESCO City of Music initiatives for this year. So I reject the argument that this investment needs to be made for tourism and the UNESCO City of Music designation. There is a process for that, and it is through the Tourism London MAT fund, both this organization, the arts council, or any of our board’s commissions, any of our purchase of service agreement providers, could submit business cases to access the MAT for new initiatives.

[48:15] They do not need to come and ask for base operating budget increases to do that. And so again, I will not be supporting this, and I personally reject the notion that this is key to tourism. Thank you. Another minute and a half, Councilor Troso, this is your first time speaking, so you have your full five minutes. I do have a number of questions that I think could be better addressed by the director, and I will ask her, and I hope you’ll allow her to respond to this.

[48:50] It’s been said that part of your budget is paying for items charged back from the city. Could you address how much that is, and whether it would help if maybe some of those could be waived? Thank you, I will recognize that Ms. Bevin is with us in Chambers today. Her mic will go live in a moment. I will caution of would it help if your fees were waived ‘cause every organization would like this? It should be more specific in terms of— Okay, Ms. Bevin. Thank you to respond through the chair to— Sorry, just one second.

[49:27] Can you go a little bit louder? I just wanna make sure we could all hear you and it catches people for on screen. Could you just say hello again if we could test it? Hello, through the chair, I’ll respond. We noted in this base budget request, which is largely driven by modest increases to our QP collective agreement, costs related to insurance, security, contracted services. Additionally, we have agreements with the city for facility operations, for ITS services, and a new increase related to capital asset management planning, which is part of a legislative requirement.

[50:09] So these make up the real cost pressures that are driving this request for increase to the base budget. That does not include the addition of staff, new services, new programs. It’s just to maintain the existing service levels where we’re at now. Council Troso? Yes, so I think what I wanna say that as a member of the board, and as someone who’s studied this in more detail, I believe that not receiving the increases that they requested, which are largely driven by variables that are totally outside of their control and do not result in any new ability for them to put on, put on programs, is going to result in them having to lay off staff, and it’s going to result in them having to cut programs, including programs for children that they’re already doing.

[51:06] It’s gonna result in them having to revisit their donation-only policy at the door, which I think is gonna further drive down visits. And I wanna say that this is gonna hurt the downtown area because I think that this is one of many cultural institutions that plays a role in helping downtown. So not receiving this additional 166 that they’re asking for, it’s gonna reduce their capacity to continue the recovery that they’ve made after the pandemic, and it’s gonna put them in a difficult position.

[51:46] I do not wanna see, I do not wanna see this agency have to start laying off staff. And that’s what is gonna happen. And I want people who are saying, we don’t want extra bells and whistles right now, we don’t want extra programs. I want you to understand that this is not a business case for additional programs. This is to maintain what they have under very difficult situations. And I would like to ask the director if she can provide a little bit more of a framework as to why we think layoffs are going to result if this money is not given.

[52:28] Ms. Bevin? Thank you. Just to be clear that funding from the city accounts for 50 to 55% of museum London’s operating budget, every year we raise the rest of the money that we need to realize our programs and services for the community, from other sponsors, individual donors, families in London, other levels of government. So what we’re asking for here from the city is this really to maintain the existing services, which allows us to leverage the investment from the city.

[53:02] And I know that we’re spending a lot of time talking about a very modest amount of money in the scope of the city’s budget, it’s small. And the impact on our organization is quite significant though, given the constraints that we’re faced with. And we have run the numbers. We know that though this is a modest increase, what it will cause us to face in 2024 is a reduction that’s equivalent to about two full-time staff members closing the door for an additional day during the business week.

[53:38] And looking at reducing a day of security. So we are committed to finding growth opportunities beyond what the city of London can provide. We’re well on our way to that, but this is really a case to maintain the status quo and avoid us having to reduce our services. Thank you, Councilor, a follow-up? Yes, it’s been said that not having this funding is going to jeopardize the agency’s ability to continue with its requests to senior levels of government and it’s gonna have a dilatary effect on the museum’s ability to seek and receive federal and provincial funds.

[54:27] Could you explain why that’s the situation better than I can? Ms. Bevin? In our conversations at the board, we were looking at ways to mitigate this issue and looking at areas of flexibility in our budget of which there are very few. And we are funded by Canada Council for the Arts, the Ontario Arts Council, the Province of Ontario and those programming dollars, which some may look at and say, this could be an area of flexibility, represent commitments that we’ve already made to artists, to others, to these other levels of government.

[55:02] So those do not represent flexibility to answer your question. And in closing, I believe I’m out of my time soon, but in closing, I really want to urge this Council for now to support this request. Not having this money is going to send this agency into a downward spiral. It is not a question of not getting something in addition that we would like to have. This is urgent and it’s a matter of our survival. And so much progress has been made in this museum in terms of going beyond the traditional thinking of people about what a museum is, in particular, the services to children and some of the equity relevant programming that they’re doing.

[55:54] So I really am urging you not to send them into this tailspin and support this very modest request for now, and with that, I think that’s what I have to say. Thank you very much. Perfect, thank you. I’m just making note of your time. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. - Thank you. I appreciate the debate that I’m hearing. Just following up on Council Troso, like this is definitely something that I’m seeing for the children, for the services towards children.

[56:29] I take my kid there, and after a property tax rate increase, maybe people are gonna be needing free admission and needing those services just a little bit more because they don’t have cost to other in other areas. We have a head of a museum London here who I believe brings a huge impact and it’s just a straight asset for our city. And she has great ideas. And we have kind of all the pieces here. We have museum London as it is right now. It is in need of extra support. We have a head of the museum that has great ideas and she’s bringing great initiatives here.

[57:07] And really all we need to add is that extra piece just to allow them to maintain their existing service level. We have to maintain our existing service levels is that 5.2% I believe. I think maybe in all in fairness, just recognizing that on how much it’s costing for us to provide the services that we’re already providing. Maybe we should also realize that other agencies, boards and commissions or museum London itself will also be in the same financial area of pressure. We’re asking for $81,000 extra a year. And this is, in my perspective, not for tourism. It is for the people of London.

[57:41] It is for us. It is for everybody that we’re serving with a small amount of $81,000, which to Councillor McAllister’s point, where does that set the needle? And from what Mr. Murray said, I believe if we were to really calculate it down, I think that’s a hundredth of a percent of what really what we’re asking for. I’ve seen areas in our business cases that round those numbers out, that would round this amount right out that we wouldn’t even see. So I’m not saying it’s drops in the bucket, but it is. And those drops in the bucket, if we add to what we already have in place here, we will see those dollars be as impactful as you can possibly see.

[58:23] Those dollars will go so far and considering the amount that we’re talking about here and the relative ratio compared to other business cases, I think this is a very wise choice in investment. We speak all the time of wanting to bring people downtown. 30 seconds. - We need to make sure that we have all the organizations to bring people downtown, to attract them downtown. Museum London is one of them, $81,000 annually. Just think about that. Thank you, looking for further speakers before we call the question.

[58:59] Okay, I have Councillor McAllister, then the mayor, and then I’ll just do a double check after that to make sure there’s no one online. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate the discussion we’ve had today. Just thinking back to when I did my tour of Museum London, and I think what really struck me is, especially when I looked in terms of the archive, it really is a repository of the city’s history in terms of who we were, who we are, who we want to be. And I think when I look at an organization like this, I mean, for 81,000, it really is very impactful.

[59:42] And I know we’re gonna have debates throughout the day in terms of business cases, but this is speaking to the base budget of our organization, which I really do think is at the core of London itself. So I will be supporting this. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll be brief. So what I’m hearing is, if in one year, 2024, instead of the city giving the museum $2,083,000, if we give them $2,000, $2,000, that they’re gonna reduce two FTEs, close a day, reduce security and be sent in a downward spiral, I find that pretty hard to believe.

[1:00:25] If after, by we get to 2027, we give the museum money where they go from 1.927 million in 2023, to 2.381 million in 2027, that they’re gonna be in a downward spiral. That’s a big increase. The members of the board are gonna have to figure this out. Thank you, just checking online for hands up from any of our colleagues, seeing none there, seeing none in chambers, calling the question in e-scribe.

[1:01:34] Councilor Perbal, closing the vote in the motion fails, five to 10. That concludes that item for a base budget, looking to committee to see if there’s any other wants to be brought forward. Councilor Frank? Thank you, yes.

[1:02:06] Upon emailing staff, I was able to update the motion from Councilor Ferran and regarding the industrial lands reserve fund. Okay, I will get to that one next. The clerk does have that noted and she is noting your seconder, I was just looking for specifically base budgets as I knew there was a talk behind the scenes of other ones at this time, but I’m almost prepared. And if not, you’re next. Okay, seeing none, our next item is, as Councilor Frank just said, an amendment.

[1:02:44] The wording of the amendment was strictly in advance, it’s just being put into e-scribe now. Councilor Frank, if you wanted to read it out and if colleagues would like to refresh e-scribe, it will be there for them to follow along with you. Perfect, let me just grab it. Okay, here we are. So the motion be that the mayor’s 2024-2027 multi-year budget be amended to reduce the current industrial lands reserve fund contribution by 1 million for 2024 only, noting it have a 0.1% reduction in the 2024 property tax levy.

[1:03:24] I’m happy to speak to it when appropriate. Councilor Ferran, just verifying that you’re the seconder, got a thumbs up here. So yes, Councilor Frank, the floor is yours to properly fully introduce it. Thank you. We’ve already had a bit of discussion on this, but clearly our community is looking for savings for us given the relatively high property tax increase. So I do think it’s incumbent on us to be subtracting from the overall increase, especially in 2024, given that’s the highest year. So this would be a one-time reduction of 0.1% in 2024. As we know, we’ve had the announcement of VW and other large industrial interests coming to southwestern Ontario.

[1:04:01] And I personally, I know many on council have every confidence in our staff in the IDC to be able to sell our highly coveted industrial land. And the sale of the industrial land, as many know, goes back into the reserve fund. So right now, $2 million a year of taxpayer subsidized money goes into that reserve fund and about two to three million depending on the year of sale, that goes back into the reserve fund as well. And I can’t wait until I get to the point where the entire amount going into the reserve fund is from the industrial land and sale, I’m not from taxpayer money, but we’re not there yet. But I know we’re working towards it. And as many might have read an article in December 2023, London’s industrial sector continues to attract attention from outside buyers with a recent purchase of a $55 million parcel calling London and the area, one of Canada’s hottest spots for industrial land.

[1:04:50] And London is one of the strongest markets in the country for industrial property. There’s very high demand and little supply. So it’s a really tight market. And as many know, that means we’re kind of in a wonderful spot. So right now, we have over 120 hectares of land serviced as of May last year, ready to go. And we’re building another 108 hectares waiting to be serviced. So we’ve got tons of service land already as well. We also have stuff waiting to be serviced.

[1:05:23] And I know that lots of that will be snapped up with the VW spin-offs. So given all that, and given that we still have money in the reserve fund, and given that 2024 is going to be incredibly tough tax year, I personally see it being prudent to alleviate the tax pressure on Londoners for 2024 by withholding the one-year injection of $1 million into the reserve fund. So that is my case for this budget case. Thank you. Just one moment while I stop your timer. That was two minutes and 15 seconds. I’ll also note that Councilor Trovesau has left the meeting.

[1:05:58] Councilor Lewis or Deputy Mayor Lewis. Sorry, I just want to be on the speaker’s list. But do we have a seconder for that confirmed? Oh, yeah, sorry. Councilor Frank was the mover. Frere was the seconder, and it’s in the ascribe. So if you would like to speak, just proceed. Yes, thank you. So the unintended consequences often of a one-year reduction to lower a tax rate in one year means that when you pull on the lever in 2024, the lever in 2025 or 2026 goes up. So I’m going to ask if Mr. Murray can please model this for us to show what the impact of this reduction would have on future years.

[1:06:35] Mr. Murray, do you need a moment to get that behind the scenes? Are you good to go? No, through the chair, we will get that pulled up on screen. What I will say in general terms is that this would mean approximately a 0.1% reduction in 2024, but a corresponding 0.1% increase in the levy for 2025. So it would bring us down to 8.7% in 2024, but then would bring us up to 8.7% in 2025.

[1:07:13] So again, to the deputy mayor’s point, it’s a bit of a lever. You pull the lever in one year because it’s a one-time thing. It increases it in the following year. I’ll also note as well that the Reserve Fund is somewhat independent as well on the activity that comes in through the sale of industrial land. And we include estimates in our projections for the Reserve Fund, but subject to variability from year to year as those sales materialize. Deputy Mayor.

[1:07:48] Thank you. So one of the reasons we are in the situation we are in with this budget is some— and not all, but some decisions of prior councils that have essentially, for lack of a better term, kick the can down the road. We’ve delayed investments in some areas for the future. I don’t want to do that in the course of this budget. I appreciate the councillors trying to find some savings, but getting to 8.7% this year at the expense of coming up to 8.7% in next year’s budget is not an acceptable trade off to me, so I won’t be able to support this.

[1:08:27] Thank you. Looking for other speakers. I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Layman. Thank you, through you. I thought this was a good idea. I do hear people quoting the 8.8%, and that’s what I’m hearing on this council. I thought this would be nice because we could literally say today that we have shaved it off by 0.1%. And hopefully you will see more savings on that. But it would be a good real-time measure to show that we are doing our work right off the bat first year.

[1:08:59] I really like the comments of Councillor Frank. We’re looking for savings. I know we’re all doing that on this council. VW is going to be attracting way more businesses. And we have hundreds of hectares already served, and we have more ready to go. I would say I don’t want to be kicking the can down the road either, but I do see that we are doing that. We’re doing that in other areas. And I’m trying to look at the future, the long-term future. I don’t like looking at the feet in front of me. I don’t like that short-term sightedness perspective, because that always gets us in trouble. That’s why we’re in trouble right now.

[1:09:31] We need to start thinking about the future. So this right here, that reduction in savings, which, from what I understand, will not have an impact at all. And it does give us that ability to say that we cut the first year property tax rate down is a smart way to go. And it gives us some wiggle room. So I really think we should be supporting this. And obviously, I will be. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. I want to thank the Council for looking for possible ways to reduce attacks.

[1:10:03] This shifts attacks. It doesn’t reduce it. The industrial land strategy has been a strategy that has been one of the more successful things previous councils have done. It’s allowed us to see the incredible growth and investment in London leading to incredible job growth, leading to increased commercial and industrial tax levies coming into our treasurer. Now’s not the time to cut back.

[1:10:41] In fact, probably the time to be more aggressive. We have an opportunity, especially with Volkswagen, to take advantage of the spin-off industries that are going to support one of the larger battery manufacturers in the world to use this as an opportunity to shift a bit of tax from one year to another. I understand the reasoning behind it. But in this case, not the time.

[1:11:16] And I want to remind folks, the land that we buy through the reserve fund, we sell. We sell to industry that comes to London. The idea behind it is to make that process for people that are looking to invest in the city as easy as possible as we are competing with other municipalities across Canada and North America. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to follow up on a few comments and given I had a little bit of time left. And I appreciate the comments.

[1:11:49] And what I would argue is, again, we have 120 hectares of land already serviced and another 109 waiting to be serviced. So I still think that we’re in a wonderful spot. We are kicking the can down the road as well. We are selling our most expensive hectares for $250,000. Whereas Woodstock, for example, is selling their land at half a million, $500,000 a hectare. So I still think we remain incredibly competitive. And this won’t take away that edge at all. And I see the effort here where we have a one-time reduction in 2024, yes, it would be allocated to 2025.

[1:12:25] But I would argue we have our annual updates. And within the next year, I’m sure we can find other ways to find savings. I do see we’re looking immediately at 2024. And that’s where we are actually trying to find the savings. So if we are able to move it out a year, I think in the next year, yet again, we will be able to find other savings for the taxpayer. So I hope that we have support on this, because I do think it’s a good way to alleviate some of the tax pressure in 2024 while not materially impacting our industrial land strategy. Thank you for those comments.

[1:13:00] I’ll note for those online that Councilor Troso has rejoined the meeting. I have no further speakers calling the question. Seeing the vote, the motion carries 8 to 7. Thank you. I believe that concludes the rest of the reserve fund cases, as there is one more, but it’s connected to a business case.

[1:13:43] So we’re going to move on into the Council prioritized business cases. I’m deeming the ones prioritized by Council as the ones that Mr. Murray had on his slides, where we all picked our top five. Not saying we didn’t deem more things important, just we picked five. I will start with numerical order for them, which would bring us to P9, which this was one one from Councillor Stevenson.

[1:14:15] It’s going to be in the East Cribus. We already had the wording for it. So if I could just ask the Councillor to read it out, unless you would like the clerks to read it out, and then I’ll verify with your seconder, and then we’ll start our speakers list. The mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove business case number P9, the implementation.

[1:14:55] Looking to Councillor, so just verifying Councillor Stevenson has moved it, Councillor Pribble was the seconder. I have a nod. Councillor, if you’d like the floor first to fully introduce it. Sure, thank you. The reason why I’m bringing this forward is the homelessness issue is primarily the responsibility of the province. And that’s a stance that we’ve taken as a council and we were guided at the beginning of this budget process to be wary about stepping into other levels of government and their responsibility.

[1:15:32] So this particular program from what I see, we are currently, the municipality is contributing 250,000 a year. The province is doing 740,000. So it’s currently a $990,000 per year program. And this is now an ask of an additional 710,000 by the municipality. So that would take it to then 1.7 million per year on an ongoing basis. And we as a community, although we’re suffering tremendously with this homelessness crisis, Council has supported the whole community plan.

[1:16:09] We’ve had the generous donation of 25 million. We’re anticipating another 10 million from that. There’s lobbying efforts going to the province to get the operational funding. And I have residents asking me, pleading really, to say, we’re seniors on a fixed income. We are low income families. Please don’t put me on the edge of homelessness trying to solve our homelessness crisis. And so property taxes is a regressive tax. I really think it’s incumbent on us when, especially when the property tax rate this year is so high, to really allow the work of the whole community, the lobbying with the provincial government, and to let the provincial funding support our homelessness services in this budget.

[1:17:04] Thank you. Looking for other speakers. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, do you spare with me? Because I wrote these remarks at 2 a.m. in the morning, last night, or this morning. But I would want to just point out, from our third meeting of the Community and Protective Services meeting, the report for the data regarding the relocation of homeless individuals— thank you, Mr. Dickens, for that great report. There is really good information in there. Specifically, from the by-name list, the snapshot for 2023 of the by-name list shows that 19% of individuals who identified as without shelter are indigenous, 19%.

[1:17:47] And civic administration also makes note that usually that number is around 30%. So considering just the self-reporting restrictions for the HIFAS system, we think that it’s anywhere from 19% to 30%. We also see from that report that we continue to see a range of 1,700 to 2,100 people experiencing homelessness, on average, consistently in this city. So if you do that math, 19%, or in that range is about 425 to 600 people, respectively. And I would say that this business case specifically intersects many areas of our strategic plan— reconciliation, equity, inclusion, accessibility, housing and homelessness, well-being and safety.

[1:18:28] I can go on and on and on. This is one of the most another strategic investment. It’s also something that I would say to chairs here, we read a land acknowledgment every single meeting. And I would like to have some action with those words on that land acknowledgment. So I will be not supporting removing this event, this business case. I think that this is another very important one as well. Thank you. I believe Councilor Troso was next. Well, I’m not going to be supporting removing this item. I’m looking at the table of contents for all of our business cases.

[1:19:05] And I see that under reconciliation, equity, accessibility, and inclusion, there were three business cases, two of which have already been taken out in the mayor’s budget. And now we’re being asked to take out the third one. And I want to reiterate something that Councilor Ferrara said. And that is we read the land acknowledgments. We have very, very good language in our strategic plan. We’ve talked about implementing the reconciliation programs from other international bodies.

[1:19:41] And here we are, here we are, talking about taking out the third and last piece of this in this budget that, quite frankly, in my view, did not do justice to the way we talk about the importance of reconciliation. I hope that Councilors see past this. I know that the tax levy is too high. But I think we have to start asking a question. If the tax levy is too high because of certain large items in it, does that mean we continue to not fund properly or take out other programs that are based on the true principles of social justice, that we have espoused, that we have strongly espoused in our strategic plan, and which we repeat each meeting when we do land acknowledgments.

[1:20:44] So I’m just beyond being incredibly unhappy at the situation that we find ourselves in, but requesting that this remaining item, which is, I think, very important and very well articulated in the business plan, is something that I hope this Council rejects and rejects squarely. Thank you. Thank you.

[1:21:16] I’ll note that three members of Council did list this item within their top five business cases, as that’s the way I’m bringing things through. Looking further for their speakers. I’m just going to go online first before we circle back in chambers. Councillor Van Merbergen. Thank you, Chair. I’d like to thank Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble for bringing this forward. I believe it makes complete sense, and I’ll certainly be supporting it. Thank you, Chair.

[1:21:49] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I will not be supporting this amendment. I don’t know even where to start, but I will start with the priorities that I hear homelessness and housing. Is the number one concern that I hear? And if we are going to take programs that have been successful in the past and will hopefully continue to be successful, especially within the indigenous context, ‘cause we know there’s a high level of homelessness in that area, I think we are really setting out a, we are going into shaky grounds here and how we support a vulnerable population.

[1:22:41] I want to speak to one of the Councillors’ reasons why she’d like to have it removed, and that is about the provincial part of this and the responsibilities that lie with the province. I know the past number of years when this program has been in existence, we have used this program, blaming to the provincial government, the work that we have done in our city and really sort of being proud of that. And now we’re not going to support this business case.

[1:23:21] I am just very concerned that we would even have this conversation. Thank you, Councillor Ryan. Thank you, and through you, I’m just wondering if staff can provide any more information as to the rationale for the business case and specifically what the increase will help to help us to fund just so that everybody’s aware of what’s the opportunity cost here.

[1:23:58] Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, Council actually endorsed the Guillotage Cod plan back through until 2027. So this is a Council approved plan. We’ve been working actually previous council past resolutions to advocate to the federal government for London to be recognized as a indigenous community under the reaching home program so that we could tap into additional funding streams to support this strategy.

[1:24:34] The current investment that is in place provides a baseline level of service as we have noted in the business case. The ask here is that we have been trying to find additional funding for the Guillotage Cod plan to fully implement the plan and to ramp up so services could be fully operationalized, including indigenous-led outreach services, indigenous-led rapid rehousing programs, and indigenous-led transitional housing programs amongst others. Thank you for that, can I know in the report it speaks to, and I thank you to Councilor Ferreira as well for looking at our recent CAHPS report and the percentages that were shared as well.

[1:25:24] It speaks to potentially 400 folks in the community being supported through the initiatives in the plan. That’s with that increased funding. So how many are we supporting with the baseline funding? Mr. Dickens, I’m not sure if you have that. Make sure, okay, you’re ready, please proceed. Thank you, Chair, and through you. So right now we serve roughly that number, about 400 to 500 individuals that identify as indigenous.

[1:26:02] This increase would look to support approximately an additional 400. Again, this is not a finite list of people. This is looking at supporting individuals that identify as indigenous, those that have come into our community from neighboring, perhaps offers her into urban indigenous. So we approximate about an additional 400 individuals as we know it in the business case, and there’s about that number that are being supported now. The services in the Yewitashka Plan really also look at connectivity into cultural supports, and reconnecting back into indigenous culture, reconnecting back into home communities as well.

[1:26:50] Councilor? Thank you for that, Mr. Dickens. I appreciate the information, and I’ll continue to be supportive of this plan and to support the business case, thank you. Thank you, any further speakers? Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, just a few follow-ups to the comments that I’ve heard. There was a reference to social justice, and social justice refers to a fair and equitable division of resources, opportunities and privileges in society. And I think for me, anyway, it’s just, this is not a question of the program, or whether there’s value in the program.

[1:27:28] It’s a question of, property taxes is a regressive tax, and we are asking people to pay who may not have the ability to pay. And so, you know, Mr. Dickens said that we’ve been looking for federal funding for this. So what is it that we’re gonna do when programs that should be funded, or we believe should, you know, well, legislatively should be funded, provincially or federally, and we don’t get it. Are we going to then use a regressive tax to provide that service? I did check with staff, and we do have a million dollars unallocated of our HPP funding.

[1:28:07] Last year, the province gave us an extra eight million, but as of now, there’s a million that’s currently unallocated. This could come before caps and look at this program, and potentially, we would still fund it, or we get to do more advocacy efforts to ensure that important programs that are needed in the city get the funding. That is on us to do, and to put it on the backs of struggling residents, who for every one of our boards and commissions, and for the homeless, there are, we have people who pay property tax, or who that are really, really struggling right now.

[1:28:45] And this is, in my opinion, we get to hold the, we get to protect those who are vulnerable in our city, who are struggling with this property tax rate and say we’re not going to just pass the buck literally onto your property tax bill. I would be happy to see this come forward at community and protective services. We are not cutting this. We have a program in place where the municipality or property tax payers are paying 250,000 a year.

[1:29:20] The province contributes 740. That is along the lines of the way homeless services is supposed to be provided. And just a reminder that we did just do the two hubs. We had 28 beds with the indigenous lead hub and 15 for the youth. Hopefully we’re going to see a lot more. And so my focus is really, it’s principal based on who should be paying and what are we going to do when we don’t get the funding from other levels? Are we willing to pass it down to those who cannot and are struggling to bear the cost?

[1:29:58] Thank you, last call for speakers. Councilor Perbal. Thank you and, excuse me. And the same perspective is supporting this to removal. I do think it is a very positive program. On the other hand, I do believe that we can find the funding and look from within, it was said as well to bring it back to CAPS. I would like to support it in terms of this four year plan. I will not be supporting it, but I hope we do, excuse me, I hope we do find the money to support this because it is positive.

[1:30:30] But in terms of the inflationary pressures, we have 8.8, this is one of the things I believe we don’t have to include in the four year plan. But I believe we will find the money to fund this increase. Thank you. Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair. And I just want to provide a point of clarity as we communicated with some members of council yesterday. It was some of their questions that came through for the 2024, 2025 HPP allocation, which is April 1, 2024 to March 31st, 2025.

[1:31:06] We have less than, we have roughly $500,000 that is unallocated in the HPP funding and not a million just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. And just for council, I had staff beforehand, if something’s stated and they know other information would be more accurate up to this decision point to please interject as we go. So just let you know, that’s why they would signal just to make sure that we have the best and most recent information going forward to these decisions. I have no other speakers in chambers looking online, calling the question.

[1:32:00] Posing the vote, motion fails, four to 11. Thank you. And as I stated earlier, as we moved through this, I’ll be going numerically order based on the council, top five priorities at the onset, which would bring us to business case P26. This is a Councillor McAllister and Councillor Frank, move and seconded. I’m gonna ask the Councillor to introduce their motion for those others.

[1:32:33] If you refresh that wording as it ascribes, so you can follow along as they read it out. Councillor McAllister, are you the reader? Yes, thank you. And I appreciate the Smith working with me to get this in. Through our discussions, I believe we can delay this project to 2026. There are funds available, roughly 150,000 would be drawn from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. So all that is being requested with this business case is the 12,000, which would be for the 2026 and then 2027.

[1:33:10] So this is the annual ask of the 12,000 is all that would be part of this business case as the money would be coming from an Investment Reserve Fund. I would just like, if I can, to speak to the motion. Sorry, just one second. I just need confirmation from your seconder that they’re your seconder. It’s true, I will, so, and your time starts now, not your beginning, so. Okay, thank you. And I appreciate that. In terms of, this was something that I had brought forward in terms of our strategic planning. I do think that food security is a basic necessity, which has been unfortunately overlooked in many aspects of our city strategic plan.

[1:33:49] So that’s why I was very adamant that we put it in. This is something that’s very important to me in terms of food security. I’ve seen it throughout my award in terms of the success of this program. A lot of the neighborhood resources centers are very dependent on this in terms of feeding our most vulnerable. So I would ask considering this is the only one that we have that really addresses food security. I would ask my colleagues to please support this. I worked very hard with staff to ensure that the cost of this was brought down to a very reasonable amount. Just requesting the 24,000 to fund the program as the establishment would come from a reserve fund that is currently in existence.

[1:34:27] Thank you. Thank you. That used up one minute of your speaking time. And as we were through this process, there’s different reserve funds and staff knows the current balance of them and things that other businesses could potentially be drawing on them for. So at any point, if you would like to know the balance, the reserve fund prior to this decision or with this decision, please let me know. Looking for further speakers online or in chambers. Oh, just one second. Councilor they may have a technical issue. I can’t see the motion on the mic. Okay, the clerk’s coming over.

[1:35:04] So we’re just gonna fix that. And absolutely, if at any time you can’t actually see the motion, please just interject. ‘Cause it’s imperative we’re on the same page. Technical issue has been resolved. Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, through you. I would just point out that I think there’s a spelling mistake. This would result in only a $12,000 task levy. I believe that would be tax levy. And I also have comments. Just one second. Unless it is tax, task levy.

[1:35:36] Okay, please proceed. So anyways, when I was going through this, I appreciate Councilor McAllister and Frank bringing this to the table. Ideally, I would like to see the full funding, but I understand we need to be prudent and the monies that we’re spending. So bringing this, I think this is something that would be palatable for all of us. I know a lot of people who use these gardens. There’s a lot near where I live and a lot of people depend on it. And I would say that this business case is specifically stating it’s for priority neighborhoods.

[1:36:11] And that keyword priority, like what does that mean? And that means providing food security for people in areas where they need it. So simply put, the extra plots of spaces and the potentially new spots are broad here today because we need it. People are asking for it and people are depending on it. So they can have a place to grow their food and a place to eat. So I would be in full support of this amendment. I do appreciate what the Councillors are doing, bringing this forward. It’s a significant reduction from the original ask. So I will be supporting this.

[1:36:46] Thank you, that was also one minute. Looking to other speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you, to our staff. How many community garden plots are currently in existence in our city? To staff, thank you. And through the chair, we currently have 15 community gardens and of those over 500 Londoners access approximately 500 plots across the city. Deputy Mayor.

[1:37:18] Thank you. And I don’t know if staff can comment on this because some of them might not be on their radar. In addition to the community garden spaces that the city operates and oversees and supports, are you aware of how many additional community gardens are being provided by other organizations, for example, faith communities that are using part of their property to provide garden space as well? After the chair, I’m not currently aware of any that do similar allotment gardens where we do, where each gardens are divided into allotments that are then rented to individuals, to Londoners.

[1:38:01] I’m not aware of another public or private allotment garden program. Deputy Mayor. Thank you. So I know that there’s one in my ward, but that may be a one-off, that’s fine. I think other Councillors may be aware of a couple in their awards too. And that’s why I won’t be supporting this. We have 15 locations. We have other organizations that are providing garden space as well. And this comes back to, yes, this is a very small amount and I do appreciate the Councillors looking for other sources of funding to bring this forward.

[1:38:35] But these small amounts will add up over the course of the day, over the course of the next day, until we are back to the 8.8 or higher. And so when it comes to the return on investment, I’m also aware that a number of communities submit community garden requests for neighborhood decision-making through that program. So if community wants another community garden, they should seek to get that funding through the neighborhood decision-making. They should activate their neighborhood. They should get the votes out to do that, not look for permanent operating expansion through a multi-year budget ask.

[1:39:14] So that’s why I won’t be supporting this. It is small. I do appreciate the work that went into looking for alternate sources of revenue. But again, this comes back to that principle. The Mayor mentioned yesterday, it might only be a drop in the bucket, but if you put 87 drops in, suddenly the bucket is full. Thank you. I have Councillor Frank, next. Thank you, yes. I just wanted to speak to this motion, had a couple of things, but just picking right up off of the Deputy Mayor’s point, a new community garden, the capital cost for it is 150,000. So it would not be possible to be submitted through the MDM program, because that would be over half of the entire MDM budget.

[1:39:57] So it’s not possible for anyone in the city to do that currently. But that being said, I do wanna highlight that the community gardens right, or during COVID, were actually deemed an essential service because they are a method of food security. So 94% of gardeners use the community gardens to grow their own food. We’re getting reports pretty much every day, there’s actually a news article today quoting the Middlesex Lunt Health Unit about how food insecure Londoners are. And while I think some people might think that community gardens are nice to have, I think they’re absolutely essential.

[1:40:32] They’re located in areas that are high density, high social risk, and where people have no other access to green space to grow their food. So they’re adjacent to townhouse complexes and apartment buildings. I think many of us personally live in houses that have front and backyards, and so we’re able to have our own garden plots. But many of these community gardens are located in places where people are living in apartments, and it would have no other access to being able to grow their own food. And in London, so with those 15 locations, 60% of those have accessible plots.

[1:41:09] So not only are we providing food security method through this way, there’s also co-benefits with social engagement, accessibility, people being able to get outside, reduce social isolation. And again, despite us having 15 different locations, there are many areas in the city that have high needs. So again, meeting those high density, high social access or social risk in no access. So for example, here on heights, white oaks, those areas don’t have a community garden that is city-led.

[1:41:45] So I do see this one, we’re moving it to 2026. It’s $12,000 more a year in operating as of 2026, 2027. And then the 150,000 for a new garden would be pulled from the reserve fund. So I understand to the deputy mayor’s point that all the drops in the bucket eventually had up to a full bucket. But I don’t think that it will materially change 2026 in 2027. If this was in 2024 and 2025, I would understand that perspective. But I don’t think that this will have a super big financial impact, but it will have a humongous social impact.

[1:42:21] So I appreciate anyone’s support on this. Thank you, Councillor Trosto. Thank you very much. I’m fully in support of restoring this funding. I’m a little disappointed that we’re not doing more. Put some more. - Just a second, I got a pause clock. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m just asking the Councillor to be clear that restoring this funding, there’s no funding removed from the existing community gardens project.

[1:43:00] This is an expansion funding. Thank you. I will be in support of restoring this business plan to what we fund, okay? I’d like my five minutes to start again now. I think here are seven seconds in, so happy to start. Okay, thank you. I’m fully, fully in support of this program. When I first read this, I said to myself, this has been so well thought out, and I wanna use my time to talk a little bit about the social risk index.

[1:43:33] ‘Cause this isn’t just like, oh, let’s put up a garden here and we can go out and play in the garden. These are going to be determined in the high income neighborhoods where there is the greatest need. The social risk index is a well recognized social science measurement tool that is very well established. It includes the percentage of the population of one year and over who moved in the previous year. We know that when people move out of their units under the current rent control regime, that they’re paying more for rent.

[1:44:12] The great that this is in there. The percentage of the population who don’t speak one of the official languages, the percentage of the population living under the low income measure after tax, the percentage of the population who immigrated to Canada between 2006 and 16. The percentage of income from government transfer payments, the percentage of families led by a lone parent, the percentage of population unemployed, percentage without a high school diploma, and finally the numbers of households who own their own home.

[1:44:45] I don’t want to hear the rationale that this is going to create a burden on poor taxpayers who cannot afford it. This is targeted to the exact types of people that we need to be targeting our limited resources to. This social risk indicator and the way it’s been explained in the business plan and the way it’s being implemented here shows that this is an evidence-based program that is based on a lot of thought and very strong social science.

[1:45:23] I would, again, once again, urge my colleagues to support the very limited, I believe, request here that’s on the floor. I’m disappointed that this is being, I guess I’m not allowed to use the word cut, so I won’t say cut, but I’m disappointed that this is being reduced from what the original ask was, because I think the original ask was very reasonable and this is a somewhat reasonable compromise. So please support this.

[1:45:57] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Vame urban. You’d come on screen. That’s usually your hands up, perfect. Just let you know, I do have Councillor Vame urban, Councillor McAllister, Councillor Hopkins, and I did see Councillor Frank’s hand again at one point. So Councillor Vame urban. Thank you, Chair. It’s a big no on this one. This is needless expansion of expenditure, and that’s what this is. We’re expanding an existing program. I have not had one constituent contact me to expand the gardening program.

[1:46:33] So thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. And just to remind my colleagues, as Councillor Ferri indicated, these are for higher priority areas. So just because you don’t see it in the area you live in doesn’t necessarily mean the need isn’t there. I would also like to just give some context in terms of the growth that I’ve seen. As I indicated earlier, in terms of the resource centers, use these quite a lot. They do have their own, but there are community gardens in the area as well. And what I hear every time I’ve gone through every harvest season, there’s often more people than there is food.

[1:47:11] One of the most heartbreaking things about this and why I think we need to expand the program is a lot of folks now are pretty much shopping at dollar stores. And on the last time you went into a dollar store, but I don’t see any fresh produce at a dollar store. I think this is incumbent upon us to expand a program realizing that people are really struggling in terms of their groceries. I would have, as Councillor Dress, I indicated, I would like to have seen more to this, but I’m willing to compromise recognizing the pressure that is on the taxpayer right now. I’d like to also further add, in terms of what these gardens provide, I’ve heard from newcomers in terms of the spices that they can grow.

[1:47:48] This is often one of the few places where they can grow those things. I also have a medicine garden in my ward, and they have also indicated that that is something they would like to see as they use those in their ceremonies. There’s a lot of good reasons in terms of supporting community gardens. They’re not exclusive for one use. Many communities use them, and I think it’s vitally important that we expand this program to ensure that Londoners have food to feed themselves. So I would argue that the return on investment is a basic necessity of life. Thank you.

[1:48:22] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanna thank the two Councillors for bringing this forward. At first, I was very disappointed to see this amendment. I would have supported the business case to expand our gardens. And I think Councillor Frank made a comment around during the pandemic, the importance of having these gardens and having food security in our city became an essential service.

[1:48:57] And I really would like everyone to really sort of, it’s a security feeling for all of us. Even though these gardens, 71% of them are going to be in high to somewhat high social risk areas, I think we all understand the sense of food security and the importance of that to all of us. So as much as I’m disappointed to see it in half, I will be supporting it. Thank you, Councillor Frank.

[1:49:34] Sorry, that was an old hand. That’s okay, you still had time left. So that was good. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, just a quick question. How many gardens would this do to staff? And just I guess clarification was just one garden and versus how many plots within that garden just to help for clarity. Thank you, and through the chair, the $12,000 annually starting in 26 and 27 would allow us to expand our current gardens. So depending on the size of the garden, where the garden is, we could possibly expand to up to 20 garden plots a year.

[1:50:14] So 20 additional gardeners a year would be able to garden at any one garden. And then the 150,000 to build a community garden would build an accessible garden that would allow 25 plots. So 25 additional Londoners to garden. Sorry. Okay, thank you. ‘Cause I heard, I love community gardens, but I think there’s ways we can do it where we can permission and allow people to do them without it costing. ‘Cause 150,000 for one garden in one area, one high priority area in the city.

[1:50:46] Okay, thank you. Looking for Councillor Ferra. Thank you, through you. I just want to make some little comments that I forgot to mention on the last one. And I would say that many of the people that are using these community gardens don’t have backyards to be able to grow food themselves. So the cost considering on how many people will be able to use that garden, it will feed a lot of people. Okay, looking for further people online and chambers, seeing none, calling the vote. Seeing the vote, pushing carries 10 to five.

[1:51:47] Can I just, a quick point was the spelling error corrected? Yes, it was. Thank you and apologies, I brought that early. Thank you. And always if there is grammatical spelling questions it can be fixed before council as well as we catch them. Hey, as stated earlier that my intention is to go through based on our survey results of council’s top priorities. And then we deal with other things, which would actually bring us to business case P29. This is loaded in eScribe.

[1:52:19] It’s moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Hopkins. And Councillor Frank is prepared to read this out for you as you reload in eScribe. And once again, if anyone has problems with eScribe, do let us know immediately. Councillor Frank, if you want to introduce it, then your time will start afterwards. Sure, thank you. And I am having a little bit of internet issues. So we’ll see if I come through clear. But for this one is that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to reduce the London police services vehicle business case P29 by 90,000 each year.

[1:52:54] And would now be an appropriate time to enter my comments? Yeah, just one second. Just verifying with your seconder who I believe is gonna be Councillor Hopkins that they’re okay. They are, so yes, your time will start now, thank you. Thank you. Again, we’ve had lots of discussions about trying to find savings, especially if we’re trying to add things to the budget. It’s incumbent upon us and it behooves us to try and find savings where we can. And recognizing the incredible tax pressure for Londoners for 2024. I don’t see this being a material reduction to the police budget request other than it is material to other agencies.

[1:53:30] 90,000 dollars out of a $672 million budget ask, to me seems incredibly reasonable. And I know that Londoners are expecting us to find some savings. It’s not even the staffing or the modernizing requests. And I don’t think it would materially impact the overall ability for the police services to do the transformative and modernizing work that they’re planning to do. Folks might notice that it directly corresponds to the $90,000 ask for the mental health worker from the library, but I know that’s a separate motion. And we’re not able to tie motions together, but those two numbers do kind of equally offset each other.

[1:54:08] So I am seeking other support on this because I do think if we are going to be adding stuff and later on there will be a motion for the CMHC mental health worker for $90,000 a year. I do think it’s incumbent upon us to be finding those savings. And as I will be moving the CMHC health worker, I felt it was a personal responsibility to be able to find savings for that. So I’ll be putting this on the floor with the support from Councillor Hopkins and looking forward to the debate. Thank you, starting my speaker’s list, just causing your time.

[1:54:45] Councillor Layman is next. Thank you. I want to speak to this on a higher level. It’s been reduced down to 90,000. We know that we cannot specifically address certain areas or aspects of the overall police act. We can do it by amounts. And my concern is, as we go through this, we’ll chip away. London is no longer a safe city. The chief has made that abundantly clear.

[1:55:19] When the chief presented his budget to the board, the board did due diligence. We challenged the chief line by line to justify his ask. The chief is adamant in that what he wants to do with the London Police Services is transformational. It’s not just cops on the ground. It’s increased staff. It’s 911. It’s training center. It’s changes to procedures. It’s bringing in technology that is needed to bring the London Police Services into the 21st century.

[1:56:00] He’s explained to media challenges, to community challenges as they’ve gone through different aspects of his budget. He’s also done that at town halls. And when he’s explained the need for his entire budget and that each individual piece is crucial to delivering on his promise to make London a safer city, people could understand. We’ve got challenges with 911.

[1:56:35] Weeks response, days response. We’ve had more shootings than ever 27 last year. We’ve had more traffic fatalities because we do not have traffic enforcement. They are triaged to the more intensive 911 calls. And with Big City, we’re getting Big City crimes. More guns, human trafficking on the street. The feeling that I had at the door when I was campaigning was public safety was the number one issue along with homelessness and housing.

[1:57:10] This is backed up by the stats of showing we have a third most dangerous city in Ontario. We need to give the Chief the resources to do his job to provide all of us with safety, including the library, including our nonprofits, including our small businesses, including our neighborhoods. You know, when the mayor spoke yesterday, I reflected on an experience I had about three years ago.

[1:57:50] I went to, I was in Victoria, BC. Victoria, a very progressive city facing very similar challenges that London is facing now. And what struck me about Victoria was the amount of private security I saw. I saw private security officers in higher-end stores. I saw private security at businesses. I also saw private security actually on the streets. Now I’m starting to see that in London.

[1:58:24] I see private security in stores. I see our nonprofits having higher private security to squirt their employees to and from their cars. I see private security being hired by community housing. The mayor mentioned yesterday resonated with me. He said, the investment that we’re looking at making now will not pay dividends, not only for our safety, but also in combating the costs and increased costs there to come if this is not done right. Providing our private, by hiring private security, you get the security and safety that we need.

[1:59:03] I do not want to go down that road. I do not want to see businesses that can afford it, neighborhoods that can afford it, social services agencies that can afford through government funding, having their own security of expensive elsewhere. What we need now is a safer city now. Just pausing. I also need a safer— - Sorry, we have a final order. Sorry, Councillor Robinson. And then if they’re not the same, we’ll deal with it. Sorry, I need your mic for Councillor Wong-Kamre’s for point of order.

[1:59:38] Thank you, I believe we’re on the amendment and the amendment is related to the vehicle strategy. Yeah, I will say yes, try and keep your comments on that versus all their budget cases. In general, Deputy Mayor Lewis would that satisfy your point of order too? Or you’re looking at the speaker’s list, okay. And Councillor Layman, you do have 40— Thank you, and I appreciate that. But the reason I’m talking to it now is because if we see further things, I’m not gonna repeat what I’m saying. We need a safer city now. And my point is we need to safer city for all.

[2:00:16] Let’s make sure, if we’re gonna do this, let’s make sure we do it right. Let’s make sure we do it the way the chief has in plan— - We have a point of order again. Yeah, Councillor Frank, is this on the vehicle amendment? Yeah, so I’m assuming that you would mean that the police chief, as you said, in regards to the vehicle? Councillor Layman. My point, I believe I’m on the amendment because my point is this is a crucial, every part of the chief’s plan is crucial to the overall delivery of safety services to London.

[2:00:51] And this is part of that. Please do not support this. Thank you, and tell me why that does conclude your five-minute allotment next in the speaker’s list is Councillor Raman and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. And then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you and through you. I had a question related to the police electric vehicle strategy that’s outlined in here. I’m just wondering, with the police vehicle reserve fund, why, when we’re replacing vehicles as indicated in the business case, it wouldn’t come from the reserve fund versus coming out of this business case.

[2:01:35] Okay, and I will note that I’m sure we have a question directly for the police that they’d be available to answer this as well. Mr. Murray has this. And for anyone following along, Councillor just what page were you looking at? Page 512. Perfect, so page 512 of anyone who wants to read is and follow along. Mr. Murray. Thank you, through the chair. So the police vehicle and equipment replacement reserve fund is intended as a funding source for like, for like, life cycle replacement of police vehicle and equipment. Converting to electric vehicles would be an additional cost and therefore a service improvement, kind of above and beyond the like for like replacement of their existing vehicles.

[2:02:21] Councillor Roman. Thank you. Do the police have any current electric vehicles in their fleet? Do anyone staff who may know, Ms. Barbone? Or this is a get them on the line question. It’s a get them on the line question. Okay, so I’m assuming we’ll need, are they on the line or are we’re getting them on the line? Okay, we’re getting them on the line. Looking to see if there’s any questions of staff. And then if anyone has questions for the police when they come, just think about those now. Councillor Roman, is there more questions of staff at this time?

[2:02:56] I’m wondering maybe, my question, I guess, to their staff as well, but could be maybe answered by somebody on the board, is this considered a pilot or is this an ongoing strategy? I’m just wondering if when we’re looking at pilots for other EVs to make sure that they function the way that we want them to function if that was considered by the board as well. Okay, and as always, board members are not held to answering questions of Councillors in this chair because we’re sitting as Councillors.

[2:03:33] I’ll leave the Councillors questions there. Here are times paused. We know what those questions are as we work for an answer. If you’d allow me to continue through my speaker’s list and then we’ll circle back once the appropriate staff’s available, okay? I have a yes on that, which would bring me to Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try and stick to the amendment, but I am going to say I won’t be supporting this. We can hire officers if we can’t get them to calls because we don’t have sufficient vehicles to get them out to Fanshawe Park and Hyde Park Road or out to Dundas and Veterans Memorial on the far edges of the city, that does not help us having more officers.

[2:04:14] Those vehicles are necessary to get officers to calls wherever they occur in the city. And I concur with Councillor Lehman, the chief, certainly in my ward meetings, made it very clear that each part of these budget asks are interlocked in his ability to deliver service. I do appreciate the Councillor’s comments about trying to find offsetting services. I come back to though, and I heard another business case she referenced, which I’m not going to support because it’s a end of a federal pilot program. And I come back to not supporting the backfill of other levels of government, but when it comes to police funding, the entire burden lays on us as a city.

[2:04:54] It’s housing and homelessness, we can leverage money from other levels of government to make bigger investments. And there are a number of areas where we can do that. Transit is another one, where we can leverage funding from other levels of government, where we can’t do that is with the police operating budget costs. And so I don’t see this as a trading off so that we can spend money somewhere else. I see this as a burden that we have to put in the budget. I don’t think anybody is thrilled with the overall numbers of the cumulative impact of the police asks, but what I’ve heard in my budget meetings time and time again is that constituents want this police force modernized and they want the responsiveness and they cannot respond if they don’t have vehicles to respond.

[2:05:38] So I will not support this amendment proposed. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just had a quick comment on the, you know, oh well it’s only 90,000 from this amount when the same Councillor was not wanting the 80,000 to come from Museum London. So I just think we have to be careful saying, oh well we should be able to just take a little bit from this without understanding and hearing what our police chief has said, what the police board has said is required, what was supported by the heads of both hospitals and all of our educational institutions in London.

[2:06:21] We need a safer city now and I’ve heard loud and clear from residents that they’re expecting council to give them that. Thank you, I’ll pause your time there. I’ll welcome, I’m not sure if you’re on the screen, just a second Councillor Troso versus Mr. Lavecke, if you want to, your choice, if you want to come on screen or just do audio, but welcome to committee. The question or the amendment on the floor is that the mayor’s budget be amended to reduce business case P29, which is the police vehicle and equipment requirements by $90,000 each year.

[2:07:02] It is only this police, this section of the police budget that’s currently on the floor for discussion. So everyone’s keeping their comments tight to that question. We do have a question of you raised by Councillor ramen. So I’m going back to them first in regards, I’ll let them introduce it ‘cause it’s theirs. Hi there, thank you so much for answering my question. My question relates to the police electric vehicle strategy. And so I wanted to find out a little bit more about the strategy in terms of the plan to procure two EVs in 2024 and then four EVs annually in years 2025 to 2027.

[2:07:43] My question is, do the police currently have EVs in their fleet or is this, and if not, is this like a pilot? Through the chair, hi, hopefully you can hear me okay? Perfectly, please proceed. Yep, yeah, through the chair. Yes, currently when a police service has two electric vehicles, they are administrative type vehicles that are used for administration across the city or sometimes for out of town type work, but nothing and what these strategy is is to eventually get into a patrol type or more operational type vehicles, whether it’s through our investigative services, community services type vehicles, as well as eventually patrol.

[2:08:35] That’s part of the strategy going forward. So it’s not necessarily a pilot, but definitely you can see the uptick in that we’re starting with two going to four and eventually throughout the multi-year budget, we’ll be increasing our footprint and our EV strategy. Sorry, thank you. So the business case says replacing vehicles. And I just wanted to confirm that this is to replace vehicles and if that then could also be funded through the reserve fund.

[2:09:14] Mr. Lebeki? Through the chair, yes, hi, through the chair. Yes, this business case relates to the replacement vehicle strategy. However, as Director Murray had highlighted, because this is a net new type of a project or initiative on the EV space, that’s why we’ve put it into the business case. I don’t know if Director Murray wanted to add anything, but that’s kind of direction of finance on why it’s in this business case.

[2:09:50] Hey, welcome, Ms. McIntyre. I’m not sure if you would like the question repeated or if you may actually hear it all as we’re logging in and getting your screen going. It would help me to have the question repeated, sorry about that. That’s okay, Councillor ramen. Thank you and welcome. So the question was the business case is replacing vehicles with an EV as part of the daily operations within the request. So I was wondering where it says replacing, why we couldn’t use some of the vehicle reserve fund if we’re replacing, but I’m trying to understand that this is net new or if this is replacing and then I have a follow-up question.

[2:10:35] Okay, thank you, please proceed, Ms. McIntyre. Thank you, Chair, through you. So in relation to EV vehicles, we have a goal here to try to move towards an electric vehicle strategy, knowing the number of cars on the road. So for every officer we hire, every three and a half officers we hire, we need to add a car to our fleet. When we move to an electrical vehicle strategy, it is not like for like and so it is considered a new ask. And so we create a line item to actually move to purchasing those ones.

[2:11:10] Could we one day envision a time where electric vehicles have battery life that we could run a 12-hour shift plan with an electrical vehicle on the road for our patrol vehicles one day, we’re just not there yet. And when that day were to occur though, we could see then our original fleet being, there’s the language replaced. So right now we are moving towards adding hybrid vehicles to our fleet or see some of our investigative units, et cetera, can use those vehicles. It is all about the carbon footprint and doing our work in a greener capacity. So that’s why you’ll see that line item as a new initiative added to the business case.

[2:11:47] It is because it is adding new, it’s not like for like replacement. I hope I’ve kind of answered that. Thank you, Councilor Roman. Yes, thank you, that’s very helpful. And I’m just wondering if you can speak to the application for funding through the natural resource Canada application to the zero mission vehicle infrastructure program. My understanding is that’s ongoing that you can be denied access in one year, but you can apply in subsequent years. Is there continued plans to continue to apply for this funding in order to green the fleet? You know, is there more that you can share on that?

[2:12:24] Thank you. Absolutely, yeah, absolutely. Chair through you, thanks for the question. Any opportunity we have to see grant funding, of course we will apply for that. We did apply the last time. We did not, we were not successful in receiving that funding at the time. But like you said, it doesn’t prohibit us from applying year over year. And that would assist us really moving this transition at a quicker rate. Again, we have to wait for the technology and the infrastructure to catch up for us to be able to do this as a full patrol model. But absolutely, if there’s an opportunity to see grant funding, we would do that.

[2:12:59] Councilor? Thank you so much. Those are all the questions I had on that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Troso. I just wanted to clarify, thank you through the chair. I just wanted to clarify that this matter on the floor, P-29, does, is not limited to replacing what is currently in operation, but it does include new items. ‘Cause I thought I heard something contradictory about that. Could you clarify that, please? Are you judging that question to Mr. Murray?

[2:13:34] Mr. Murray? Thank you through the chair. So yes, to clarify, this is a new incremental investment. This business case does not relate to replacement of existing vehicles or infrastructure. Councilor? And with respect to the new incremental items that are foreseen here, is there any room to defer some of these to a later year in the budget, if not the next budget? Is that a question to Mr. Murray?

[2:14:07] Or, okay, Mr. Okay, that would be, I’m directed by staff, that would be a question for LPS. I can jump in there, thank you, Chair, through you. You know, we looked aggressively at the vehicles and I will tell you we had 500 iterations of this budget. And we did move and push back any vehicles that we could delay. So then when the focus became make the city safer now, we said, okay, what do we need to do? What vehicles have to come in? What units have to be added?

[2:14:39] What personnel are we adding to the organization, specifically directed at making the city safer now? And then we aligned those vehicles based on that modeling. So in short, I would tell you that we have looked at that, we have spread that out into moved into capital infrastructure multi, as we have like the 10 year capital plan, we’ve pushed it out as far as we can. The ones we pulled forward, we’re very strategic in allowing us to be able to do the work we need to do with the resources we have. Thank you, the Councillor says that with that question, looking to see Councillor Hopkins, please proceed.

[2:15:17] Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to police services for being here to answer some of our questions. I do have a few and this business case is on vehicles. So one of the questions I had was around the availability of the vehicles that you’re asking for. And I’m just sort of interested in knowing a little bit more on how you buy your vehicles and the availability that you have compared to someone like me.

[2:16:02] And for instance, I’ve just gone through a process of having to buy another vehicle hybrid models. I’m on a one and a half year waiting list, electric vehicles are way beyond my budget. But I want to have a better understanding on how you buy your vehicles. And we’re speaking about new vehicles, in particular, the dedicated remote pilot system vehicle and the light armored vehicle. I think these vehicles, as well as your regular vehicles to assist the patrol officers.

[2:16:41] I know I used to see like cruises all the time and now we’re going to SUVs. If you can just give me a broader understanding on how you buy vehicles and are they available? The ones that you need to implement the Chiefs plan. Thank you. Yes, absolutely, supply chain issues. Please proceed to answering the co-houses question, whichever LPS person’s best. I’ll just start it off and I’ll turn it over to our senior director for fleet facilities in finance to help you out.

[2:17:13] So when we map out vehicles, we do a scan in advance and we through cooperative purchasing, we earmark vehicles that we need and purchase them in advance. So we do have a contingency and we do have a vehicles that we can then decal to put back on the road. This is important for us if we are in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle, if we damage a vehicle, all of those things. So you can anticipate we have to have some redundancy in this regard. So forward thinking, forward mapping, planning to look at stock, we do that.

[2:17:47] So we are not in a deficit position. If we can’t get our cars in, that would be a huge, it would be a huge issue for us to be able to do the work that we do. Specific to, you know, you see on there you name the, like a vehicle for the remote piloted aircraft system. That’s really not in essence a unique vehicle, but rather a vehicle that would house that equipment. So the vehicle is not unique. So just a general vehicle, the light armored vehicle, or yes, that is a tricky purchase because there are only so many people who manufacture armored vehicles.

[2:18:23] But with the planning in advance, we can, we put in a notice to them to be able to do that. Specific to cooperative purchasing and how we’re able to get our vehicles and what that process looks like. I’ll just turn it over to Rob because he’s in that world all the time. Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Chief and through the chair. For most of our operational vehicles, vehicles you see on the streets or the hybrid type vehicles that were mentioned that are hard to get, we use a buying group.

[2:18:59] It’s a provincial buying group, PCPG. Other police services are part of that across the province. And so we have a special cooperative purchasing agreement through that buying group to source, you know, through the major manufacturers. And as the deputy highlighted, we go through an annual process to make sure that we are replacing our vehicles on a regular basis and putting those orders, you know, several months ahead of time. And that’s kind of the process we’ve used for the last several years and are continuing to use that process going forward.

[2:19:36] So we do have kind of, you know, economies of scale through the spying group directly with the manufacturers to ensure that we get the proper protective services type vehicles. Thank you, Councillor. Just as a follow up to that, I’ve, it’s great that you’ve got a contingency plan. I would think part of that plan would be doing the maintenance that’s required and needed. And I really didn’t get too much information from you about how we advance with these new vehicles.

[2:20:13] And obviously, you know, looking at different types of vehicles, there’s a lot of expense is what I can see in this business plan. I am supporting and seconding the motion because I do think there’s an opportunity to look at this, the police budget and to see if we can find some savings. We heard a little bit about the reserve plan that’s available the 90,000 compared to the amount.

[2:20:50] It’s not a huge amount. But 5% of our 8.8 budget for 2024 is the police budget. And I feel it incumbent upon me to, to at least ask the question, scrutinize. I applaud the, the chief for the plan and keeping our city safe, but where can we find some savings? So I am hoping my colleagues can support the amendment. Thank you.

[2:21:24] I’m seeing other speakers online or in person. I’m seeing none online. I’m seeing none in chambers. Oh, Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes, I just wanted to wrap up a bit. I know that council is unable to dictate how the police services spend their money, which is why I put a general amount in this budget amendment. But I think we just heard that there are many opportunities for saving within the EV strategy and other opportunities for funding. And I think it may surprise some members on council, but if this motion is able to go through, I would fully encourage all of us to scale back their EV strategies because it seems one vehicle is ADK.

[2:22:03] And with this incredibly minor reduction in the same way that members of council told Museum London to go figure it out, I’m confident that the Lund Police Services Board could figure out how to make some adjustments to their budget with this incredibly teeny tiny little amount that we are suggesting. Similar to Councillor Hopkins, I received many calls and emails asking us to take a closer look at the police budget. And this specific budget case seemed to be the least offensive. And it’s our due diligence, I think, to look at all the services for savings. So if the entire police strategy hinges on $90,000 in their vehicle budget, I would say it’s a very fragile strategy, but I don’t think it does.

[2:22:41] So that’s why I’m gonna be moving forward with this amendment. Thank you. Further speakers on the list? Seeing none online? Seeing none in chambers? Calling the question. Councillor van Merebergen.

[2:23:40] Housing the vote, motion fails, six to nine. Thank you for LPS for joining us, that concludes that section. So we’re free to log off and be available later as we get there. At this time, to colleagues, thank you again for that conversation. At this time, to colleagues, lunch is prepared. We’re only 15 minutes, so it’s 11.45. Looking to see if you would like to pause while you’re at lunch. As we’ve had updated business cases coming in, I would make a new list for you to put them in order of council priorities and then the other section, realizing some people have noticed we’ve skipped one, but it’s ‘cause it wasn’t in the slide deck of priorities.

[2:24:27] So ideally when we come back from lunch, we’re looking at business case 31 and then 37, but looking to organize those in a nice list that you can follow along together. Councillor Fair, is that you moving a break and how long? I’ll move an hour and 15 minute break, breaking us to one. Normally we take 30 minutes to ask for an hour, 15. Councillor Trousow seconded it. So if, okay, I’m seeing a lot of head shaking, no. So if you don’t want to break for an hour, 15, just break, just vote no, and then I’ll look for a new motion of a different time allotment.

[2:25:16] So opening the, calling the question. Councillor Lehman, Councillor Trousow. Closing the vote, motion fails, four to 11.

[2:26:00] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Move a 30 minute recess for lunch. Okay, moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councillor Stevenson. I can do a hand vote on this one. I don’t see any contention from us, which would put us back at 12.20 roughly. Closing the vote, motion carries. Okay, 12.20.

[2:26:32] Okay, if we can all just settle back into our spots. If colleagues online could just turn their greens on, we’d be verified that you’re with us.

[2:32:34] Thank you, you got Councillor Hiller, Councillor Van Merbergen, Councillor Frank, are you there? Perfect, okay. So we’re back at this point. It turns us to business case, key 31. If you refresh your e-scribe, it’s in there. This one is one with a mover of Councillor Raman and a seconder of Councillor Frank. Would you like to read it out? Okay, perfect. So Councillor Raman has it up and we’ll read it out. Councillor Frank, can you just give a thumbs up that you’re good to be the seconder?

[2:33:11] Perfect. Okay, so it’s going to be officially on the floor. It’s in your system and it’ll be red. Thank you. Okay, so P31, the amendment reads that the Mayor’s, 2024 to 2027, multi-year budget be amended to include funding for action three, extension of parks operation services, a business case, number P31, parks operation service delivered enhancements as set out in the civic administration draft 2024 to 2027, multi-year budget referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12th, 2023.

[2:33:50] Perfect. Would you like to make your opening comments? Okay, I will start your timer for that piece only. Thank you, I’ll keep my opening comments brief, but what I will say is that this business case offers us the opportunity to look at operational increases in the parks operation services, specifically around extending this season. I’ve heard quite clearly from residents, the importance of having access to our parks and the maintenance that is required to do so.

[2:34:23] So with this funding, 316,000, with this funding three new full-time staff would be hired to add to the staffing increase from, and I think that it’s really important here, what we’re looking for is we’re looking for our parks to be accessible. We’ve heard from people around the community that how important our parks are and that they need to be open, cleaned and ready to be used now that the season is extending more and more. I also was looking at the mayor’s budget and the Parks and Rec Master Plan Reserve Fund that we’re looking to also utilize some additional parks expenditures.

[2:35:05] So this would allow us to also compliment any, perhaps expenses in the future and have some additional staff to help support that work. We know that our parks staff are already stretched, that we have, I believe about five staff in the winter, oops, sorry, seven in the winter that we have right now and I think that this allows us to provide additional services. And I know it’s something I hear quite often from residents about. Thank you, looking further speakers on this item, Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:35:45] Very briefly, this will represent about 0.05, so almost rounding up to the next decimal point. So I will be in no, well, I appreciate our parks and the work that our staff do. This is an expansion of services and I am going to support maintaining services where they are for now. Thank you, further speakers, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanna say I’ve heard the same thing and I do love this business case and I’d be happy to work with the Councillors this year to try to find where we could find a savings somewhere else to cover this, but I will not be supporting an addition to the tax rate.

[2:36:24] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, just to follow up, maybe a question through you to staff, where would we be able to find these savings if we’re not supporting the business case? To staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Our parks operations budgets are extremely lean at this point. We are only resourced to deliver about seven full-time municipal operations workers through the winter months. The demand as parks have grown has been tied generally to the number of ice drinks we have in the city, number of sheets of ice for our winter seasonal staff.

[2:37:00] I think we would be challenged to find them within the existing parks operations budget would have to work with finance on other sources. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that. So I will be supporting this. One of the things I know Londoners love their parks and we do a great job and staff do an amazing job keeping our parks accessible. And in particular throughout the warm months, but in the winter months, when the parks are used, just as much unusually out in the parks, Springbank Park, most mornings, I see the same amount of people in the winter as I do in the summer.

[2:37:44] It’d be nice to see some extra garbage cans. The park is used and extending it. I know Londoners would appreciate the extra care that would go into all parks. Thank you, Councillor Trov style. Thank you very much and through the chair. I will be supporting this amendment. I think that there are very serious equity issues here. I think that parks are very important for particularly.

[2:38:20] People that do not have the ability to go to high cost facilities or may not have large backyards where they can have maybe some equipment or a path. So I think once again, we have on the table an important aspect of public space that I believe is being given short shrift in this entire process.

[2:38:56] And while once again, I don’t think this is enough to do what we need to do to bring our parks up to the wonderful potential that they have, but I will be strongly supporting this measure. And I really want to thank Councillor Ramen and Frank for bringing this forward. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thanks. I just wanted to follow up on that to again, say I really support this business case. And I definitely hear from people that they would like these extended services 100%.

[2:39:30] But I would like to encourage my colleagues to step into leadership and do what we’re asking Museum London and others to do. We’re handy. Yeah, sorry. I’d like to step into leadership as… Okay, sorry, I didn’t mean anything by that. Yeah, please just retract it. Okay, I retract it. My point being, even though we can’t see now how we could do this, there is an opportunity here for us to figure it out and to be able to do this without adding to the tax base.

[2:40:04] And so like I said, I’m happy to work with the two Councillors who brought it forward, to explore and do what we can’t see as possible right now and have it without this and I’ll just be quiet now. Thank you, just checking online. Councillor Troso. I’m not sure what that means through the chair. You know, I’d love to work with you to improve the library and the museum and parks and the gardens and all sorts of things. I’m not sure what that means.

[2:40:38] We are working on, let me see what my agenda says. Budget, we’re working on the budget right now. This is not the time to say, I love this. This is a great idea. Let’s do some more. I wanna roll up my sleeve and get to work with you on this. We’re working on the budget now. So this stuff goes in the budget or we don’t do it. And my worry is, if it doesn’t go in the budget, then they’re gonna be people that come back and say, well, you know, the council didn’t support it in the budget. So maybe we should be rethinking the strategic plan. Again, the beginning of a downward spiral.

[2:41:12] So I very much would love to work with you on this. And I appreciate you said that, but I know you’re smiling. And so you’re taking it in good cheer. But come on, folks, this is the budget. We put stuff in the budget now or we don’t now. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, yes. I am very supportive of this budget case. I’ve been hearing ever since the garbage bins got taken away. I think it’s in October.

[2:41:45] Staff can correct me on the floor, though I’m not there, I’m wrong. But ever since October, whenever the bins are taken away, I get constant emails from people and I have to refer them to service London Portal because people are looking for places to clean up glitter that they find in the parks, to put their dog poop, a variety of things. And I think the reality is, and I don’t know if you guys have it in your wards, but people start to create dog poop piles of the bags where the bins used to be. And they’re in all of my parks in my ward. I don’t know if you guys have the same thing.

[2:42:17] And I know that’s just surely from we do not have enough staff in the winter months, which we barely have snow in the winter months anyway. But we have barely any staff to be able to service the hundreds of parks that we have across the city. And in a similar fashion where most people will say, well, people can just take their garbage home, they don’t need to leave it in the parks. They aren’t doing that, they aren’t. So based on reality, I think that I would appreciate having more staff being able to maintain the cleanliness and the enjoyment of our parks.

[2:42:51] I know that’s not the only role they have, but if we were able to hire these people, I think that would be one of the main areas that they could address. And I do know that this is an increase to the property tax, but I also know where we can find a lot of savings if we were courageous enough to go there, thank you. Thank you. I’m gonna go to staff for two things. One, to Ms. Cher, as it was a question I had asked behind the scenes, and we’ve heard winter and garbage collection. It wasn’t specifically said that it wouldn’t include expansion to winter park garbage cans, just to staff.

[2:43:28] Madam Chair, that is correct. The priorities for these staff would include increased garbage collection and snow removal in the winter, grounds maintenance, litter management, and then where the resources are available to do preventative maintenance on assets like park benches and other things. Thank you. And the second question would be that to finance staff, if you could model what this decision point is before we call the question on it for those considering it. So as you get that ready to model your staff, I will continue my speakers this as I only have Councilor Ferrar, and then it would be concluded.

[2:44:03] So if you wanna let me know. Thank you, thank you. I didn’t see this one before. Was this one of the business cases circulated this morning? Just a question to, I’m assuming the chair? Yeah, on that point, things went around this morning and break staff did circulate the staff again. The list again of all cases and then separated into ones that were council priorities and not on that note, I will note that there is eight before us and I’m aware of at this moment that fall into the council prioritize ones from your survey results and then seven that are not.

[2:44:40] Just so you know, where are days at in the process? So that email come up from Evelyna over lunch break. Thank you for that. So I don’t have any notes prepared for this one, but I do have my general notes when I went through it originally. So I’m just gonna speak to this generally. This is, I hear what the Councils are saying who brought this forward with the dog poop and with just cleaning and then the removal of the garbage bins uses the exact same issues that I’m hearing from my constituency all the time. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with the New Downtown Condo Association, the New Downtown Neighborhood Condo Association and this was one of their main things that they were just speaking to how they would really like the area that they live in to be as clean as possible, as accepting, as welcoming as possible.

[2:45:24] They had some other big ass too that aligns with us very well, but I will be supporting that business case ‘cause this is a specific ask that came from that New Neighborhood Association, which comprises of over, well over 1,000 people. Thank you, sir, just stop in your time. Looking online for further questions or comments and Mr. Murray, you’re ready to show the, okay, Mr. Murray’s gonna put up his finance team’s graph. Thank you through the chair.

[2:45:59] So the impact of this amendment, if it were to be approved, it would be enough to shift the tax levy increase for 2026 up from 5.6% to 5.7%. So on a rounded basis, it’s enough to move it up slightly. Thank you. Pat, just making sure it was everyone I’m able to see to see that, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Yes, just a point of clarification through you to our staff.

[2:46:36] Although the modeling doesn’t move it, you’ve indicated previously about $750,000 equals 0.1. This is 300,000 approximately. So what we’re really talking about is 0.05-ish. So it hasn’t rounded it up, but it nonetheless has had an impact on the next percentile over it. Correct, so we round the model to one decimal place. The impact would be yes, in the approximate neighborhood of about 0.04% on this specific case, but we were sitting at a high 5.6% before.

[2:47:17] This is enough to knock us up to a rounded 5.7. Follow-up? Sorry, I understand it did round up in the 2026, but I’m just making sure that folks realized that that 0.04 is across all years of this budget. Through the chair, just to be clear, this is proposed to start in 2026, so it would be impacting 2026 and 2027, yes. Further speakers?

[2:47:53] I don’t see any online, I’m not seeing any chambers calling the question. Building the vote, motion fails, six to nine.

[2:48:33] Thank you, the next motion is business case P37 being CMHA Holley’s house. This one has a mover and a seconder. I will look to the mover and Councillor Stevenson to read out your motion, and then I’ll verify your seconder. Okay, thank you, the motion says that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove business case P37, CMHA Holley’s house. Thank you, I have a seconder and Councillor Per bevel for this motion, which is a nod.

[2:49:10] The case is on the floor. Councillor would you like to introduce it? Yes, I would, I’m not gonna repeat myself. My reasons are the same for P37 as they were for P9. This has nothing to do with this particular service. It was started as a pilot project. It’s been continued on. The funding is not available at the moment. We do have some HPP money, I know, not very much. It’s that same piece of as valuable, amazing service groups, possibly see a lack of funding.

[2:49:53] Are we committing our taxpayers, our property taxpayers to making up the difference here? We have a $25 million plus another 10 with the whole of community. We have a plan for the homelessness that the council has endorsed. And this isn’t one time temporary funding to stop gap until provincial or other funding is made available. This is permanent ongoing funding of this paid by a regressive tax asking people who are on the edge right now to contribute to something that is a provincial responsibility.

[2:50:34] So this is not about the need of the organization. I’ve heard amazing things about it. This is about not stepping into an area of funding that is not our responsibility and honoring those who are seniors and low-income families that do not feel that are concerned, have expressed to me a concern that they might be pushed to a brink of homelessness in order to provide some of these services that aren’t municipal. Thank you, I have Councilor Trossa, then Councilor Pribble. Thank you through the chair.

[2:51:12] What I find so distressing is when people say it’s not our responsibility. Stuff is going on in our community where people are in need and people are hurting. We’re the level of government that is the closest to people. And when I hear things like it’s not our responsibility, I just shudder. And I don’t— I think it’s driven. Yeah, sorry, there’s a point of privilege on the floor. It needs to be addressed before you can comment speaking, but I have paused your time. Councilor Stevenson.

[2:51:45] I’m just asking that it not be, like allow me my opinion on this. People are hurting across our city, ODSP rates, all these things, people are advocating and pushing on the province to do that. And then in an instance like this, it’s in attempt to shame me for saying take the same stance. So I’m just asking that it not be personal and that Councilor Trossa can make his points. Okay, Councilor Trossa, your time is resuming. Okay, and let me just say, this is not a personal thing.

[2:52:21] This is a hyper-technical jurisdictional point. And I’m not sure that this Council really understands the extent of the broad municipal power under Section 10. And this is something I’ve been saying since the day I got here and we have a lot of authority to provide services in an open-ended way. So nothing about a particular Councilor because I’m hearing it from a lot of people. But when I hear it’s not our responsibility, to me that goes back to a misunderstanding of the broad authority that this municipality and other municipalities have.

[2:53:06] And I think municipalities have to be very careful about arguing against our own autonomy. We need to be and the question of whether or not Section 10 of the Municipal Act should be expanded is not on the table. So I’m not gonna go there. But I think we have to be very careful in terms of how we frame our arguments that this is not our responsibility ‘cause it could be our responsibility ‘cause the city has the discretion to provide goods and services and programs for the health and safety of the public on paraphrasing if they so desire to do that.

[2:53:41] And maybe we need to go into closed session and get a refresher on Section 10. I don’t know. But like I just can’t sit here and listen to it’s not our responsibility without commenting. Thank you. I’ll just be mindful when you see about going into closed session that is the chair. I’m not taking it that you’re moving them, that we go into closed session versus just careful with our words ‘cause then— Can we be very careful? Yeah, no thanks. I don’t take anything as a rhetorical. I had Councilor Priblenecks and then Councilor Ferra.

[2:54:17] Thank you. I did second it because I did have a question regarding this case, business case, which was actually answered to me by Mr. Dickens. I do wanna keep this in. I’m familiar with this program. My question was really just with the funding, but I’m supporting this program to be staying in. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Ferra. Thank you. I appreciate this business case being in the mayor’s budget. So thank you for that. And I intend for it to stay that way. Just a reminder, this is a place for women at risk.

[2:54:51] People fleeing domestic violence, fleeing abuse, trafficking, people who are trying to get away from unsafe living conditions. I know people who have went through this program. I know these survivors. I know some there now. I’ve spoken to several. And it also, again, it directly intersects our straw plan. Safe London for Women and Girls, gender diverse and trans people, reconciliation, equity, accessibility, inclusion. And these are ordinary people. And they, again, they’re warriors.

[2:55:25] And I pledged to them and to others that I will be focusing on keeping people in their housing, which to keep that promise, which I am going to, ‘cause I intend to, I will not be supporting this. If we cut this business case, 13 people will be out on the street, plain and simple. I get the arguments that other levels of government funding could supply for that. I get that. But I’m not willing to gamble when it comes to people’s housing. This is a gamble when it comes to that.

[2:55:57] The risks are too high. This business case must stay. Thank you. I’m seeing no further speakers online, but I do have mayor in the chambers. Yes, I think Councilor Ferrer spoke quite articulately. So I would have said what he said, but I want to add a piece to this. So yes, this was a pilot project, but I don’t want us to miss the success of the pilot project. There are only 13 beds. And over the course of, since the start of the pandemics, we’ll call it three or so full years of operations, 150 women were served, but 110 have been housed through that program, like with 13 beds in three years.

[2:56:42] That’s a pretty impressive track record. Well, at the same time providing a safe place for people who are escaping very difficult situations. So I think there are absolutely good comments to make about where we should be and where we shouldn’t be in jurisdiction, but here with a successful program that is taking people who are desperate situations, getting great results is one where I just can’t see us pulling out of this at this time.

[2:57:15] This does not seem right at the right move, because I think that the work here is incredibly impressive and the people who are being helped are finding permanent housing through this program as well. Councillor, let me just take the chair for a moment. Thank you, and I’ll go to Councillor Plaza. Thank you. This is the administrative prioritized section as this was one of mine. Just realizing we’re Lenin’s at in a crisis point with abuse in women, and it does have to do with housing, which we’ve all heard strongly.

[2:57:53] And I absolutely do not take offense to anyone moving certain amendments to things that we all care about, ‘cause it’s the accountability and transparency piece, and this is the process and the way we do it. So I’m fine with that. Just I’ll be supporting this with one of my top five. I’ll also note that only three of my top five made it in, despite the fact that this has been my summer vacation up to now working on the budget. So this is the process, and I know that we’re all not getting what we want, and we’re all mindful of that process, Mr. Chair. Thank you, I’ll return the chair.

[2:58:28] Thank you, doing a call online for questions. I don’t see any at the moment. Councillor Stevenson, you do have some time left. Thank you, just a quick question, and I didn’t ask this previously, so I don’t know the answer. This, since it’s been inception, has it been municipal funding, or has this been provincial funding? I guess really all funding in case there’s some other, other stuff in there too.

[2:58:59] But tax levy. Yep, tax, Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, as indicated in the business plan, this did start at the beginning of the pandemic, and at that time, it was actually started using a one-time federal COVID dollars. The federal government, through reaching home, had increased their allotment. That municipalities were receiving, in an attempt to try and create alternatives to congregate living, and to create indoor spaces where folks could self-isolate and be safe from the pandemic. So federal COVID dollars started this project.

[2:59:33] We have looked for sources of funding throughout, but we are here at the MYV process to look to support this program ongoing. Councillor? Thank you. So again, I just want to reiterate, I’m not questioning the value of this service. So because we’re hearing a lot about that. It’s a question of, is it on the tax levy? This is something new. This is going to be a permanent expense on the tax levy. It’s not a one-time stop gap until funding can be found. So I’m just wanting to clarify that, that this is about we’re asking people who are potentially on the edge of homelessness themselves to contribute rather than have it funded another way.

[3:00:18] Thank you. I have no further speakers calling the question. Seeing the vote, motion fails, one to 14. Thank you.

[3:00:51] This will move us on to business case P38, which is the city of London’s Community Arts Investment Program expansion. Realizing it was already a reduction in the mayor’s budget from what the original ask was. I’ll note that procedurally, this is the way I’m taking it on, is if you look at your sheet, we have two people wishing to discuss this item. One amendments to remove the additional funding. In one motion, people would like to add to the funding. So if we test the waters first, and we know if the additional funding’s been removed, we’ll know that the next one’s not going to happen, but if people want to leave the funding in there, then we have the conversation about increasing it.

[3:01:33] So procedurally, that’s how I’m taking it on. The mover, is that one an e-scribe? Okay, it’s an e-scribe. So that’d be Deputy Mayor Lewis and Councilor Van Merbergen. If you refresh it’s an e-scribe, I’m going to ask you to read it out, and then I’ll need Councilor Van Merberg on the screen just to verify that he is the seconder. Just had to wait for e-scribe to refresh.

[3:02:06] The motion is that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove business case P38, city of London Community Arts Investment Program expansions. Councilor Van Merbergen is in case he is in fact the seconder, okay, I’m going to start a speakers list. Now we’ll commence it with Deputy Mayor Lewis to commence. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m going to try and say this as quickly as I can, much like the museum for UNESCO City of Music Things. There’s MAT funding available for one time projects to do new initiatives.

[3:02:41] That’s the appropriate place to be looking for new initiatives in my view. To me, this is another instance of it is a nice to have, and there is value to it, but in a budget that is where this one is. This is a no for me. I believe that there are creative funding opportunities for organizations in the arts to go out and do. This is going to be the same thing that I’m going to say over and over again. So I’m going to try and not say this repeatedly on other business cases, ‘cause I know there’s another motion on the grand theater. We have had a motion with the museum London.

[3:03:15] So in the interest of brevity, these are going to be nos for the reasons that I’ve outlined. Thank you. Looking for my speakers list, Councillor Ramen. Thank you, and through you to staff, I’m just wondering if we can confirm whether or not the MAT funding can be used for the London Arts Council. Looking to staff, I also note that MAT parameters were circulated as well, but that was a few days back.

[3:03:50] Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So there are two components to the MAT funding. There’s the portion, the 50% portion that the city retains. That is specifically intended for tourism-related infrastructure, which this is not. The other component goes to tourism London, and it is allocated through their own separate board process and to what extent that might qualify under their parameters would be a question better answered by the tourism board.

[3:04:26] Would you like answer from the tourism member on committee? Who’s willing to answer? Yep, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I can advise Councillors. We just approved at this week’s tourism board $100,000 in funding for initiatives around promoting the City of Music brand for a UNESCO City of Music conference that is coming up. That includes the installation of some public art. So absolutely, if the Arts Council were to bring forward an initiative that’s new, it can’t be used to fund existing, but it has to be new, but if it is tied to one of the tourism London initiatives around bringing a conference into town, the Juneau’s, the UNESCO City of Music, the Canada Music Awards, those kinds of things, then yes, they could be active participants in that kind of process.

[3:05:18] Councillor? Thank you, and through you. So I’m just confused because my understanding is that we’re talking about the community arts investment program, and that’s been in existence for decades. And so I’m not sure how we would fund that from another source at this time, which is why I’m supportive of the current, that it’s in the Mayor’s budget currently. Thanks. Thank you. Further speakers? Councillor Troso? Well, I’m going to be through the chair.

[3:05:52] I’m going to be opposing this motion and coming forward with another one if this is defeated. I think it’s important to recognize here that the target in my understanding is that the target constituency for this type of program are newer artists who have not yet broken through in their careers to the point where they would be players in these other types of programs. And I’m wondering if I could just ask the executive director who is here to confirm the type of clientele that this program caters to.

[3:06:39] Specifically, is your question, caters to, or that this expansion would allow it to continue? The artistic expansion would allow them to cater to and consequently, who would not be cater to if this is not cut, of course, but not funded as a request. Thank you. The executive director is with us. Just going to be the top mic in the gallery. If you can just say hello and introduce yourself, I can do an audio check. Hello, my name is Andrew. I’m the executive director of the London Arts Council. Perfect, please proceed and welcome.

[3:07:11] Thank you, through the chair. So, the City of London’s Community Arts Investment Program is administered by the London Arts Council and that program supports not only local arts organizations, but diverse artists of all different stage of their careers. So, unfortunate map funding would not allow those artists to tap into those funding because map funding only goes to the organization that meets the specific criteria that what tourism decides that is important, that meeting the tourism criteria. So, it’s not really about the arts sector itself.

[3:07:45] If the arts sector’s program happened to be meeting the criteria, so it’s a very, very small school of funding. And what we are talking about Community Arts Investment Program is when we’re supporting the arts sector and their programming ability, their growth and development, their projects and their operations. Councilor, follow-up? Thank you, thank you, thank you very much. Could you tell us approximately how many applications you receive a year and how many of those you have to turn down because you just don’t have the funding to assist them?

[3:08:25] So, number of applications that we received this last year, it was approximately 70 and then, sorry, 100, over 160 and then we were able to allow less than 70 applications to be successful. And about 41% of amount was provided through the program funding because we received over 2 million requests and met with over 250 artists, individual artists, artists, collectives and arts organizations to consult. But some of them decided not to pursue because the budget was too limited.

[3:09:03] Thank you very much, that’s it for now. Looking for other questions or comments from committee, looking online to see if there’s anything, seeing nothing online, seeing nothing in chambers, calling the question. Closing the vote, motion fails five to 10.

[3:09:43] Thank you, the original mayor’s budget remains with the $100,000 allotment. That would bring us to the alternate business case for P38, which would be a mover of Councillor Trostow and a seconder of Councillor Raman to expand the program further than the mayor’s expansion already. Looking to Councillor, Councillor Raman, you’re still the second, yes, just one second. Okay, I’m asked if you just read the motion as it stated in eScribe as finance did change some wording.

[3:10:30] So if you just refresh, if everyone refreshes, and then just read it from eScribe for those who joined us virtually and in the gallery. 2020. Start your mics not on, or you need to read into a microphone. The mayor’s 2024, 2027 multi-year budget be amended to include administrative fees 15% to business case P38 city of London community, arts investment program expansion, $15,000, 2024, 2025, $15,000, tax levy, $15,000.

[3:11:18] 2026 operating expenses, $15,000, tax levy, 15,000. And 2027 tax levy and operating expenditures, 15,000. I’ll just say that this represents a reduction. This represents a reduction in what this agency was originally looking for in its business plan. And it’s a very, very minor incremental addition to the mayor’s budget.

[3:11:52] And I think this is merely a housekeeping matter because of the matter of the 15% administrative fee, which if this amendment that’s on the floor right now would pass, then the actual amount of money that is available to disbursement would be $100,000. So this is sort of like paying the administrative fee. And I would ask the executive director to correct me if I’m wrong or if I’ve missed anything about the significance of the 15%.

[3:12:29] Hey, welcome. Just to make sure the gallery mic up top is available again. Please proceed. Okay, through the chair, thank you very much. So what Councillor Sam Trusso described is correct. So what we are trying to do is honoring what the mayor already amended, that’s a slightly over 14% of the amended budget to be correctly honored to allocate to the arts community. So that $100,000 in the intact amount will go to the arts community. That is the intent of it. Thank you, Councillor.

[3:13:04] I have nothing else to add to my motion. Looking for further speakers, I’d like to be in the speakers list at some point, not super picky vote one. But Councillor, if you want to take it, I’ll just make my comment. Councillor, if you just take the chair for a moment. Sorry, please go ahead, Chair. It’s okay, you could always choose not to recognize me. That’s okay too. I won’t be supporting this edition. I wasn’t a huge fan of it being in the first place in full transparency, but I didn’t want to remove it.

[3:13:39] I know it’s been 20 years since there’s been an increase and there’s still great work being done. And you help bring some of their community events to life. I’ve seen you out activating Dundas place. Outdoor movie nights, you’ve had several people there and I appreciate that and the communities appreciated it. But for me, the increase is a no. And that was already my compromise that I didn’t vote no on the last one. I will vote no on this one. I’ll hand the chair back. Councillor Pribble.

[3:14:15] Thank you. I will be supporting it and the reason why I’m gonna be supporting it because the CAIP program did not have base budget increase and same as most other programs and organizations. So that’s the reason why. And just again, I know it was stated, I just want to say over the four year what this organization proposed to this program already by the mayor, it was cut more than by 50% or around that area. So again, mainly based on how they said before about half an hour ago, the reason why I’m supporting this, but in addition, I just wanna reiterate that there was no increase into the base budget in there next year for your program, thank you.

[3:14:59] So I will be supporting this amendment, thank you. Thank you. There was comments made about base budgets and stuff, did finance have anything to add to comments if anything wasn’t correct? Nope, CAIP to check it in was the mayor’s, the only other speaker I have on my list. Yes, so I won’t be supporting this. And I will say, I understand that there was request for an increase in the purchase of service agreement. I do not interpret giving the allocation increase to the CAIP funding of $100,000, meaning that in any way should our staff be saying, the purchase of service agreement should be taking 15% off the top of that.

[3:15:44] That was not something that I put in the budget, that component. And so I would say I’m asking the Arts Council to hand out another $100,000 without incurring or calling back a bunch of that. So that was my intent, so I’m not supporting this. And it’s my hope that they’ll be able to do that with the additional funding that was allocated. Thank you, Councillor Troso. I would just like through the chair, I would just like to give the opportunity to the agency to maybe respond to why what they’re asking for is not clawing back.

[3:16:22] Sorry, it’s not really a back and forth debate with other presenters in the gallery. It’s specifically if council has a question of someone in order to make an informed decision on this business case. So do you have a specific question? Yes. Would you characterize the 15% as clawing back and why is it important to increase this by the 15%? I’m questioning and flagging that one as well of how they characterize it versus what you’ve already heard from the mayor in realizing they didn’t get their full ask. This is still an increase.

[3:16:55] So very mindful as the executive director answers that. Okay, thank you very much through the chair again. And thank you very much, Mayor, for the point that you made, which is totally understandable. But as you know, the London Arts Council is not a board and commissioner agency. We are not for profit organization. We have very, very, very small staff members with a very, very small amount of operating budget. So we are set up to charge the admin fees to make up salary for the staff who is already being very, very, very underpaid for their amount of work.

[3:17:28] So when we are asking staff members to put more hours for processing all those process for more application, more money to support our community and artists, one and one meetings, we cannot simply, we cannot just just not charging and as trying to just cover our expenses, just not gonna be reasonable at all. So I believe that our ask is very reasonable. It’s not over the top. We already took a lot of comments that all those comes made very seriously.

[3:18:02] And then I came up with a very moderate request and this is a very standard, industry standard. What we are trying to do is not something out of ordinary and please consider that our operating budget is so much small and seller portion is very, very small. Councillor Troso. Go ahead, Councillor Pozzo. Thank you. As I already stated, I’m gonna know on this one. To me, it’s starting, I know you already processed the applications.

[3:18:35] It’s saying almost like it would be a staff burden to give out more funding ‘cause you’d have more funding to give and more people to process. So I’m just, that you need more administration to do the work. So that’s how I’m hearing it, but that’s all I have, Mr. Presiding Officer. And I’ll return the chair. I’m just gonna ask anyone, I see Councillor Roman’s gonna be next, but after that, I don’t see him at the moment.

[3:19:08] So if you would like to make comment, I would need an indication for anyone online too, just like me. Thank you and through you. I think it’s okay for organizations to acknowledge that they have increased costs when they have to also make decisions on increased funding for other groups. I don’t think that we should expect that they absorb those costs, especially with how lean these organizations are. I know that they’re grateful for any funding that they’re receiving and they’re not trying to make it sound as though it’s burdensome.

[3:19:46] Again, this is an opportunity for arts incubation and we have very little opportunities to do that. And yet we have this UNESCO designation as well. So we need to consider how we are helping to seed artists in this community, how we’re going to make sure that we’re investing in artists as we go. And I think that that’s where I see great value with this business case. And even that tiny bit of an increase that we’re looking at at this point, I think there’s opportunity for real potential and growth.

[3:20:25] And I think we’ll see the benefit in our community. I have no other speakers on my list. Nothing online calling the question. Closing the vote motion passes eight to seven. Thank you, that moves us along to business case P42.

[3:21:02] This is one by Councillor Frank and Councillor Ferreira. I’m looking to which one of you would like to read it out thing. Councillor Ferre is saying that Councillor Frank can do it. But Councillor Ferre, you are the seconder. Okay, that’s accurate. If you refresh E-Scribe, the wording will be in there as Councillor Frank reads it out for those. Thank you, yes. So the amendment is that the Mayors 2024-2027 multi-year budget be amended to fund 50% of initiative 10 in business case P42, five years CIP review implementation starting in 2026, which would be 87,500 in 2026 and 2027.

[3:21:44] Thank you. Would you like to make your opening comments at this time? Sure, happy to. So this one is specifically for providing incentives for people who are doing new development to be able to add green development aspects. And given that recently a couple of weeks go out planning and then through council, we’re able to move forward with some items regarding green development and standards. I think again, it’s incumbent on us to try to assist the development community.

[3:22:20] As we move forward with this process, I heard some feedback actually from London Development Institute and the London Home Builders Association when I was meeting with them that if we are gonna be, especially if we’re gonna be requiring eventually that the development community moves towards greener buildings, it would be incredibly important for us to be able to assist them financially. And given that this is a very modest amount, I thought it would be a great way for us to be able to put our money where our mouth is and assist the development community in moving forward and developing the skills and the expertise they need to make this shift.

[3:22:57] Again, starting in 2026, recognizing the incredible budgetary pressures in the next year or two and hoping to see others support this as well. Thank you. That was one minute, excellent job. I’m looking to other speakers who have been on the list for this one, Councilor Ferra. Thank you, I’ll be brief. Councilor Frank at Councilor Frank’s comments very well stated, incentives, we know that they work and adding, just adding that green development aspect with these incentives is why I’m full support of that. So I’m looking for the rest of the council support.

[3:23:32] Thank you, Deputy Mayor Lewis. So this will be a no for me. I supported the green design standards. I support implementing them through site plan control at first. I know we’re gonna get a report back on a potential bylaw in perhaps about a year at PEC, looking forward to that too. We have some incentive programs that the Mayor has announced such as the Office of Residential Conversion in the state of the city. There are incentive programs that make sense to incentivize, there are incentive programs that don’t, and for me, incentivizing the private sector to move to green design when we are already including it in site plan considerations now and potentially in a bylaw in the future, I’m a no.

[3:24:18] I’m not going to spend tax dollars incentivizing the private sector to be more green in their building. Thank you, looking for further speakers in this item. I don’t see any online, not seeing any chambers, calling the question. Councillor Trostall, Councillor Trostall votes yes.

[3:25:07] Closing the vote, motion fails three to 12. Thank you, that moves us along to business case P-51, which is the transit service, conventional growth hours. This is a mover of Councillor Ferreira and a seconder of Councillor Frank, just looking at Councillor Frank to make sure she is indeed a seconder. Perfect. Councillor Ferre, you’re right here. I would like to know if procedurally, if I can not place this as an amendment at this time, just for in my research last night, and I’m still waiting on more.

[3:25:40] That’s fine, you don’t have to. I will be tabling this the moment we go into recess or I will be putting the amendment in the moment to be going into recess after today, just because I’m waiting on it. So I don’t need to hear your reasons why, just I need to know that you’re not putting it forward right now, so hang on to it. But I can confirm that I’m okay to place this amendment down in the future. Yeah, I’m not gonna cut stuff off, just if you’re not quite ready now, it’s the process. Not bullying anyone into stay in numerical order, but it’s not on the floor now, it’ll come back later. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me.

[3:26:14] I’m just following up on a question from the last conversation we had on amendments. Can amendments be brought forward at any time? I just wanna understand how this is gonna look ‘cause I know there’s a number of us doing background work and not sure how much time we have here. Yeah, overall procedurally we have 30 days to do this. That’s our timeline legislative, we’re bound by. The process I’m trying to follow is that I was bringing all the cases forward ideally first that we prioritized as a council as those five priorities in our survey and then we go through the other ones.

[3:26:52] I will say we’re gonna at least need one other full day so there is time and at the end I know there are counselors who are working on things that I know about, things that I don’t know about. So they can come forward just trying to chunk it in that we generally know what direction we’re going and we still have water and wastewater to go to in addition to, but we’re usually pretty quick with that. Okay, so we’re skipping, but you know that there’s interest in business case P51 so that we’ll come back later, which would move us on to business case P62, which is a moverler of Councillor Frank and a seconder of Councillor Ramen, and this is the ESAs, Councillor Ramen, you are indeed the seconder on this one.

[3:27:36] Point of order. Sorry. I believe I had P53. Was it one that showed up on council surveys? It wasn’t a prioritized one of council survey, it was anyone’s top five, not that it’s not awesome, whichever one that it ends up being. It will come, absolutely, ‘cause there’s other ones that we skipped too numerically. So, Evelyna sent that list at 12 something. So, I will circle back to the ones that didn’t have anyone’s top five, just the ideally of these ones where the top ones we’re passionate about, get through those and then get into the rest.

[3:28:19] But absolutely. So, this was P62. Councillor Owens indicated that she is indeed the seconder. Councillor Frank. I think Councillor Frank wants to speak to when we bring this. Okay, Councillor Frank, are you saving this one? You bet. Okay, so we’re saving that one, which would conclude the current items that were council top priorities, which would move us into the ones that were not on anyone’s top five, still important, just didn’t hit top five for us, which would move us into business case P27, which is the neighborhood decision-making one.

[3:29:03] The move on this one is Deputy Mayor Lewis, the seconder on this one indeed is myself, but I am not playing on really pushing the chair at this time, so the mover will read the out to the language, please. That the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove business case P27, neighborhood decision-making program expansion. So that is indeed moved and seconded.

[3:29:35] It is on the floor. Would you like to make your open comments about it now? No, I’m gonna let the mayor go first and then I’ll rebut him. If you’re making an assumption that someone will speak to it, Mayor Morgan, would you like to commence the speaker’s list? I will, and I’m sure that Deputy Mayor is hoping for a 14 to one vote as well, but we’ll see how this goes. So first off, I think colleagues know that I greatly value the neighborhood decision-making program and I also committed to expanding it, something that actually council referred to this multi-year budget process from our previous year to consider here.

[3:30:14] I included it in the budget because it is a program I believe in, I think expanding it is great. And I’ll tell you two things that I really think are phenomenal about this particular program. First, it is one part of all the things that we talk about today, all of them, where the public actually gets to decide how to spend their own money. And that’s a pretty important thing. Participatory budgeting is what actually leads people to think differently about civic government, participate in it, you have kids and neighbors and their parents going door to door, pitching, voting for these ideas.

[3:30:53] And I think the real beauty in this is actually in the process, not in the results. I think that there’s lots of work council can do to try to improve the structure of the program, the way that the results happen, where the, you know, what people like to deem as winners and losers are. But I think everybody’s a winner in this through the process. This is not about who got what in their park or not. This is about people thinking differently about their neighborhoods, finding out ways that they can improve them, participating in a democratic process, and then learning, you know, all of the experiences that come with that.

[3:31:28] And it is included classes and teachers using this as educational tools. You know, their young children, again, with the program, we actually stripped out, you could be any age, any status, anybody can participate. And I remember the very, very first time we had a vote, the clerk, clerk Saunders at the time, having to put the ballot box on the floor because this tiny little girl was voting for the first time and she had to reach up and she couldn’t reach it on the table and put it in. She was thinking about how to improve her neighborhood. So the base of this is incredibly important to me. I certainly understand if council does not support an expansion that I put in the budget, but I just wanted to emphasize again at the opportune time that this is an incredibly valuable program and you need to look beyond the results of the vote and into the process.

[3:32:15] So it’s in council’s hands on whether or not they want to take it out. I would say if anybody’s thinking about cutting the base, I will be speaking again in a much more vigorous defense of it, but this is just the expansion. And so I appreciate and understand why it’s on the floor given a tight budget year. Thank you. Further speakers on this item? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you. I appreciate what the mayor’s comments are. And I’m not looking to eliminate the program. I’m not looking to touch the base budget. You know, last year, in the fall, I actually used part of my councilor’s expense budget to reserve some pool time at East Lions to host a vote and swim on a school PD day.

[3:32:59] So the students could participate because I do see the value of the participation. What, and I will, by the way, take this opportunity to give Ms. Smith and her team a shout out for helping organize that ‘cause it was a great day. But I cannot support an expansion for this. The mayor’s also proposing, and I fully support the creation of a new parks reserve fund. And I think that projects that are deemed worthwhile enough to get on the neighborhood vote list, but don’t make the vote by the public is something that our staff can look at drawing from that reserve fund to advance some of those projects.

[3:33:37] But I do think the program itself continues to have some serious challenges for me in terms of what gets recommended, and how we allow projects to come forward or not. I mean, no offense to our colleagues who have some past experience on the school board. I know this is not their decision, but I’m concerned about how the NDM program has become a bit of a fail safe or a safety net for playground replacements in schools because the school board won’t fund them anymore and parents have to fundraise for them.

[3:34:14] So they look to us to do it instead and through the NDM, and I can tell you, three of my schools have benefited from that, but I don’t think that the NDM dollars should actually be spent in school yards. I think that they should be spent in our park system unless we’re going to get more sort of or trading of use of facilities through the school board. And I think that there’s a lot of work to be done there yet before we start putting more money forward to start funding more of these programs.

[3:34:47] So for all of those reasons, I really do encourage colleagues to approve this amendment and remove this from the mayor’s budget. I do not think it takes away from the opportunity for programs to still move forward, for projects to still advance, for neighborhoods to still participate. And for those things that are not successful, that is where counselors can talk to staff and see if there’s opportunities through this new parks reserve fund to move some of those forwards that are deemed priorities in the ward. And I think that giving that opportunity rather than an expansion of NDM is actually a better way to address some of our equity concerns around some neighborhoods always winning and other neighborhoods always being left out.

[3:35:29] I don’t think an expansion of the program is going to address that. Thank you, Councillor Travsau. Sorry, I lied. Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Travsau. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really do appreciate the mayor’s comments around this about the program and how important it has been to Londoners and neighborhoods in particular. I know my neighborhood has taken advantage of many of the opportunities that this program provides. I understand we’re just speaking to the expansion that was directed by Council of the 250,000.

[3:36:11] And I just want to speak to that part of it because the program itself is, I think, very important to our neighborhoods. I will be supporting the, to remove the business case. To me, it’s just not at this time. I think there are many other challenges, different priorities, but I do want to say the program itself is very important to our neighborhoods. And also the work that staff do with the program as well as all so important, but not at this time.

[3:36:52] Thank you, Councillor Travsau. Thank you, through the chair, I’m going to be supporting the motion that the deputy mayor is making. And I just want to say, I appreciate everything that the mayor has said about the program. I do have some procedural issues with how the program is being not the concept of being people getting, but where the boundaries are, what the cut off $30,000 is, what’s eligible, things like that.

[3:37:31] And I know that it’s related to why I’m taking this position, but could somebody just in a sentence explain to me where and when it would be appropriate to raise these other procedural issues without taking up too much budget time? Thank you. And it has been a cyclical conversation raising some of those concerns as well through committee. I’m not sure if a report’s coming back soon, Ms. Smith. As you know. Late last year we did the value for money audit with the auditors, and we also did a fairness and equity review.

[3:38:09] So at that time we brought forward the neighborhood decision-making program, and we talked about enhancement to the programs and how to continue to evolve and grow the program. So I would suggest that any time through community and protective services committee, we’d be happy and you’re right annually at times because we continue to improve and try and enhance and grow the program to support equity across all neighborhoods. We’d be happy to come with an update to you on the program and its impact so far, and also open the door if there’s any suggestions and changes we’ve done throughout the years for other councils to participate in.

[3:38:47] Thank you, Councilor Treso. Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. And I think the chair actually just touched on one of the points that I was gonna raise in terms of what I often hear with the neighborhood decision-making for my award is that ironically it’s the only time we’re considered core or central. So just in terms of which category or which area they fall into, it confuses them a little bit. I would like to see some more work done in terms of the process and the program, how it runs currently. For me, I agree in terms of the deputy mayor putting this forward.

[3:39:23] I think just now is not the time. I’m not against the program. I do think it has a lot of value, but I just believe that now is not the appropriate time. Thank you. Okay, I can turn the chair to. Thank you, I wanna recognize Councilor Provost. Thank you, obviously I’m voting for the reduction. I seconded it on this one. I hope always appreciate the sentiment with the programs trying to do. I heard the comments made, it’s not what you got. But it is, when your award and area is one that never gets, we got once out of all the years.

[3:40:00] And the first year of this program, I was actually not on council. And I volunteered at the program, was super excited for it. And over the years I’ve saw, so I’ve flown in, get something once. And it was strictly funding for a Canada celebration for the entire community. And I continue to watch the applications come in for a park bench, which it’s great, absolutely they’re needed, but why is this a neighborhood decision making point? I’ve never had a school get anything out of it.

[3:40:35] The school board didn’t get their stuff together. I’m gonna watch the timelines. And the school community was so excited for maybe finally getting something in green space. And it didn’t happen. So this program does have flaws. Been supportive, but critical the whole time of it. And I’m not ready to expand it at this point. And I think that our colleagues who realize that sometimes the rewards are the one to get it. And absolutely the demographic boundaries before we put, I’m always, White Oaks is always against Lambeth and Byron. And we usually don’t come out with much of that. And it’s just, even how we engage communities in different languages that serve our community.

[3:41:14] So won’t be supportive of this. And looking forward to continuing to deal with staff and get to work with staff, I shouldn’t say deal it. That’s not the sentiment I’m trying to convey, but just as we enhance this program to really make sure that the voices and those who were trying to engage feel empowered. Thank you. I’ll return to chair to the budget chair. Thank you. Looking online to see if there’s any questions. I don’t see any at this moment. I don’t see any chambers at this moment calling the question.

[3:42:15] Councilor Van Mirbergen. Voting yes. Voting the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you for that. As we move on, I will note that there was, we’re not going to discuss it right now. There was business case P-65 that was circling in advance. It was a priority of council.

[3:42:49] I missed it. Councilor Ramen says I’m fine to circle back to it when we do the other ones. So that would put us on to business case P-34, which is a mover of Councilor Frank and a seconder of Councilor Hopkins. And this one is the city hall main lobby security guard. Councilor Frank’s on screen. Councilor Hopkins, indeed you are the seconder on this one. Okay, that’s confirmed. Councilor Frank, if you just want to read it out. And then if you want to be the first speaker or not, let me know. Okay, so the motion is that the mayor’s 2024, 2027, multi-year budget be amended to remove business case, P-34 city hall main lobby security guard.

[3:43:35] And I will speak to it ‘cause I’ll be quick. And then I can always wrap around for second comments if I need to. But essentially to me, I mean, we actually heard it a little bit earlier by another councilor. If we’re gonna be investing so heavily into the police services, I do see that we will hopefully, I mean, that’s the goal. See reduction in need for personal security at various organizations and agencies across the city, I think including city hall, as well, I do know that we have a variety of security staff on site regularly. And I would rather look at ways to readjust the existing staff that we have to maximize the surveillance on our site.

[3:44:16] As well, I do understand that some of the reasoning, my understanding is, I should say, some of the reasoning of including the security guard is based on what happened in, I believe, Edmonton. And my understanding is that incident action is perpetrated by the security guard at the city hall. So I don’t necessarily think adding more security guards to our facility will necessarily increase the safety of the building. So that’s why I was looking to move this one forward. As again, we’re always trying to find cost savings on this budget process.

[3:44:50] Thank you. Commencing my speakers list, Councillor Hopkins. Yes, I was happy to second this motion. And the reason I’m doing that is, I think it’s really, I’m just gonna go back through my years here being at city hall. And we have increased security the past number of years that I’ve been here. We’ve also implemented many security features, just thinking of the mayor’s office.

[3:45:24] I remember one time just being able to walk into the mayor’s office. We no longer can do that. I have to also think that we are open to the public. We are the front of representing the public. And we have to make sure that they feel that they can come in to our building. I know through things are really quite different in the building now.

[3:45:56] Prior to COVID, it was a busy bustling building. Through COVID, it was empty. And now as we’re coming out of it, it’s not as busy as it once was. There’s, to get up the elevators, you need security cards from, I think, three and up. I know the security guard is specific to the main floor. But I, throughout the years, with all these measures, don’t feel any safer.

[3:46:30] Every time I see a security guard doesn’t automatically make me feel safe when I’m in the building. So I think we have to try to find ways to reduce the budget. And to me, this was a possibility. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. And the mover is correct. I’m glad that she was listening to what I was saying. This is exactly what I was talking about. I want to put the security where it should be in our city, onto our local police services.

[3:47:06] I understand for security in our building. But additional security at the lobby, I would, at this time, not be supporting that. I believe there are certain times with certain situations going on that security can be brought in. Be either redistributed from our current security staff or also from our local police services. So I will be supported in this amendment. Thank you, sorry, as I’m just blanking at everybody. My speakers list will be the mayor next and then looking online or in chambers, ‘cause that would be the end of my current speakers list.

[3:47:51] Yes, thank you. So I will say in the original early, kind of working through the budget, this was not in there and the Councillors cracked, the incident in Edmonton did cause me to have a long conversation with Mr. Latiser about the value in this. I want to say first off, and I want to preface this very clearly, I believe in the safety and security of all of our staff at the city of London. But I also want to say there are a handful of very specific individuals who work directly for me in my office that I also think about.

[3:48:30] And to Councillor Hopkins, first off, you’re welcome to walk into the mayor’s office anytime you want. But the head of council can often be a target for these sorts of things. And I have my office, but I have an office staff between me and them. And so should this business case not proceed, I will have to have some discussions with Mr. Latiser about how we best protect them. And I know it’s not just them. I know there are people on the main floor. I know there’s access to the new service desk on the second floor.

[3:49:04] I know there’s access up to the third floor as well. But those incidents are real. And I wonder if Mr. Latiser can comment on the nature of the incident a little more. I know that there’s speculation about who the person was and what they did, but I just don’t want there to be no misconceptions about whether this person worked for City Hall or not at one point if I could through the chair and then I’ll continue my comments. Thank you to staff. Sure, through the chair. So I can’t comment specifically on the incident in Edmonton.

[3:49:40] I do have close relationships with the police service in Edmonton and it is still under investigation. There’s lots of rumors that go around when incidents like this occur to so to speculate that it’s definitely an internal member or staff. I don’t think is appropriate at this point. This came to my attention through a joint health and safety committee recommendation and that’s what initiated this. Mr. Mayor.

[3:50:14] So I also want to add that I do still believe fully that the investments in the London Police Service are going to make these sorts of incidents safer. But there are civic locations and buildings that are more of a target than other places and City Hall can be a focal point for both expressions of frustration, legitimate and democratic protest. But also we can see that government institutions can sometimes be the targets of some of the worst actions that society can perpetrate on ourselves.

[3:50:51] So I put this in the budget. I certainly hear what colleagues are saying. I think we do have to have until the budget is done and the police are able to ramp things up. I think there are some precautions that will need to be taken regardless of whether this business case passes or not. And I’ll certainly work with Mr. Latisser on that. With respect to my office knowing that, again, there are other components of the corporation that do have open access through the front door of City Hall. Thank you, Councillor Ramen.

[3:51:27] Thank you and through you. Just a question to staff in terms of, have we done any assessment into whether or not we’re going to see any savings with our council meetings now being during daytime hours on security costs being that we have less security needs for council chambers, for instance, in the evening to staff? Sure, through your chair. As far as the daytime movement between evening, it really doesn’t change the response from the security side.

[3:52:03] We have dedicated guards that are dedicated for council meetings specifically, especially when the public’s attending. So whether it’s an evening or daytime, we really don’t see a difference in the savings because our staffing levels are the same 24/7. So through daytime, through evening, although we add guards as required, depending on the type of meeting. Councillor, okay, thank you. So I’m, I guess maybe I’ve read this differently. So my understanding was we had a guard up in the front of the building up until the 2020.

[3:52:43] And then we moved away from that in terms of modeling and that we’re saying by stationing the building patrol guard in the main lobby during business hours, the security guard was still required to go out and attend to other calls. And that’s why they’re not fully able to be stationed there. But I think what I heard from Councillor Frank was her thought that there were a large number of guards around this area. And so is it possible for any sort of a reallocation to address the joint health and safety committees concerns over the guard at the front?

[3:53:24] So that’s kind of what I’m looking for is there a way of reallocating or looking to use those that differently? Or is this the way to address the problem only staff? Through the chair. Yeah, so the guard that was initially in the lobby was during the COVID when screening was taking place for those entering city hall, that guard has then been removed. So there hasn’t been a guard without getting too much into the details of how many guards we may have on it a time in a public form.

[3:53:59] I can tell you that the guards that are on site are often responding to other areas of the building and within the building. So it doesn’t allow for permanent surveillance of our front lobby. So that’s where the challenge happens is the time of response if they’re dealing with other matters. And as we’ve seen, one thing I can point out with the case in Edmonton, although there may be speculation of whether it was staff or non-staff, that apprehension was done by security. And the response time in those situations is critical because minutes count in those scenarios.

[3:54:38] Councilor. Thank you. I appreciate the answer to the questions. When I went through the business cases, I saw many instances of mentions of security guards throughout our business cases. And so I do respect the fact that staff and others are telling us that they feel unsafe. And so I’m weighing that as I look at this business case. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And I just wanted to make sure my comments were not sort of taken out of context.

[3:55:15] I was referring to the mayor’s office. I feel very safe going into the mayor’s office. I was referring to the petitions that were put up at one time that we can see now to keep the safety of the mayor’s office at one time they weren’t there. And that was something that it was very supportive of. And I do hear the concerns, if employees are not feeling safe, we should be able to make them feel secure. So I thank the mayor for being sensitive to that.

[3:55:52] I did also hear throughout the conversation that there are other precautions and other opportunities that we can take without having a security guard station. I do recall COVID. I’m pretty sure we did not have a security guard at the front entrance prior to that. If I could just go through you, Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure I’m correct. Staff?

[3:56:29] To the best of my knowledge, there was a guard during COVID for screening. However, that was before my time starting with the city. So I’d have to confirm that with my staff, but I believe there was a guard there during that time and that guard ceased to exist after the end of COVID. Sorry, Councilor, was your question before COVID? Was there a guard? Was the question? So yes, we recognize that during COVID, there was a guard doing screening. Life before COVID, if anyone has institutional recognition of a guard being there versus not. Sorry, through you, Chair.

[3:57:03] I don’t believe there was a guard there prior to COVID. My apologies. Councilor? Yeah, and I just wanted to make sure that that was the case. And so we’re really asking for a permanent security guard. I think there is a savings here. There is an opportunity to take other precautions given that this building isn’t accessible, I guess, throughout, I know it’s just the front or the second floor, but I do think we are the public face of the community.

[3:57:41] And I know through COVID and having to, that’s who I saw when I came through the door, that unnerved me a little bit, even though we needed to do all that. That was understandable. - 30 seconds. But I hear loud and clear that there could be other opportunities to make the employees on the second floor feel safer. Thank you. Looking for their questions or comments prior to calling the vote. Seeing none, calling the question.

[3:58:40] Councilor Pribble, Councilor Trossa. Councilor Ben Mirbergen. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to three. Thank you. That move us along to business case 39, which has to do with the grand theater. Before the movement and seconder is interested in putting it on the floor, they’re asking if we’re able to get a hold of the grand, the question to staff.

[3:59:44] Sorry, just one moment, okay. They had left Zoom, they were back to Zoom.

[4:00:35] They’re just finishing logging in. So this is going to be business case 39, which is a grand theater business case. I have a mover and counselor, Robin, which is accurate. Councilor Frank, are you the seconder on this one? Councilor Frank has indicated they’re the seconder. If I could ask, Councilor Munner, are you okay to read it out in just one second, is the grand in on Zoom? Just so they could hear it, I don’t need to recap for them. Oh, perfect. Evans logged in, he can hear us, and we’re just getting started.

[4:01:09] So Councilor Rama, I’m gonna ask you to read out the motion for anyone joining us virtually or in the gallery can know what we’re on, and then we’ll have the wording put up onto the screen in an e-scribe. Thank you, and through you, thanks for your patience.

[4:01:49] Okay, that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to include funding at $100,000 a year for business case P 39, the grand theater, increasing community access to participation in the arts as set out of the civic administration draft 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12th, 2023. Thank you, and we have a seconder on that one so that it is on the floor. Councilor Rama, would you like to speak first of this or not? Thank you.

[4:02:28] Yes, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of this business case. As you may know, yesterday when we were engaging in discussion with the mayor about the business cases and what was supported and what was not, he did provide justification as to why this wasn’t supported at the full amount. I wanted the opportunity to have a conversation about funding it at $100,000. Similarly to what we heard with the London Arts Council, we have not been increasing the funding for our arts community and they are facing the same pressures that every other organization is facing as well.

[4:03:10] So I wanted the opportunity for council to have a discussion about the grand. And I wanted to be able to speak about some of the challenges that I’ve heard from the community around the funding for the grand, but also I wanted to speak to the 2020 renovation project because I know that that was raised as a while the grand received money from us for a capital expansion project in 2020 for their renovation. And at the time when that was funded, that renovation was to update all their spaces for accessibility and gender inclusion in mind.

[4:03:45] They’ve got a beautiful new space and they’re looking to activate it and they’re looking to make it useful to the community. The capital investment went straight into bricks and mortars not connected with the increased cost to operate, not supporting the technicians and support staff to operate this updated space. That’s what this business case is about. One of our asks in the business cases to put funds towards greater community activity in this space. And so you would have seen letters from the community talking about how they have used the space and how they’d like to be able to use the space.

[4:04:23] And it’s so important. I know I’ve received letters from the London Black History organizing committee on how they activated and used the space, how they’re connecting with the grand theater on new programming. And there’s so many good examples of how they’re doing really important work on things that are in our strategic plan, specifically around equity seeking groups and making sure that they have access to these spaces at low cost in order to bring new arts to the city.

[4:05:02] The other thing I want to talk about really quickly is the 100 schools program. So not only we’re saying here’s an opportunity to come to the grand and meet them where they are in their location, but they’re also finding ways to bring the arts to our schools that are spread out across our city. So every corner of our community can benefit from the activation that the grand is bringing. And so that students have a chance to see themselves in the arts. And one of the, you know, most amazing programs I’ve ever seen is our program that we have at the grand to support young people through the high school musical project, sorry.

[4:05:47] And this is such a great opportunity for students to get involved. It’s something that is a feather in the cap of the grand theater. I know Evan could probably speak way more eloquently than I can, but I think that we have a real opportunity. And not only that, I know Councillor Ferreira would be able to speak to the economic impact to the downtown when it comes to the arts and when it comes to the grand theater. We know that we see significant benefit from the grand theater.

[4:06:19] So I’m asking my colleagues to consider this and be open to a conversation about supporting them. Not at the level that they asked, but to do what we can and 100,000 is in there and Evan can speak more to perhaps if that’s okay as to what that could be used for. It would just definitely need to be a question for you of asking Evan to speak to. Yes, thank you. And I wanted, if that’s possible, to ask Evan if he’d be able to speak to Mr. Klassen, if he’d be able to speak to what that money might mean for the grand theater at that level as it is a change in the amount that they originally proposed.

[4:07:01] Thank you. I’ll note that’s currently four and a half minutes of your five minute speaking time. So Mr. Klassen, if you want to respond to that, welcome. I don’t time you to five minutes. You give your answer ideally as concisely as possible. Realizing it is a change in funding that you originally asked for, what would that money be able to be mobilized to do? Thank you. Yeah, good afternoon, Chair. Thanks so much for hearing from us. We certainly, we had made the ask as an ambitious ask knowing that it was a change that we haven’t seen in 23 years.

[4:07:41] We’re very appreciative of this new amount in any case. As Councillor ramen outlined, this is really meant to help activate our newly renovated spaces as of 2020. We obviously have a beautiful new space. We’ve hosted many concerts and programs right on the stage in our lobby, but also our other spaces are needing greater activation. And so this money will go towards supporting a rentals person to supporting a technician, a highly trained technician who’s able to operate those spaces seamlessly for our community groups and users.

[4:08:22] Also, one of the things that we are very good at at the grant is leveraging public investment to private investment and ticket sales that it’s not just ticket sales, it’s also private philanthropy and sponsorships throughout the community. We have great partnerships with our school districts. And so using these funds to help us bring the 100 schools project back to life really is about the staff resources that we need to do that project. And the school districts and private sponsors have already expressed interest in that program.

[4:08:56] So again, this amount is really a small portion of what it would take to bring that program to the stage. That’s a $300 to $1,000 program to bring a tour to 100 schools throughout our city and region. It’s way more than the 100 day that we’re talking about here today, but it is certainly our intent to leverage these funds to the private investment to be able to get that program back into schools. Thank you. From where you leave your comments there for now, saving yourself some time.

[4:09:28] Okay, speakers list, I don’t have one. I’ll continue with Councillor Cuddy and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. I won’t be supporting this ask in an alum. I think I can speak from a perspective that no one else around this horse you can’t. I was actually a member of the Board of Directors of the Grant Theatre from 1987 to 1995. And I was there, Madam Chair, when we came on a bankruptcy. And while there were some asks from the city and potentially for funding to help us get back in our feet, we did it ourselves.

[4:10:09] Today, the theatre is vibrant and it’s flourishing. And I think if I don’t think that it’s a nice ask to have, it would be great to be able to give it to them. But in my opinion, Madam Chair, the Grant Theatre is in a position that it can go on and it can prosper and do well on its own. And I will add that one of the things that we did as board members, and I’m not suggesting for a moment that they do this anymore. So we used to go out and do bingos. And most of the people on that board I might add are probably dead by now with the exception of me.

[4:10:45] But we did go out and raise funds. And we don’t have to do that today because the Grant Theatre is a thriving facility. So thank you for the opportunity to speak to this. I won’t be supporting it. Thank you. I’m hearing a suggestion of a bingo night play perhaps so that they can operationalize. I will also note that Ms. Peake has joined us who’s the Artistic Director, so the Executive Director and the Artistic Director for questions. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next, and then Councillor Ferreira. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[4:11:20] I appreciate what the Grant brings to our community. I just had the opportunity to watch the invisible a couple of weeks back. Wonderful production, great show. Very much enjoy it. I also had the opportunity to see the high school production Phantom of the Opera last year. Again, great work. However, I absolutely cannot support this ask. The last multi-year budget dedicated $2.5 million to the Grant Theatre for capital. And while the Arts Council funding was approved, we did hear because of the questions Councillor Truss I’ll ask, it’s targeting a very different demographic than the Grant Theatre ask.

[4:12:03] The Grant Theatre ask, the Grant Theatre is an organization absolutely, as Councillor Cuddy referenced, has the ability and the director of reference as well, to privately fundraise. In fact, I would point out that one of the stages is the spreet stage. There are opportunities to sell naming rights. There are opportunities to bring in a big name, guest star for an appearance and a social. We see all kinds of events that happen around this city where people are asked to pay $1,000 a ticket to go to an event with a premier guest speaker or a premier star of something.

[4:12:41] And that is not accessible to everybody, no, but it is a great way for organizations to put money in their coffers to fund other things that they want to do. And the Grant actually has the capacity to do that. So when we’re looking at this, I’m not comparing this to the Arts Council because I think there are two very different organizations who do two very different things. I think the Grant does wonderful work and I will continue to attend shows and support it. And I will continue when people from out of town ask me what there is to do in London.

[4:13:17] I will continue to suggest that taking in a show at the Grant is a great opportunity. But I can’t say yes to every public dollar ask and I have to think about the fact that the last multi-year budget dedicated $2.5 million to this organization. So I cannot at this time approve yet more funding for operating and I will say I actually think it’s more valuable to bring students into the Grant Theater to experience that space than it is to have a traveling situation where things are taken to their schools.

[4:13:52] I think that there’s a very special ambiance at the Grant Theater in that space, in that building that you are not going to experience in a school auditorium. So I think that that is a better use of funds if that’s where the grant has to look at doing those things. But to Councillor Cuddy’s point, I think that with the capital investments we made when it comes to the operating ask, this is one where the board has to figure it out. Thank you, that’s used three minutes.

[4:14:24] I have Councillor Ferreira and then Councillor Trofse. Thank you. Thank you to the Councillors who brought this forward. I’m very, very, very grateful for that. And this is one of the items that I got a significant amount of communication and emails from above and beyond some other ones that you would maybe expect to also get kind of on par. So a lot of people have reached out and not just from my ward, but from other wards around the city, speaking to trying to make sure that we get that support for the grant. I see that we did give a huge capital investment into that and now the grant is seeking operational investment.

[4:15:01] That does make sense to me on the order of things. First build it and then operate out of it. We can’t operate before we actually upgrade everything. So it makes sense to me. I would point out to the economic impacts that you’ll see downtown as Councillor ramen correctly stated, the grant hosts over 100,000 people in the last year came to the grant. That’s how many people the grant are bringing in to downtown. It’s one of the biggest economic drivers in the downtown area. We want people to come to the core. We want people to shop at local businesses in the core. I’ve had people who operate their local businesses tell me they see a rise in their sales when people are coming to the grant.

[4:15:42] So for that, just the economic driver that it is able to bring to the core, I would assume that we should be supporting this operational funding because it will benefit the downtown. We all have an interest in bringing people here and just making sure that our core, the heart of our city survives. This is one thing that will do it. We need to give the grant what we can to activate it. I see the Councillors brought in a very palatable amendment. So I am hoping that we can get the support for that. It is nowhere near what they asked and I know the grant will be able to utilize those dollars to the max potential.

[4:16:16] So please support this. Thank you, Councillor Trossa. Thank you very much and through the chair, I fully support this, what I consider to be a minimal request compared to what is, compared to what is needed. I think if we look at the actual, Councillor Ferrara is going through this, I’m not gonna repeat everything he said, but this is an economic driver. You can just see the vibrancy on the street when a show is coming in and letting out.

[4:16:52] And it’s not just the big shows. I mean, they have a lot of programming going on there. But when I hear some of the things I’ve heard, I don’t think that’s a reason not to support them. One of the things I really like about their fundraising program is I think they’ve been very successful in terms of being able to leverage not only private donations, but donations from senior levels of government. And I worry that when the municipality pulls out, not doesn’t pull out, but doesn’t increase this level of support that they’re asking for.

[4:17:31] We’re not giving them the full support that they need in order to effectively go on to those other funding sources. I’m wondering if Mr. Klassner could comment on how getting this money will assist you in terms of being able to leverage other forms of funding. Mr. Klassner. Yeah, absolutely.

[4:18:04] I mean, in terms of how we leverage our operating funding basically provides us with the money to employ our full-time staff. And as we’ve talked about, we’re trying to increase the types of programs that we are offering like the 100 schools, like the community uses of our space at 471 Richmond. And by getting that initial investment, it means that we can actually go to those other partners and say we have city funding, we have municipal funding on board.

[4:18:40] It allows us to go and make those asks with greater clarity ultimately. It means that people are not going out of the loan. You know, one of the great fundraising strategies that we’ve employed over the years is matching campaigns. If we say we have, you know, we have a certain pot of funding available to us, it absolutely spurs on success for us getting additional private donors as well. So hopefully that helps answer your question. Council Troso. Yes, it most certainly does. And it just reinforces why I think this is a very, very good value expenditure for the taxpayers of the city of London.

[4:19:16] And I would, I’m disappointed that it’s where it is now, but I have every confidence that they’re gonna be able to use this money very, very well and turn it into more programming facilities and funding. And thank you, and I’ll be supporting this. Thank you. The final speaker at the moment that I have on my list is Council approval. So if anyone else would like on it virtually or in chambers, just please let me know. So after Council approval, we’ll be Councilor Frank. So if there’s anybody else that you know. Thank you.

[4:19:48] And as I was already said, grant theory is a great value to our community, no doubt. I supported myself personally, even through my business. One thing is that I want to, I would never, I would not support the original ask for the grant. This one, I will support, and I’m gonna support it. I love the program regarding the 100 schools. I really think that this program, and I hope grant is gonna look into it and develop it even further, because we need young people to be exposed to the culture as soon as or less possible, because it does bring a great value for our community, not in five, 10, 15, but in 30, 40, 50 years.

[4:20:29] So I would never support 250, 100, I will support. And I’ll tell you right now, all these economic factors, this, no doubt. Can grant do just like anyone else? And they do have, as was said, they do have access to great fundraising events, and they can do better, just like anyone else. But I will do it with the focus on the young people, and regarding the 100 schools program. And I hope, if this passes through, that grant is gonna explore this even further, and get access to the young people of London. Thank you.

[4:21:02] Thank you, Councilor Frank. Thank you, yes, I just wanted to start off my comments with a question, perhaps the staff. I’m wondering if there’s anyone available to comment on the Renault funds, were those entirely city funds, or were some of those from the map tax? Okay, I’m gonna go to our finance team as they pull up an answer for that, as that was the last term of council directive. Just give us a minute to look that up, and we’ll pull up that information. Yeah, do you have any other questions?

[4:21:34] Will they dig into those financial bits and pieces? Sure, no, that was just my other questions, then I’ll share my comments. I’m obviously supportive of this as I’m the seconder, but I think that the grant does an excellent job of activating our downtown core area, and as been said a couple times, the work that they’d be able to do across the city within schools, I think is incredibly important. I see value in both sides of that, one bringing people into the grant to learn and through the high school project. On the other hand, not everyone can make it downtown. We already know school bus and field trips are incredibly cumbersome, and usually there’s not even buses available for students to be able to make their way to field trips.

[4:22:11] So I see a lot of value in having reverse outreach within the community, especially in some of the more disadvantaged schools that would never have these opportunities given to them. I also have previously ran a charity, and I know that it is nowhere near the scale and scope and history of the grant, but I know that most charities leave no stone left unturned, and I appreciate all the suggestions for various funding mechanisms, but I’m sure that the grant has fairly exhausted most of their corporate sponsors, personal donors, gallezz, and I’m sure they will continue to and maintain those excellent relationships.

[4:22:46] Every show I’ve gone always has some sort of corporate sponsor, so I know that I don’t think that they really actually do leave any naming rights on the floor. So I appreciate those suggestions, but I think that this is one of those times where there is a need, and I think we have the opportunity to support that. So I’m curious about the question of staff are able to answer it, but I will be supporting this. Thank you, I think staff is still digging through financial pages of goodness. So I’m just looking at see if there’s any other speakers online or in person.

[4:23:22] Hey, Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. We’ve been able to dig up those numbers and the previous funding provided to the grant theater was a split of $1.2 million from our Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund, which is the fund that receives our share of the MAT revenues, and then the other $800,000 was funded through our Economic Development Reserve Fund. Thank you, Councilor Frank will follow up on that. Thank you, yes, that did trigger it. So I mean, I think given that those numbers, I think that does actually also make me want to support them even more.

[4:23:56] I’m given that the city itself only contributed $800,000 towards that renovation. Okay, looking for further speakers. Seeing none, go on to question. Closing the vote, motion fails six to eight.

[4:24:44] Just one second. Yes, I didn’t see that on my screen and I would have voted yes. Just one second, kind of a motion. Okay, I’m gonna ask for Council to do a motion to reopen that as the system had marked him absent ‘cause he was absent from the prior vote and still wasn’t in our system. So a motion to reconsider. Moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. I’m gonna assume no conversation on this. So that last vote will be cleared and then reopened in a moment.

[4:25:18] So whatever you just intended, do it again. Okay, that vote’s now open.

[4:26:27] Yep, just for clarification, that was general consensus of us for motion reconsider. So we didn’t do a vote to reconsider. We did the vote on the actual motion since we were all nodding in agreement. Closing the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Thank you for that, that concludes the motion that was before us on the floor. I’ll note that it is break time. I will just ask that the next motion when we return from break was P48, which was a CMHA mental health worker in the London Public Library.

[4:27:05] I have a mover of Councillor Frank and a secondary Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Frank, are you fine to move forward this one at this time? Yes, Councillor Hopkins, you’re still fine to be the seconder? Yes, okay, that just allows me to get the right people in the room from when we get back if we wanted anyone from that organization here. So would a 15 minute break be adequate? Okay, I would need a mover and a seconder to bring us back. Okay, so 15 minutes moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Hopkins, a hand vote of all closing the vote, motion carries. 230, okay, if we could all just settle back in please and take your seats, we’re about to start.

[4:44:54] Okay, thank you as we start back up. The next one is business case P48, which is the CMHA mental health worker in London Public Library. I have a mover noted as Councillor Frank and a seconder is Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Hopkins is good to be the seconder? Yes, Councillor Frank, you’re good to be the mover and you were good to proceed at this time. We’re all settled back in. Mr. Simkoni is online who’s with London Public Library. So Councillor, if you want to read your motion for everybody and then I’ll go to you see if you wanted to speak to it first.

[4:45:28] Thank you, yes. So the motion is that the Mayors 2024 or 2027 multi-year budget be amended to fund the CMHA mental health worker, London Public Library Business case, P48, as set out in the civic administration draft 24, 2027 multi-year budget referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12, 2023 for one-time funding of 65,000 for 2024 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. And I will speak to it. So essentially I see incredible value in funding this mental health worker. They currently have a mental health worker, but unfortunately the funding is ending for that.

[4:46:05] And this current mental health worker sees about 70 people a week in various stages of crisis that I’m sure the library CEO will be able to speak to. But I know that it helps divert security issues. It helps people get services in the community. It helps reduce calls to the police. And I think that all of those reasons make it a very valuable business case to ask for. I was hoping to essentially fund this from some of the funding that we’d save from the police budget case that did not get reduced and passed.

[4:46:37] That being said, in the last two hours, we were able to reduce some of the funding because I was speaking with the CEO. And they desperately need to keep the person for this year. And then we’ll do their best to find funding elsewhere moving forward. But given that we’re already two months into this year, they are still trying to find a way to be able to pay for the person. So additionally, staff recommended that since it’s a one-time funding, they come from a reserve fund instead of operating funding.

[4:47:09] So it would have no impact on the property tax. And that is overall why I think we should be funding this. Thank you. That used 120, just for you know. Looking further, further speakers on this item, either online or in chambers. I’ll recognize Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the library trying to do what it can to be part of tackling our broader social issues.

[4:47:44] But it’s stated right here in the business case that the reason that they’re coming to us is that this was a federal pilot project that is no longer being funded. And this to me, and I realize people may have differences of opinion, but this to me is a very clear difference in terms of jurisdiction. Health care is the responsibility of the federal and the provincial governments. And the other reason that I will not be supporting this is because you do not use reserve funds to fund an operating cost.

[4:48:20] And even though this is only being suggested for one year, nonetheless, this is an operating cost. This is not a one-time capital cost. All we’re doing, if we did this, would be extending a one-year lifeline on operating and would still leave them without a source of funding for this for future years. And for me, there are two sound financial principles that should drive our decisions that are a reason to say no to this. One is treading into jurisdictions of other levels of government and backfilling.

[4:48:56] And this is clearly a backfill because they have canceled, the federal government has canceled their pilot project. And it is also using a reserve fund to fund what is an operating cost. Although it may only be for one year, it’s an operating cost. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Deputy Mayor, for your comments. I would like to just follow up with some comments about the source of funding. And I’m just gonna step back a little bit because out of everything that I’ve read in the library’s business plan, this to me stood out.

[4:49:45] And the reason it stood out is that it is successful. It is important to have the safe space that is created in the library. And I just want to step back a little bit. We’ve spoken about Edmonton. I, a couple of weeks ago, there was a program on what Edmonton’s downtown, Central Library is doing, and the success it is having in its downtown core with positions like this that they have, and they have more than one. This is about keeping the success of this program going for at least that one year, so the library can have opportunities to get funding where it’s needed.

[4:50:31] Hopefully there’ll be programs, but there is this a need, and it’s also the success of the program. Do we just throw it away? I am hoping that my colleagues will support this amendment. It is just for one year. Thank you. I have Councillor Raman next, and then my question will be Councillor Frank, is that a new hand or old hand? New hand, okay. So Councillor Raman, and then I’ll circle back to Councillor Frank. Thank you and through you. I’m wondering, I believe the chief librarians with this.

[4:51:05] I just wanted to ask about the pilot project and the funding because my understanding was the money came from a combination of the operational money in library donor funds, but I’m just wondering if he might be able to comment further on where the money from the pilot project came from. Thank you for that question, Mr. Seconia, welcome. And I do not time your responses, just I ask you to keep them succinct. Thank you for having me in through the chair. I’ll answer, yes, you’re correct. It’s actually a combination of donor dollars and operating dollars that we’ve used to keep it going over the last 18 months or so.

[4:51:45] And I think that an answer, I recognize that there is some concern over responsibility on funding something like this and whether it be provincial or federal. And I think that’s the reason why we’re seeking just an extension for one more year. We are, based on advice that we got in meeting with Councillors, seeking alternate funding sources and we actually have identified a few that we’re going to be pursuing. But at least one of them, we wouldn’t know whether we got that funding until September. And this program has been so successful that it has helped really keep our staff safe, our patrons safe, and it’s helped people get the help that they need, those with mental health issues, those with addiction issues, those that are homeless.

[4:52:30] So we would like to continue it as long as we need to do it, but recognizing and respecting the views of council on terms of using federal or provincial, or making up for the lack of federal provincial funding. In this case, we just like a bridge. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Rumman. Thank you, I appreciate that answer. So I am supportive of this at this time as a one-time funding in the amount that’s indicated here.

[4:53:05] I understand that it may not be typically what we use the Reserve Fund for from the Community Investment Reserve Fund. However, you know, we, I think it’s incumbent on us to find ways to provide services like that. This that are identified as a lifeline for mental health and addiction in our community. And so this funding to me, yes, not perhaps the way that we would like to see it rolled into our budget, but I do think that the Councillor and the seconder, Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins have looked for a way to be able to bridge that gap while we’re waiting to see whether or not other levels of government are able to respond.

[4:53:54] And I know on our end, I mean, as Councillors, we are constantly talking about these needs to help to fund mental health supports in our community. I wanna thank the library for doing what they could with their operational money and their donor funds over this time period and look forward to supporting them on this. Thank you. Councillor Frank, Councillor Trove.

[4:54:27] So Councillor Ferrera. Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yes. And I just want to include something they don’t think I completely covered. But last time that we had a presentation regarding the police calls, I do remember that about 30% of our call increase was attributed to mental health calls. So given that we are trying to reduce how many level two and level three calls go there, again, I see this is a very fiscally responsible way of trying to alleviate some of the pressure.

[4:55:00] And every time that I know many of us on council have spoken with the police services, they’re not interested in policing people with mental health issues. They don’t necessarily want to be first responders unless there’s a security threat. So yet again, I see this as almost a cost saving opportunity for council to be investing in at the same time, having benefits of connecting people to services and making people feel safer in the downtown core. So, again, I’ll be continuing to support it. Thank you. Councillor Troso. Thank you through the chair.

[4:55:34] I want to start by just taking a minute to talk about some of the jurisdictional issues that persistently come up. And in addition to the broad municipal function of health and safety, a very broadly construed in the public library act, there are a couple of specific provisions that I think are very germane here. A board shall seek to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service that reflects the community’s unique needs. And there it is right there. The community’s unique needs.

[4:56:06] And you can’t really use your section 20 powers under the library act without understanding what your community’s unique needs are. And when you’re sitting at the downtown library, you figure that out really quickly in terms of what some of the local conditions are. Also, it also says under subdivision D may operate special services in connection with the library as it considers necessary. And what I want to stress here is public library boards are, and many of you have served on public library boards so you would notice, public library boards are given a lot of additional discretion in the library premises because of these provisions.

[4:56:57] So if we’re not going to support this, let’s not do it on jurisdictional grounds. Now, I want to talk about the human factor here. It’s understood that there’s not going to be a hub on Dundas, that some of the additional social service installations are not going to be there. And I think having this space inside the library creates an opportunity to not have a mini hub or anything like that.

[4:57:31] But it creates a space where people who are likely candidates for the types of services that CMHA can provide, to be able to walk into a comfortable, supportive space that they feel safe and happy in. Someplace they go to do reading. Someplace they go to access the computer. Someplace they go just to sit and stay out of the cold. And it’s so important that the library provides this space where people who otherwise might not walk into a social service agency and not feel comfortable or not even know where the social service agency is, go into this very, very nurturing space for them and see that CMHA there.

[4:58:21] And it’s been so successful because people have taken them up. I want to refer you to the letter from the CMHA that’s at the end from Sarah Dawn, manager of case, manager of case management. This is helping the situation on the street in an appreciable way in the downtown core. And while I think that it would be very appropriate to just fund this as a program under those special public library powers that I have set forth, I think it is essential that there not be a gap.

[4:58:59] Because having this service in the public library, it does a couple of things. It relieves some of the pressure off of security who are not trained to deal with these types of issues. And the other thing it does is it makes it a safer space, a much safer space for staff and the patrons. And the CEO could, if he’s able to talk about how incident reports seem to go up and down, but having this type of service helps. What I want to dwell on in my remaining time, though, is the negative effect that patrons, security, staff, merchants on the street, other people in the building are going to suffer if we take this away.

[4:59:52] This is an example of the type of creative partnership that we should be striving for. And I don’t think that we should be erecting rigid organizational jurisdictional boundaries that, as a matter of— I don’t want to say law, because that gets— 20 seconds. OK. So the library is exercising its jurisdictional powers in a very creative way. And the city should be helping that. And I just really hope that you support this. It’s a wonderful program.

[5:00:24] Thank you so much. Thank you. That was your five minutes precisely. You did mention one comment to Mr. Saconi in there, but didn’t pause for it. So I will take its intent that it was a question to Mr. Saconi if you would like to reply of the staff person’s engagement and its effect on patrons using that space with this CMHA worker. Thank you through the chair. These statistics were included in the business case itself, but I can repeat them.

[5:00:58] Some of the things that this case manager has done, they averaged 70 walk-ins a week, just people coming to seek help. But in addition, they’ve helped individuals find meals, complete rent, went geared into income forms, connect with legal services. One of the most important aspects of it, they’ve regularly assist security personnel with wellness checks and individuals inside and outside the central library and help respond to close to 150 incidents at that time of the submission of this business case during the pilot project. They’ve actually had Zoom hearings with and provide support to persons struggling with anxiety and assisted with low literacy and comprehension skills and fighting a rent increase by their landlord.

[5:01:37] I know that just anecdotally that staff have really valued having this person in place. And I think it has alleviated some of the pressure on them as it was mentioned by Councillor Traso. What we do here in terms of addressing the concerns or the issues with mental health and addiction issues, it’s become a course service for staff and security guards and they’re not trained or credentialed to fully address their needs or matters to their behaviors. This worker has really filled that void. Thank you.

[5:02:10] Thank you. I have Councillor Ferreira, then I have Councillor Lehman. Thank you, through you. So I like, obviously I like this motion and with the one year funding just to carry us over until we can secure some other funding, I think is a smart choice. I just wanted to clarify some things before anything, going to the city treasurer’s office. If we’re using the reserve fund to fund this, I guess, operational expenditure for a year, is there anything that’s prohibiting us from that? Or are we regulated to not be able to do that? Or we can’t do that, I just wanted to confirm that.

[5:02:47] To staff? Thank you, through the chair. So the proposed funding source on this one is a Community Investment Reserve Fund, which has considerable discretion for council in terms of how you utilize those funds. This is the fund that receives 25% of any year-end surplus, according to our surplus deficit policy. So the parameters of the use of the fund are quite broad, I would say, and there are no restrictions that would prohibit this use on a one-time basis. Councillor Ferreira. Thank you for that. So I walk through this library every single day.

[5:03:21] So I see with my own eyes the demand for the services that the transitional case manager will provide. I also understand that certain capabilities, certain training for individuals need to be there to provide for people with varying needs. So I believe that this position is very substantial, especially for the library. I’ve heard it before, I’m just gonna touch on it really quick ‘cause it’s been commented here, but the library is much more than just a library, it’s much more than just receiving books. It’s much more, much, much more.

[5:03:54] And if you go to the central library downtown, you’ll see that, you’ll see that every single day, you’ll see many people showing you that in their own way of life and their own individual movements throughout the library and what they need. So I feel like this is a very smart move by the two councils that has brought this, so I do appreciate that. And I feel like we should support this. If it’s in carry us over for the year, so we can continue this service, especially in a place where the demand is clearly there, we should support it. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. So thank you.

[5:04:27] So this, I find very similar to the arguments that we had for the security service at City Hall. In fact, we’re the mover of this motion reminded me of my statements about police fulfilling certain roles. I take issue with that the police have no interest in this. In my experience, actually walking downtown with our London foot patrol, the majority of their time was engaging people that were suffering from mental health and addiction.

[5:05:04] And in fact, the training dollars that are being asked for in this police budget is so that our police services are properly trained to deal with the many social issues that we were seeing in our streets. Also included in that is support for our COAS program, which is a community outreach and support team that works in conjunction with Canadian Mental Health Association, Thames Valley Addiction, and Middlesex London Paramedic Service. That being said, the pragmatic side of me says, it’s a one time gap funding to hold them over until they seek funding from other sources.

[5:05:47] So that, I applaud them for doing that, for looking at other sources, ‘cause I agree with the deputy mayor that we should not be back filling federal funding. However, in order to bridge that gap, I will support it. But with the proviso that if this comes back again for a more permanent basis, I will not be able to support it at that time. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to say that this is a much needed and valuable service, no doubt about it, like others that I have voted against today.

[5:06:24] But I’m gonna support this one for two reasons. One, we’re not taking it on as an ongoing thing. It’s a stop gap measure while other funding is sought and it’s not hitting the tax levy. So I think that my fellow Councillors for finding a way forward and I will be supporting this. Thank you. Looking further comments from online or in chambers? Seeing none, calling the question. Mr. Van Mierbergen, closing the vote.

[5:07:24] Motion carries 11 to four. Thank you. Numerically, the next item would be business case P53, which is the road safety enhancements. This would be Councillor McAllister and Councillor Ferrera. Are you prepared to put that forward at this time? Okay, both of them are nodding, so we will get that in the e-scribe. Okay, so that’s just getting loaded into e-scribe. I’m gonna ask them both to, I’m gonna ask Councillor McAllister to read it out. I’ll also note that our transportation staff, Ms. McCrae, is with us as well and other staff to answer questions as we move through this.

[5:08:04] If you could please read it out. Thank you, and through the chair. The usual stuff at the beginning, in terms of the preamble, do you want me to read the full thing or just? Just read the amendment as you’re putting on the floor, and then I’ll start your speaker’s time for you to introduce it properly. Okay, so this is to amend P53, and to only include the road safety initiative number two.

[5:08:42] This is for 2024 and 2025 at 200,000 each year. This would be funded from the Automated Enforcement Reserve fund, therefore not having any impact on the tax levy. So that’s the actual wording, and I’m now just gonna make some comments at all. If you just pause for one second, I just want it to be an e-scribe for everyone who can read it while you speak. For everyone who refreshes, it’s now an e-scribe for your viewing, and Councillor McAllister, you’re welcome to be the first speaker.

[5:09:19] Thank you, and through the chair. Noting that there were three original initiatives in here, and thank you to staff for working with me on this. In terms of playing a bit of catch-up, what I’ve suggested is that we currently just focus on initiative number two, especially for 2024 and 2025, that 200,000 which would come from the Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund, is essentially to play a bit of catch-up in terms of doing the road work in terms of lines and such to make the roads themselves safer.

[5:09:54] In terms of the later strategies or the later initiatives, when this funding runs out in 2025, I would imagine staff can come back to us in terms of providing more insight into possibly implementing the other initiatives and other sources of funding to improve the road safety. I would note that for number three, especially, the difficulty I had with this was I’m not qualified to wordsmith in terms of coming up with standards, and there are currently no provincial standards for the bike lanes.

[5:10:27] I do note that that is something that is ongoing currently, and I do believe for these two years, this will give us some time in terms of getting those guidelines in place. So I’m looking forward to seeing what comes back at the end of this two years, in terms of being able to improve road safety and having some more guidelines that we could follow. I did try my best in terms of coming up with, again, with a creative solution, being very mindful in terms of the tax rate we’re at right now. I’m sure staff were probably getting sick of me asking about their service funds, but I do appreciate them providing alternative sources of funding, so thank you.

[5:11:08] Thank you. Next on my speakers list, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, and this was the one piece of this business case that I did want to support, but I didn’t want to support it as an ongoing operating cost on the tax levy. I do support the source of financing that’s been identified here because it’s being indicated that this is a two year sort of boost to catch up on some of the much needed work we have out there. I recognize that road markings need regular work and will be needing regular renewal anyway, but I think any one of us could point to areas in our ward where the road markings really need to be improved and road markings are a safety component of safe movement and transportation around the city.

[5:11:59] The automated enforcement reserve fund, well, it is not intended for operating revenue, primarily for capital because this is a one time injection. My understanding is finance and operations have said this makes sense. They can do it this way. It does buy us a little bit of time to think about how we’re going to do better on this in the long run. And so, and it’s creating a zero impact on the property tax levy because it is coming from a reserve fund.

[5:12:32] You know, I would argue that when you think about the other things we use that capital reserve fund for, PXOs, traffic calming, those things all require road markings too. We’ve all seen the sharp teeth around speed humps, the painting of crosswalks, those kinds of things are part of road safety as well. So are the lines and the white bars to tell people where to stop, where the dividing line is in roadways. So I applaud the Councillors for their creative way of getting some investment in this without hitting the property tax levy and without making a long term commitment.

[5:13:08] So this is one where I am going to be supportive. Thank you, Councillor Ferrer and then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. Most of the comments have been said very well. And I just wanted to point out to Councillor McAllister. This is Councillor McAllister’s great child. He’s the one who found the source of funding. He’s the one that approached me. He’s the one that showed me and convinced me to support this business case. So I do give all the credit to Councillor McAllister. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you to both the mover and the seconder.

[5:13:43] I have a question. I understand this 200,000 is for the number two, part of the three safety initiatives that are part of this. And I, through you, Madam Chair, have a question around the basic sweeping and plowing of the live art bike lanes. I know that Councillor spoke a little bit to not sure how that works, but where does that part of the safety project lie if we just do one portion of it?

[5:14:23] Does everything drop off because that is a huge concern that I hear not only on our roads, but also throughout our parks as well. So maybe just wanting to have a better understanding if we just say yes to number two, what happens to number three? I’m not sure if Mr. Chair wants that or Mr. McCray who’s joined us in the gallery. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to start and if Mr. McCray wishes to add anything he certainly can.

[5:14:55] Right now I understand the motion to only be applied to the expansion of our durable pavement marking program for two years to allow for some strategic catch-up at locations where there are safety concerns. Those durable pavement markings represent about an eight-year investment. So they are an asset that has some long-lived value and are aligned well with the reserve fund on a two-year basis. Sweeping, unfortunately, is an ongoing activity and does not create a new asset. We would need a long-term program to define what that ought to be. We could potentially look at a one-year pilot that could be reserve funded, but ultimately, we know what needs to be done.

[5:15:30] The level needs to be defined by the province to help us understand what the minimum maintenance standards should be and would be probably better suited to a longer-term sustainable source of funding when that work is done. Mr. McCray, would you like to add anything since you’ve joined us? No, he’s good. Okay, Councillor Hopkins, you’re good. Anybody else besides Councillor McAllister? Not that I won’t go back to him, just looking for other comments to be made before he speaks again, looking online. Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair.

[5:16:02] And do I do appreciate Councillor Hopkins in terms of those questions? I did try to touch on them and my intention was, and I spoke to it, I’m not supposed to be putting policy into these motions, but I would just like to say that my intention was when the funding runs out in 2025, that would allow in terms of our annual update for Ms. Shear and her group to come back in terms of looking at those other road initiatives as an opportunity to, you know, once that money is run out. And we have, say, more information from the province, ‘cause right now we don’t currently have those standards, that we would actually have a model that we would be able to work from.

[5:16:39] Hey, thank you for those comments. Say no for their speakers, calling the question. Posing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Congratulations on that one, I think that was.

[5:17:23] Okay, so this is where we’re at, friends. You’ve had break, you’re somewhat recharged. I’m not sure if business case P63 is set to go. You’re set to go. Skyler’s set to go, okay. So we will commence on. So we have business case P63. This is moved by, will be moved by Councillor Frank, and it will be seconded by Councillor Ramen. I have nods up for both of those. We’re just getting the information in E-Scribe. So if you just give me one moment, I just is a bit of a longer one for the Councillor to read out.

[5:17:57] So I just wanna make sure that it’s in E-Scribe and on the screen so we can follow along with you. And then we’ll see what time we’re at after that. As at that point, we’ll be going to some of the ones that be passed by this morning. One, I accidentally skipped over. That’s been acknowledged already. Or we have another one that’s come forward for P2. So I’ll just let you know after this one, it’ll be procedurally, where do you wanna go? Realizing that the next meeting of the Budget Committee will be next Thursday. Thanks, Skyler.

[5:18:35] Okay, we’re just getting the wording in. So just one moment, please. Can I interject a little bit because I did wanna tweak some of the wording. So before it’s saved, can I interject slightly? Okay, I’m just, we’re gonna copy and paste it.

[5:19:07] And then maybe as you read it out, we can tweak as we go. Okay, so if we refresh, it’s in the system now.

[5:19:50] And Councillor Frank, as you read, wording will be tweaked as you go, so your wording corrected version will be the version that we’re working from. Okay, so whenever you’re ready. It’s just deleting the 1.8 million in 2027. So it’s at the bottom, but I’ll read the rest. So that the Mayors 2024, 2027 multi-year budget would be amended to include business case P63, Silver Creek erosion control and restoration is set out in the civic administration draft in 2024, 2027, multi-year budget referred by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12th, 2023.

[5:20:26] And that the implementation would be delayed until 2026. It being noted that additional unfunded costs be considered the next multi-year budget. Annual funding is as follows, 2040, 2050, 2026, 200,000. And then the difference would be 2027, 1.8. Put it as zero, please. Just repeat your amendment of wording. I think it was the 2026, sorry, 2027 operating expenditures. Right now it’s 1.8 million, please put it as zero.

[5:21:02] Tax levy, 1.8 million, please put it zero. Capital expenditure, 1.8 million, please put it zero. The clerk is just clerking that. Okay, are you okay if I start my speaker’s list with you? Yes, please. Okay, please. All right, so a bit of background. So this business case, I’m sure you’ve all thoroughly read it because even the title is just intriguing. Silver Creek, where is it, what is it? I know that that is one of the many reasons why you’ve probably read it.

[5:21:36] But essentially Silver Creek is part of the Coves ESA area. But unfortunately is not one of the areas we have invested significant time or effort in maintaining or repairing. And one, if you’re able to even get down near it and see it, which you probably aren’t because it’s really not that accessible. Currently, given that we haven’t spent a lot of money trying to maintain or make it available to the community, it is in very poor condition. I’ve gotten down there before to do some river cleanup work or essentially some pond cleanup work. And the banks are not stabilized.

[5:22:10] They’re significant, essentially cliffs that have been made because of some of the ways that the water has gone. As well, there’s lots of garbage back there. It backs on to some apartment buildings and parking lots back onto this area. So there is constant garbage getting into this area. And so this funding would start the work and I will explain the amendment. So essentially $200,000 is towards getting all the studies done and getting all of the research done to be able to move forward with the construction cost, which is the 1.8 million, recognizing the budgetary pressure, moving the work to 2026 for the 200,000 to do the reports and the research to get started, we thought would be a much more amenable decision.

[5:22:56] And then the 1.8 million of course could be funded in the next multi-year budget or fingers crossed, perhaps there’s some sort of federal funding for restoration work. And this stuff has been ongoing for, I think over a decade, a lot of the work has been done by Friends of the Coves, oh no, since 2018. So a lot of this work has been done by Friends of the Coves through various funding sources, but there has never really been any movement forward on actually implementing. So by supporting the $200,000 in 2026, Countswood at least be letting us move forward with some of the ecological work to restore this area and to make it accessible for people to walk through and enjoy.

[5:23:41] Okay, that’s used up to two minutes and 15 seconds just for you know, for your personal knowledge. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair, through you, I’m gonna ask staff to model for us what this impact would potentially show on the tax levy moving forward because there is a tax levy portion here. I’m gonna allow them a moment to do that though. I’m gonna continue with my comments while they have a chance to get that ready and show us. The reason I’m a no on this is because we’re creating an unfunded liability for Council in the next multi-year budget cycle.

[5:24:22] We’re presuming that the next Council will approve the 1.8 or that some other source of funding will be found. We can’t bind the hands of a future Council. The next Council could absolutely reject funding that. And so I’m not prepared to do that. If this entire business case was referred to the next multi-year budget, as we did with fire breathing apparatus for future consideration, I’d be more comfortable with that. But since a piece of it is being tried to trying to be moved forward in advance, I’m going to be a no.

[5:25:00] I actually don’t believe that all sections of an ESA need to be accessible. I think it’s best that some of those areas are inaccessible to human interference on things. But that is my reason. And I will say, and I mentioned this earlier with the Museum London ask early in the day, if this is approved, then I will be seeking to actually move an amendment in P-56 on what the mayor included in terms of providing a climate change reserve fund.

[5:25:33] And I will move to reduce that reserve fund contribution for the future because we are imposing a cost now without having this project weighed against other potential projects that might look to the climate emergency action reserve fund for funding. So we’re prejudging that this might be more viable than or more important than another project that might seek to access reserve funds to move forward. I’m supportive of the reserve fund. But as I said, if we start adding in other areas that the mayor did not include in his budget, I will then be looking to reduce that reserve fund contribution later in this debate.

[5:26:19] Thank you. One clerk type question, Councillor Frank looking to see that it being noted that additional unfunded costs be considered the next multi-year budget that staff would automatically do that and bring that forward for the next MYB and procedurally now staff is asking if we could just remove that. Councillor Frank, I just can’t see on my little screen if you’re speaking.

[5:26:56] Sorry, we asking the clerk that or me? I’m asking you that since it’s on the floor, the clerks have procedurally raised a question with that. Okay, let me just pull it back up. Yeah, I mean, I’m fine with taking out the it being noted that additional unfunded costs would be considered like that. I’m fine to take that out ‘cause I don’t think that by having 200,000, I’m presupposing the next council is gonna approve the 1.8 million and the cost will probably change by the next council as well. Okay, thank you. It’s the it being noted that the money will be considered the next multi-year budget.

[5:27:33] Sentence has been removed ‘cause staff would bring forward costs in the next multi-year budget anyways and it’s more of a policy procedure type thing than a monetary thing based on your budget now. Okay, so, okay, is the seconder? Now we’re in procedure issue.

[5:28:13] Okay, so the mover was fine with just moving that, it being noted sentence. The seconder is fine with just removing that it’d be in no sentence. No one on council’s objecting that it would just automatically come in the next term of council. I don’t need to do a vote and start an official amendment. To an amendment, well, it’s not. Okay, I’m seeing no one being contentious about that one sentence coming out. So that’s just gonna be updated in eScribe and I’ll continue my speaker’s list. The mayor finished speaking.

[5:28:46] I have, the mayor has not finished speaking, the deputy and mayor finished speaking. Councillor Frank would like back on at some point. The mayor’s waiting to speak. And this is just a question through you, a chair to our staff so I can understand. Is a 200,000 a permanent or is it just a one time? Like is it carrying forward each and every year? Or is it just a one time out and then not carrying forward? In other words, does it go down and back up? Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair.

[5:29:18] So the challenge with this particular case is we don’t have a lot of great reserve fund options to pay for an expenditure of this nature. So the funding source for this case is capital levy. Now it is one time capital levy. So it is an increase in 26, 2026, and then a reduction in 2027 when it comes back out. So it is an in and out to the deputy mayor’s question before. Right now we are sitting at a five, prior to this we are sitting at 5.6% tax levy increase for 2026.

[5:29:54] The way this rounds, this is enough to bump it up to a 5.7% tax levy increase for 2026, if approved. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was just seeing that clarification. When the numbers move around, I’d like to know if it’s permanent or if it’s down down and back up. So that was the clarification I was looking for. Okay, looking for other speakers online or in chambers. I know I still have Councillor Frank, who that’s a fresh hand up. Okay, Councillor Frank.

[5:30:28] Thank you. I’m glad to follow up some items. And I think, sorry, I wasn’t in clear. I don’t think it’s only about access for people to the area. And I was actually hoping to go to staff, maybe to explain a little bit further about the work that the restoration would include, as well as any potential risks about not doing the restoration work. The appropriate staff? Through the chair. So this work is to fund ecological improvements to this area.

[5:30:59] There’s as highlighted, there’s some erosion concerns and through the conservation master plan that came forward in 2014. This was highlighted as an area that was of concern to have those ecological improvements. So that was what this work would fund. And that is, if this was approved, that the design funding would be able to go into coming up with an approach and a plan for addressing those ecological impacts. Councillor Frank. Thank you. Yeah, so I just wanted to highlight it’s not only for people’s recreational enjoyment, but obviously also for some very needed ecological restoration work.

[5:31:37] As well, I, again, personally don’t think that every single thing that’s environmental, once we have a climate change fund, we’ll have to compete for $2 million, if that’s what we end up putting in. So I don’t see it as an either or, if we approve this, then we, you know, have to reduce the future addition to a climate reserve fund, because at this point, we’re already honestly contributing so little to the environmental programs and projects that we have. I don’t want to further limit our scope now once we have that reserve fund that everything has to compete for $2 million bucks.

[5:32:12] So I appreciate the promise that Deputy Mayor, and I, you know, I can call a promise and not a threat, but I appreciate that you’re saying that you will be re-looking at the reserve fund if this moves forward because you think that it should be coming out of that location and not just the general property tax or capital levy. Councillor Hopkins. - Yeah, I do have another question about this, so obviously there’s environmental work that needs to be done.

[5:32:46] The bank’s stability, things like that. We’ve already done the work, the assessments are already there in place to start the work. It is a small amount of money in the grand scheme of things on how we take care of our natural spaces, our open spaces. I want to have a better understanding, maybe through you, Madam Chair, on unfunded liability and exactly what does that mean? And if that is a concern.

[5:33:26] Take that as a question to the finance team, whichever one would like to take it. Thank you through the chair. So essentially what that’s referring to is an expense that you need to pay, that there’s currently no funding, that you need to incur in the future. So in this case, from what I’m hearing, it’s still a council’s choice, whether that wishes to be funded in the future years. So I’m not sure unfunded liability is the proper terminology in this case, but it essentially refers to expenditures that Council would need to commit funding to, for which a funding source has not been identified yet as of yet.

[5:34:02] Councilor? Thank you for that information, and I’m hoping my colleagues will support the amendment. Thank you, seeing no further questions or comments from online, for in gallery, on the question. Closing the vote, motion fails six to nine.

[5:34:56] Thank you for that. I’ll note we made it through 16 of these today so far. You’re doing amazing. The ones that I’m aware of that are still to come, some were working in the list, as I said, being P-51, P-62, P-65. I have a P-2 and a P-56 looking to end those people to see if they’re willing to put theirs on the floor. Now I see a hand, so I’ll go to Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, I’m happy to put P-2 on the floor.

[5:35:34] It says that the Mayors— I know, sorry. Councilor Vamberg-Rogan, I had you as the seconder on this, just making sure that’s still accurate and that you’re still with us. I see Paul, Councilor Vamberg-Rogan with the thumbs up, and just give us a moment to get an E-Scribe, just so we can follow along with you as there’s some numbers in this one as well. So it’s not an E-Scribe yet, we’re just dropping in now, so just a moment. I’m not sure if there’ll be any specific questions of staff on this.

[5:36:09] This is the vehicle equipment replacement, just that whoever it needs to be in queue can be prepared. Also note that P-2 is on page 355.

[5:37:12] So P-2 is on page 355. This is the vehicle equipment replacement and it was in the administrative prioritized section. It is now loaded in E-Scribe, so I’ll ask the Councilor if she would kindly read out the motion and then when you’re done, if you wanna be the first speaker, I’ll start your time then. Thank you, thank you, so P-2, that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by reducing business case P-2 vehicle and equipment replacement to spread the reserve fund repayments over six years instead of five years.

[5:37:54] So 2024 operating expenditures go down 417,000 as does each of the years. Do you want me to read them all out? I would just say that’s 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027. Yeah. We’ll just pause there and I’ll note that you did work with finance on this, so just so everyone knows that finance has seen it, and if you’re ready, do you wanna be the first speaker? Okay, if you’re ready, I’ll start your time. Okay, thank you.

[5:38:26] So in trying to find ways to bring the current your tax increase down, I did ask if this repayment could be spread over eight years instead of five and I was told that that causes some problems but that it could be spread over six. So my understanding is that this would have minimal impact and it does reduce the tax increase for each year of our four year budget. I don’t know if it’s worth seeing the impact. At any time anyone can ask for the modeling, Mr. Murray, do you need a moment or your name?

[5:39:04] Okay, if you wanna toggle your screens, Mr. Murray will put up the graph for you and make comment. Thank you, through the chair. So this adjustment here does reduce the annual contribution, effectively the repayment to this reserve fund in the amount of $417,000 per year. So it is a reduction in 2024, which is a effectively an ongoing reduction.

[5:39:39] So it flows through in subsequent years. That has an impact of approximately 0.06%. Now, we’re currently sitting at an 8.6% increase for 24. That is a high 8.6. If you approve this, the increase for 2024 would still be at 8.6 but it would be a lower, I guess, rounded 8.6. So it doesn’t move the number rounded to one decimal place but it does result in 417,000 of tax levy savings in 2024 carried through subsequent years.

[5:40:19] Okay, Councilor, okay. Next time my speakers list, like has other questions and comments, I have Mayor Morgan and then Councilor Ferrer. Yes, just a question through the chair, two questions. One, I know that the capital acquisition is driven by the Fire Master Plan and a number of other factors spreading this cost out over that period. I wanna know if there’s any impact on the ability to deliver on that plan and two. I know that we can save money in this multi-year budget. Spreading out payments a little longer usually does obviously raise the cost you pay interest for a little longer.

[5:40:58] Is there any, I assume that cost is not significant for this level but I’m curious and if you’ve had a chance and I don’t, I don’t have to have it today if you need to model it. How does this raise the overall cost of the project by spreading it out? The staff. Thank you through the chair. So the impact of this is strictly a financing change to this business case. So there is no change operationally from a capital plan perspective.

[5:41:30] The fire team will still be able to proceed with their procurements as they had intended to. So the capital budget is not changing. It’s just how we’re financing that capital budget. The impact is quite minimal. I mean, you’re adding an extra year of repayment onto this. So there’d be a small interest cost associated with that but I don’t have that exact figure at my fingertips but it just be a very slight cost and it’d be stretching out the repayment over the six years, the additional year compared to the originally planned five years.

[5:42:09] So relatively minor impacts and really just a financing shift overall. Thank you, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you. I don’t, I just have general notes on this. I wasn’t able to prepare but I’m just going through my original notes and I do see, I have a star here where this business case is, this business case, the basis is supposed to be for cost avoidance due to maintenance repairs. So my question would be if we were to move this way, do you have any figures or anything on our information on the maintenance of repairs if we were to extend this out?

[5:42:48] Councillor, just for clarification, this is just a financing change behind the scenes, not a change of vehicles that we’re purchasing and trying to expand the lifespan of. Well then in that case, I’m interested in this business case. So I obviously missed something. Is there any way we can just get another description for me on this one? I’m just, I’m interested to see what’s going on. If you refresh e-scribe, it should be in there. I’ll give you a moment to have a read through. I’m just going to look to see if there’s any other questions or comments. And I do have an, I will circle back, Councillor Ferri as I do have other speakers on the list.

[5:43:23] Councillor McCallish, I believe you’re just stretching versus raising your hand. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify that this doesn’t change anything about the intent of the business case and what it does for the fire department. It is strictly just a timing of the repayments back into the reserve fund. And it’s only one year, but it does make a difference each year right now during a tough budget season. And so I’m hoping Council will support. Okay, looking to see if we have any colleagues online with questions or comments on this one.

[5:43:59] Just don’t want to miss you. Okay, Councillor Ferri, do you have a follow-up question? No, seeing no further questions or comments online or in chambers, calling the question. Supposing the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[5:44:54] Perfect, I don’t want to ruin the drama, refreshing, but I was the one. That’s okay, I’m good, I’m good being the, I’m an only child, I’m good being alone. Looking to see, as that leaves us with P-51, P-62, P-65 and P-56, if any of those move winners, like we’re not gonna get done today. So I’m just gonna say that right now. There’s no way we’re getting through four. What’s left with left up today? So is I’m willing to put one of those items on the floor? I realize we’re not done.

[5:45:36] Does anyone have, Councillor Stevenson, a comment about- I just circulated one that I’m willing to put on the floor. Which one do you have that you’re willing? P-56. Okay, just one second, please. Okay, this one’s gonna be moved by Councillor Stevenson, checking with Councillor Pribble, that indeed you are the seconder, I do see a nod.

[5:46:26] The information is being put into E-Scribe. Okay, so if you refresh, it is there. I will ask the Councillor to introduce it and read it, just like you did on the last one. And then if you want to be the first speaker, I’ll go to you for that. Okay, thank you. So this one says that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by adjusting funding to initiative 3B of business case P-56, climate emergency action plan implementation support, by reducing the contribution to the new climate change investment fund by 750,000 in 2024, and then increasing the contributions by 250,000 per year in 2025, 2026, and 2027.

[5:47:15] So 2024 operating expenditures are down 750,000, 2025, 2026, and 2027 all increase by 250,000. No overall net change over the four years. Okay, I’m gonna assume at some point when we wanna see the magic chart, would we like to see the magic chart now? Okay, Mr. Murray, just let me know if you’re good to or when to. Mr. Murray, whenever you’re ready.

[5:47:57] Thank you through the chair. So the impact of this change would be to see a reduction in a tax levy increase of 0.1% in 2024. So that would bring us from a rounded 8.6 to an 8.5. However, the impact is then to shift some of the tax levy impact to 2025, which would see a corresponding 0.1% increase in the 2025 tax levy from 8.7% to 8.8%.

[5:48:35] So on a net basis, it essentially has the effect of shifting 0.1 of an increase out from 2024 to 2025. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. So just to be clear, the only increase in 2025 is 250,000, but it just happens to take it that little bit over in the decimal place. Staff. Thank you through the chair. So the challenge here is that you’re starting with a lower base starting point in 2024.

[5:49:13] So the increase for 2025 is that much more. Your starting point, so the reserve fund contribution as included in the mayor’s budget for 2024. It’s $2 million. That was carried as $2 million into 2025. So there was no impact there. What this amendment does is reduce 2024 from 2 million to 1.25 million and results in then a jump from 1.25 million to 2.25 million in 2025.

[5:49:46] So that’s why you’re shifting 0.1 to 2025. Okay, I do have a speaker’s list, but I didn’t know if Councillor Stevenson was done introducing that motion. I’ll just say my intention here is just to attempt to reduce the impact in 2024 without any negative impacts. So thinking that we wouldn’t be getting going, understanding that there’s been a delay in this funding, but knowing that it wouldn’t get started until the spring, I was hopeful that this wouldn’t be too impactful and it would not change the net effect and assist people in the current year.

[5:50:32] Thank you. I do have my speaker’s list, Councillor Hawkins, Councillor Pribble, and a mayor. Yeah, I’m definitely interested in hearing some of my colleagues and their comments, but I just want to have an understanding on the reasoning behind this is just shifting it down. That’s all we’re doing. I do have concerns. We’re basically not doing much other than shifting it down to other years. I have a concern if any year that we’re going to do something it would be now, given that we’ve never had money in our project to do things.

[5:51:13] Those are my comments, but I’m open to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I just want to ask comment. And I do think that currently as we know the situation in terms of the inflation costs and everything expenses that we are trying to, hopefully, the future looks brighter and we can really, people need help now. But I want to ask you, Mr. Mayor, the previous one, when we extended it to six years, and I know you said, I think this graph is certainly correct, but the previous one, you said that first two years, it’s on a decline, but the previous case.

[5:51:48] But it actually was an increase the second year. And it’s either if I misunderstood or if the previous graph wasn’t accurate because the second year the previous graph goes up. It’s a client staff, if you would like some clarification or to walk us through the graphs and wrapping? Sure, through the chair. So what we’ll do is we’ll turn this off and then turn it back on so you can see how the graph moves, essentially.

[5:52:24] So just give us a second here. We will pull it up as it currently stands before this amendment. That was like a magic about man behind the curtain moment there when you saw the master spreadsheet. So this is where we currently stand. So again, an 8.6 for 2024 and 8.7 for 2025. So again, you’re looking at the purple figures, the purple line, and then if we turn it on, if we turn this amendment on, you can see the shift to an 8.5 in 2024 and an increase to 8.8 in 2025.

[5:53:06] Councilor? So this is the previous case when we delayed it and we went from five to six years, correct? No, it’s this one. Through the chair, this is specifically this case. The difference between this case and the previous case is that the previous case was a reduction in 2024 and no further impact in the subsequent years. That reduction was carried at the same amount in subsequent years.

[5:53:42] The difference here is that you have a jump and increase in the second year relative to the first year. That’s the difference here. Councilor? We’ll be able to bring up the one before the one that we extended the repayment from five to six years. I’m sure staff could. I’m just gonna say it’s gonna potentially muddle the conversation of people seeing different charts. Okay, I do have the merit next in the speakers list. Councilor Pribble, if you just wanted to hear from, I do have the merit next.

[5:54:16] I don’t know if you could shed some. Oh no, we can go to the merit next. I just think that that one, as I said, previous case, it was supposed to be a decline in second year, we actually was increased on the graph. So I just want to clarify that. That’s all, not the current one, the previous one. Thank you. Mr. Mayor. Thank you, through the chair. So on the previous one, there was no movement, actually, in fact, at all, on the line. It was a slight reduction in 2024, but not enough to move the rounded number at all. The subsequent years, though, stayed the same.

[5:54:52] So there was no change for those subsequent years. Mr. Murray has been busy. And I did call him the man behind the curtain, but I did go for the mayor as a speaker and you answered. So now you’re the mayor behind the curtain. Mr. Mayor. It’s great. I don’t know where I can afford my tax rate complaining emails too. So I’m a no-one this one, with respect to what the Councillors are trying to do. And I’ll tell you why.

[5:55:26] I feel like there’s very minimal benefit to the tax rate, if that’s the goal. But there is a substantive impact to our ability to fund initiatives from this fund in the future. And I’m gonna ask you through the chair for Mr. Murray to confirm my numbers. If we pull $750,000 out in the first year, that’s gonna be a $3 million pull-out of the fund. And then we’re gonna add 250,000 back in in the second year, and then another 215 in the third year. So the first one adds another 750,000 back in.

[5:56:02] The second one adds in another half a million, and the third one adds in another 250,000. So that means 3 million out 1.5 million back in. We’re kind of in a deficit here. On the reserve fund of 1.5 million, it actually doesn’t balance out over the course of the period. And if the Councillors intended something different, then that’s not what it’s achieving and the way that it was written there. So if this is how it stands, I’m not in for that because we’re losing our ability to fund in the future for a minimum gain. Minimum gain on the tax rate in 2024.

[5:56:38] Okay, I’ll let staff respond and then certainly be on follow-up opportunity from the mayor and then I have Councillor Frank. Thank you, so as I understand the amendment, I guess first of all, let me start with what’s in the mayor’s budget as it stands right now. So the reserve fund contribution in the mayor’s budget is 2 million, 2 million, 3 million, 3 million over the course of 2024 to 2027. That works out to $10 million by my math. The proposal from the Councillor here is 1.25 million in 2024, 2.25 million in 2025 and then 3.25 million in 2026 and 2027, which works out to the same identical $10 million over the four-year period.

[5:57:31] Mr. Mayor. Thanks, I appreciate that clarification because the way it ran on the screen, I was not able to map it out. So that makes more sense to know the actual contributions per year. And when colleagues see the 1.25 to 2.25 jump from year one to year two, that’s what’s causing that push-up in the 2025 rate. It’s like when you reduce one and increase the other, there’s a bigger gap between them. And so it’s creating that issue in 2025. So I’m gonna be a no on this one, although I appreciate what the Councillors are trying to do. Hey, Councillor Frank. Thank you very much.

[5:58:06] I appreciate where the Councillor’s going with this as well. I’m not supportive of it and I won’t support it. I do understand the intentions to alleviate this tax year, but instead the next year, we’ll go up to 8.8%. And I do worry that next year, when we do our budget update, this will become an item that, even though we said we’re gonna fund an increase, we won’t because we’ll wanna try and reduce 8.8% in 2025. So I’m not supportive of this. I think we haven’t done very much on climate change. I think that even within the Mayor’s budget, while I appreciate him including this, there was a lot of stuff that has already been cut to try and address climate change.

[5:58:46] And I think to further reduce that, again, recognizing the efforts to try and maintain it overall, I think if we reduce it further, we will not really see very much action. So definitely not supporting it, but appreciate it. I do have a question through the chair to staff. Given some of the discussions we actually had on the item before that, what is the climate change reserve fund gonna be used for? ‘Cause I do now actually start to have worry, we’re gonna try and jam all environmental things into a very small $2 million pot, instead of doing the bulk of our environmental things that we do anyway, we spend our money on it, and then just very specific climate change things within the reserve fund.

[5:59:24] So just wondering if staff are able to answer that. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So this is a new reserve fund that is being contemplated through this business case. The intended use and parameters of the reserve fund are not currently defined, and that is something that once the budget is approved, we will come back in the spring with a report that outlines a proposed bylaw for the use of this reserve fund, and it will include parameters at that point that we can establish on the use of this fund. So that’s a bit of a stay tuned answer to this one, and those parameters are still to be defined.

[6:00:03] Councilor Frank? Thank you, I appreciate that, and that makes me feel a lot better. But I will be supporting the original reduced amendment from the mayor’s budget, which still is not the full amount that the staff put in, but was more than the current amount that is in this amendment. So I will be supporting this new amendment. Thank you. I have no further questions or comments. Oh, sorry, I misspoke again. I’m sorry, Deputy Mayor Lewis. That’s okay, Madam Chair. I’m gonna say the same thing on this one that I did say much earlier on the industrial land contributions.

[6:00:41] I’m not supportive of a decimal point reduction this year, only to add a decimal point next year. It just makes next year’s job that I’m a charter. I wanna bring next year’s number down too, not just this year’s. I wanna bring all four years numbers down, frankly. And so where I’m looking for reductions, and when I talked in an earlier item about offsetting, it wasn’t because I wanted to decrease where we’re going in terms of what the mayor’s budget has allocated to climate change because I support what has been included.

[6:01:14] I support every piece that the mayor has included on climate change. My concern though is the overall tax rate. And if we start adding in other things for climate change, then I’m gonna have to offset that in that area. Just as I said, I would with the museum and the elevators, which now I don’t have to worry about the elevators because we didn’t make that change. But what we’re seeing here is not an offset, it’s just changing the rate at which we’re gonna start. And then just pushing the pinch point of pain for residents to next year instead of this year, and making it that much harder.

[6:01:50] And I actually, although Councillor Frank, can I maybe disagree on what the parameters of the Climate Action Reserve Fund may be, that was a discussion we’ll have later, but I am concerned that we need some money to start up this year. And so I’m not gonna support this one, ‘cause I think we’re just setting ourselves up for exactly as the Council indicated, coming back to it again next year and suggesting that we have to reduce it because that 8.8 number is staring us in the face. So I appreciate the intent, but this is one of those ones where you pull the lever down and the other level goes, the other lever goes up.

[6:02:24] So I’m not gonna move on this one. Thank you. I’m looking for last call for questions and comments seeing done online and in chambers, calling the question. Closing the boat, motion fails three to 12, three to 12.

[6:03:09] Okay, thank you for that. I’ll note we’re almost to four o’clock. There’s three potential motions out there that I’m aware of, potentially more. My advice at this point is to move towards a recess. Coming back, before we move to our hand, I’m not looking until I’m done speaking. To come back next Thursday, in that time allotment, I will say that you got through 18 of these today, which is a lot of heavy lifting and a lot of dialogue and conversations that obviously I can’t.

[6:03:49] I would expect that three wouldn’t take our entire day next Thursday, but more might be coming forward. So I’m really asking, even if you don’t have the wording flushed out yet, to let me know your intentions of bringing something forward, as it comes a point as the committee chair, I will start releasing budget days, and especially going to a family day long weekend. There’s been specific days, to be released if we know ahead of time what we can get to, to help us plan and for staff to plan. There are time when we can all start booking back in meetings.

[6:04:22] Deputy Mayor Lewis, this is a comment on my comments versus yes, okay. Yes, I would encourage us to continue to use the half hour or so we have left today to deal with one or two more. P65, for example, an amendment was circulated to remove it. That is actually about our council support staff and the new ratio, and whether or not we’re going to keep them more, let them go. We’re training a new staff person on Monday. Okay, I’ll just make a comment. If someone wants to keep going, that’s fine.

[6:04:56] Is the mover and seconder of any of the three business cases left that I’m aware of willing to move anything today? I’m seeing no, so that would stop that progress today. So if you were gonna allow me to continue, Madam Chair, we also have addressed the base budgets. So there’s no reason we could not move to water and wastewater before the end of the day and deal with those today. So we have 40 minutes left. We now have 35 minutes left, and I think that we should continue on our work today. Okay, so one person wants to keep going.

[6:05:35] Hey, I’m not sure if staff’s prepared for water and wastewater, I will comment that once we get into water and wastewater, oh my goodness. Water and wastewater, that if people want to go back and start changing certain budgets and things with the upper Thames, that’s tied into this section. So we’re at a decision point that if we move forward with water and wastewater, certain decision points, we’d have to go back and reconsider and redo work. So just making sure that everyone’s fine. Mr. Murr, if you want to speak to how it’s integrated, you’re more eloquent than me of how some of those decision makings, if we go into water and wastewater, that would be procedurally more awkward to go back and revisit.

[6:06:19] Thank you through the chair. So there are a number of things that are interconnected between the property tax, the water and the wastewater budgets, a number of the legislative changes are very much related or dealing with similar things. Now we’ve already dealt with the legislative changes on the property tax side of things. So unless there was an appetite to revisit anything there, that would not be an issue. The other interconnectedness is the conservation authorities as you’ve noted, and how a portion of the conservation authorities budgets are funded through the property tax-reported budget and a portion through the wastewater and treatment budget as well.

[6:07:00] And in particular, the mayor, as part of his budget, has included some adjustments to the Upper Thames Conservation Authority budget, specifically which have implications both to the property tax budget and the water wastewater budget. So effectively, if you’re changing something related to the Upper Thames budget, it has impacts on both the property tax budget and the wastewater budget to be aware of. So procedurally, that’s where Mr. Murray’s comments are at.

[6:07:35] Councillor Frank, I saw your hand. Now I don’t see your hand. OK, no hand. Councillor Ferrer. Thank you. So I’m obviously up for recess. We did a lot of great work today. With all due respect to the deputy mayor, it’s admirable how he wants to push through, and I’m not surprised, because the deputy mayor works very hard. But I am hoping that maybe we could just consider a recess, because we did, as the budget chair said, 18 business cases— was that 18? It was 18. Yeah, and base budget stuff has been done as well today, too. So maybe just— So are you moving a recess, which would be— we adjourn Thursday morning in chambers at 9.30?

[6:08:16] I would, but I feel like I think the deputy mayor moved something before I did. But if I can, then I would. I think he indicated he would just have an appetite to keep working. Then I would move for the recess. OK, so Councillor Ferra would like to move a recess for day. I’m so sure I’ve had seconded. There is no debate procedurally on a motion to recess. OK, so motion to recess is in e-scribe. It’s being put in right now.

[6:08:50] OK, the voting is open. So if you would like to recess for the day, this is the vote. Posing the vote, motion carries 9 to 6. OK, we’re recessed, and please get any potential amendments into the clerk and myself, or even notification, as soon as possible.