February 6, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM; 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

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That Consent items 2.1 and 2.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

2.1   Special Meeting of the Shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London

2024-02-06 Staff Report - Special Meeting of the Shareholder of the HDC

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Planning and Economic Development, the proposed by-laws appended to the staff report dated February 6, 2024 as Appendix “A” and Appendix “B” BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on February 13, 2024, to:

a)    to ratify and confirm the special resolution of the sole shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to authorize the Housing Development Corporation, London to make application for Articles of Amendment to change the number of directors to a minimum of one (1) and a maximum of ten (10);

b)    to ratify and confirm the special resolution of the sole shareholder of the Housing Development Corporation, London to address certain corporate deficiencies and outstanding corporate matters, specifically to ratify, confirm and approve the following: 

i)      ratify, confirm, and approve that Stephen Joseph Giustizia has never been elected as a director of the Corporation; 

ii)     to ratify, confirm and approve the resignations of directors set out in the special resolution; 

iii)    to ratify, confirm and approve that Craig Cooper was elected as a director of the Corporation on May 6, 2020; and 

iv)    ratify, confirm, and approve all resignations and/or removals by the shareholder of the Corporation, and past appointments and elections of directors of the Corporation made by the shareholder of the Corporation.

Motion Passed

2.4   Contract Award for RFP 2023-346 - Consultation for Ward Boundary Review

2024-02-06 Staff Report - Contract Award for RFP 2023-346

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

That on the recommendation of the City Clerk, the following actions be taken with respect to the award of contract for the Request for Proposal RFP 2023-346 – Consultation for Ward Boundary Review:

a)    Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. BE APPOINTED to conduct consultation services in the amount of $123,600 including contingency, excluding HST, in accordance with Section 12.2(b) of the City of London’s Procurement of Goods and Services Policy;

b)    the financing for the project BE APPROVED in accordance with the “Sources of Financing Report” as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”;

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

d)    the approvals given herein, BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering into a formal contract with Watson & Associates Economists Ltd. for this work; and

e)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute any contract or other documents, if required, to give effect to these recommendations.

Motion Passed

2.2   SS-2024-042: Housing Stability Services Single Source

2024-02-06 Staff Report - SS-2024-042 Housing Stability Services

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that this SS-2024-042: Housing Stability Services Single Source report be received, and the following actions be taken regarding Housing Stability Services Municipal Purchase of Service agreements:

a)    single source procurements (SS-2024-042) with the Service Providers as outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report, for the period April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2026, with the option to renew for up to two additional two-year periods subject to the availability of future funding BE APPROVED;

b)    one-time funding requests of up to $273,204 (with costs related to compensation and diversity recruitment consultant, fundraising supports, and security needs consultant removed) as outlined in Schedule 3, as appended to the staff report for the period of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

c)    a drawdown from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in the amount of up to $4,576,168 BE APPROVED to fund the costs of these procurements in excess of available budgets;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to continue to engage with the Encampment Reference Table in the design of an inclement weather plan that will be brought back for council endorsement in Q3 2024;

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

f)     the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending or entering into a Purchase of Service Agreement or other existing agreements;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 2, 2024 from C. Lazenby, Executive Director, Unity Project with respect to this matter.

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Social and Health Development, that this SS-2024-042: Housing Stability Services Single Source report be received, and the following actions be taken regarding Housing Stability Services Municipal Purchase of Service agreements:

a)    single source procurements (SS-2024-042) with the Service Providers as outlined in Schedule 1, as appended to the staff report, for the period April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2026, with the option to renew for up to two additional two-year periods subject to the availability of future funding BE APPROVED;

b)    one-time funding requests of up to $296,891 as outlined in Schedule 3, as appended to the staff report for the period of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

c)    a drawdown from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in the amount of up to $4,599,855 BE APPROVED to fund the costs of these procurements in excess of available budgets;

d)    the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to continue to engage with the Encampment Reference Table in the design of an inclement weather plan that will be brought back for council endorsement in Q4 2024;

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

f)     the approval given herein BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation amending or entering into a Purchase of Service Agreement or other existing agreements;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee received a communication dated February 2, 2024 from C. Lazenby, Executive Director, Unity Project with respect to this matter.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by J. Pribil

Motion TO AMEND parts b) and c) to remove the costs related “compensation and diversity recruitment consultant” at $14,970,  “fundraising supports” at $5,717, and “security needs consultant” at $3,000.  Parts b) and c) to read as follows:

b)    one-time funding requests of up to $273,204 (with costs related to compensation and diversity recruitment consultant, fundraising supports, and security needs consultant removed) as outlined in Schedule 3, as appended to the staff report for the period of April 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025 BE APPROVED;

c)    a drawdown from the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve in the amount of up to $4,576,168 BE APPROVED to fund the costs of these procurements in excess of available budgets;

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Moved by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That item 2.2, as amended, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

2.3   Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) - Terms of Reference

2024-02-06 Staff Report - CACP Terms of Reference

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the report entitled Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) Terms of Reference BE REFERRED to the Community Advisory Committee on Planning for consultation on the amended Terms of Reference.

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by S. Lehman

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

a)    the report entitled Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) Terms of Reference BE RECEIVED for information; and,

b)    the Terms of Reference for the Community Advisory Committee on Planning (CACP) BE APPROVED as appended to the staff report as Appendix “A”;

it being noted that the Strategic Priorities and Policy received a communication from S. Bergman, Chair, Community Advisory Committee on Planning with respect to this matter.

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

None.

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

5.1   (ADDED) Capital Project Overruns - Mayor J. Morgan, Councillor S. Franke, Councillor A. Hopkins

2024-02-06 Submission - (5.1) Capital Project Overruns

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That, with respect to the resolution from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), the following actions be taken:

a)   that the attached resolution from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, requesting the Province of Ontario to undertake a comprehensive social and economic prosperity review to promote the stability and sustainability of municipal finances across Ontario BE ENDORSED;

b)   that Mayor Morgan, Councillor Franke and Councillor Hopkins BE SUPPORTED by Municipal Council in raising these concerns at Ontario Big City Mayors (OBCM), Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), respectively; and

c)   that the communication on the Added Agenda, from Mayor Morgan, Councillor Franke and Councillor Hopkins, with respect to this matter BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 0)

6.   Confidential

None.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:53 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (2 hours, 9 minutes)

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the fifth meeting of the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee. I wanna begin by acknowledging that the City of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabek, the Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwok, and the Adawanderan peoples. We honor and respect the history, languages, and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home.

The City of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, and as representatives of the people of the City of London, we’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory. I also want to communicate that the City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for any of our meetings upon request. To make a specific request for this meeting, please contact SPPC@london.ca or phone 519-661-2489-2425. I just wanna acknowledge we have Councilor Frank and Councilor Van Mira-Barrion joining us online, and we currently do not have Councilor Hillier or Councilor Prasal with us.

I wanna begin before we move into our agenda, however, although we don’t normally do recognitions at committee, and although this isn’t quite a recognition, I’m gonna turn the floor over to Mayor Morgan to share an announcement with members council and the public. Well, I hope no members of Council are surprised by this, but members of the public will hopefully join me in what is a very exciting day for the City of London, and that is the appointment of a new city manager. And so today we have joining us, Sandra Dater’s Bear, who is off to the side, and I’ll invite her to come up and to the podium and say a few words in a second. But I just wanna provide a little bit of background.

So first off, so everybody knows, Sandra will begin her new role as City Manager on May 6th, 2024. She has over two decades of municipal public sector experience, including seven years here with the City of London, where she led the Housing and Social Services portfolio from 2013 until 2020. In 2020, she took on the role of Chief Administrative Officer for the County of Bruce, currently serves as the City Manager for the City of St. Thomas.

Sandra has a proven track record of effective leadership and strategic management. She has a passion for implementing innovative solutions to address the needs of our community and her volunteer work, which she has somehow has time to do, is amazing as well. She is a member of the Association of Municipalities, Ontario, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, as well as sitting on the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex Board. So I wanna say before I have Sandra come up and say a few words at the podium, I wanna thank colleagues for the process.

We went through a rigorous process assessment for the position of City Manager. We had multiple interviews, multiple points of process, and I’m very proud to, without my colleague’s support, to announce that our selection was unanimous. So that’s an exciting component of this as well. We know that we have many challenges ahead as a city, but this is an exciting time.

And so maybe with that, and then I’ll say just a little bit of wrap up, Mr. Chair, maybe if I could see if Ms. Dader’s Bear would like to say a few words of welcome. And of course, before you come up, maybe you can join me in welcoming her to the City of London.

The first trick is to try to get the microphone to work. Is that it? Okay, thank you very much for the well and welcome. And I’m happy to be back.

Can’t be more excited than the opportunity to come back to the City of London, to my home community to work here and to work with you as council members. My good colleague and long time friend, Lynn has done great work of leading you over the last number of years. And I’m looking forward to continuing that work with my colleagues here as well. This is bittersweet for me.

St. Thomas is my home. St. Thomas is a home where I’ve been working for the last number of years and had worked beforehand.

So our council is supportive of this as well. They’ve shared their happiness about me coming to this role. The sadness about me leaving, but they are very pleased about the opportunity for us to work together in a regional way to support the activities between our two communities. So I wanted to share that as well on behalf of council that they’re pleased about that too.

So thank you for the warm welcome. I look forward to being here and I’ll be back in May. Thank you, Ms. Daterspier.

Mayor Morgan. Yes, just for colleagues. So they know this announcement was here today. Earlier today, about a half an hour ago, I know it was shared with all employees of the City of London as well as I’ve sent a note to all of our key strategic stakeholders across the city.

Just moments ago to let them know and our press release just went out as well. So hopefully the community will be aware and what comes ahead. I do wanna say one last thing because I appreciate that Ms. Livingston has another commitment but wanted to be here for this exciting opportunity.

I wanna say, although we have a new city manager coming and there will be lots of time to say super nice things about Ms. Livingston, the fact that you wanted to be here today to support the new city manager and I know your commitment to the transition is absolute as do I know the senior leadership team. And I think one of the great advantages we have here is we’ve now, we have big shoes to fill and that can be a challenge for a new person but also a great base to build on for the future and a senior leadership team that is tremendously strong. The backbone of this organization who implement all of the strategic directions of council and of course support us in the decision making we do.

So, although we will be eventually not today but seeing an exceptionally strong leader of our municipality move on, we will have another strong leader coming in with this incredible backbone team to provide that consistent support that learners expect and I anticipate that this will be a very smooth transition and one that has a lot of opportunity for us as a city. So, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for letting me break the procedure bylaw all over the place there and I’ll turn the, I guess I’ll add my comments here and let you proceed with the meeting, thank you. Thank you, Your Worship.

I was even giving you the lieu of not timing you today but I promise to be stricter in the future and enforcing those policies and procedure bylaws. So now we will move on to our regular agenda. We’ll let Ms. Dater’s beer and Ms.

Livingston get on with their other commitments that they have this afternoon as well and we will start with any disclosures of pecuniary interest. I see none, so we’re gonna move on to the consent agenda. I do, I am aware that some colleagues may have some questions on a couple of items. I’ve not been advised if anyone wants to deal with anything separately on a vote but I will look for that now, Councillor Stevenson.

Thank you, I’d like to pull 2.2. Okay, so we will deal with 2.2 separately. Does anyone wish any other items dealt with separately? Councillor Hopkins.

Okay, so we will deal with 2.2 and 2.3 separately. Any other items to deal with separately? Seeing none. Then I’m gonna look for a mover and seconder for the remainder of the consent agenda.

That would be 2.1 and 2.4. Councillor Cuddy’s moved. Councillor Layman has seconded and we’ll look for any discussion on that. Councillor Hopkins.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a question around 2.1 and that is the special meeting of shareholders of the Housing Development Corporation, London. I am supportive of the recommendation.

I do have a question though, through you to staff on HDC. Where does HDC stand now? I’m really pleased that we’ve been given this information and what we’re really doing is dealing with corporate deficiencies at London Middlesex Housing but I would like to have a better understanding where HDC is within the city. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins, Mr.

Mathers. Did you want that one or did you want me to go directly to Mr. Falberg? Okay, Mr.

Falberg. Thank you and through you Mr. Chair. So the HDC is currently acting as a shell corporation until we actually complete the dissolution and today’s report is really to dot the eyes and cross the T’s so that the board can make the decision in order for us to move forward and actually complete the dissolution as Council has directed.

Councillor Hopkins. Thank you and again please that we’re going through this process to get to where we need to go. I do want to make just a quick comment since I was at one time on the London Middlesex Housing Board where when it relates to a confirming that Stephen just Asia has never been elected as a director of the corporation, I can confirm that is the case ‘cause when I was on the board, he did attend as staff. So Councillor, I just want to be clear.

We’re actually talking about HDC, not LMCH. Yes, I know, but within the recommendation, we are ratifying that he is never being elected to the board and I just would like to say of the corporation that that was the case. Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

Seeing none, then I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on that. I do want to take this off as well. Councillor Hill here has joined us virtually and Councillor Truss, I was joined us in chambers. Yes, Councillor Truss.

Housing the vote motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues. We have no scheduled items or items for direction other than those two items that we deferred from the consent agenda. So we will move back to 2.2 now.

This is the housing stability services single source report that we’ve received. Before we get into any questions or comments from staff, I’m just going to ask Mr. Dickens if he can give us a brief summary of what is contained in the report here. Thank you and through you, Chair.

The report that committee has before them is a culmination of work that has been undertaken directly with service providers, existing city funded service providers. This is coming out of the whole of community system response work. That’s why you see it here at SPPC, tied to our work in that area. Over the past several months, it was raised at our strategy and accountability table but the need of providers to be able to maintain services.

With the addition of hubs and high sport of housing, we know we’re moving towards a new system, but it was imperative for organizations to be able to maintain and keep their lights on and doors open to serve the number of individuals in London experiencing homelessness the way they have been and address some of the key foundational challenges or limitations in being able to do that, such as the rising cost of doing business and also the need to be more competitive in the sector to retain staff, not only just attract staff, but retain staff. This is a sector that has chronically made do with very little funding and also rely very heavily on fundraising and donations. And as we see trends happening in the community, the organizations have been very clear that those fundraising dollars and those donations are starting to ween and that there was a need as a whole of community response to make sure we sustain the system. We did work with service providers to try to identify urgent and immediate items that they may require before the end of the calendar year and it was made clear to us that the larger impact, the most significant impact is going to be at the beginning of the new fiscal year, which is April 1.

The service contracts do end March 31st and that is why you see us bringing forward this report. Although it is not tied to the multi-year budget or tied to any multi-year budget business cases, we do recognize it is falling in a February SPPC, but we were in a position of working back and forth with some of these service providers over the last number of months and found that we needed to get this before you in February so that we could make the necessary administrative changes to have these contracts in place by the end of March and at the beginning of April. The whole of community system response has really been focusing on a number of different areas, as you know, including the sustainability of the workforce growing that workforce, but also hearing directly from the service providers in this report about the needs that they also have. In this report, we touch on some of the potential impacts in terms of staffing impacts, disruption of service, and some of the instability of the funding outside of our contributions.

We also recognize that there are other strategies that are in place as part of the whole of community system response, one of which is the establishment of a community encampment strategy. And we are working as diligently as possible with that encampment table with a number of service providers to be and community members to be able to bring back to you a community encampment strategy for your discussion and review. While it does say Q4 in this report, it is our intent to work as aggressively as possible to make sure that that work actually happens within the next few weeks, and we will be back to you in Q3 of 2024 with the community encampment strategy. So I may leave it there that the contents of this report really are a reflection of the existing service providers.

The feedback they have given over a number of strategy and accountability tables. I know a couple members of this committee have been at those meetings and have heard directly from service providers, but we did go to them and ask for their most pressing issues and what were some of the things we could do under this new system to help transition them over the next two years to get to the new service model. And so that’s what you see here is a reflection of that ask of two years worth of funding. We did look at shorter term funding.

It was made very clear to us that short term funding does not assist organizations in being able to staff to make commitments. And we’ve heard it from members of this committee and members of CAPS as well, that short term funding really puts organizations in a bind when you look at trying to recruit and train and actually make some significant service impacts. So we have given a two year transition period as we work with organizations to start to make those shifts to a new service delivery model and create stability in the sector. So thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dickens, for giving us an overview on why this is coming before us today. Councillor Stevenson, you had asked for this to be dealt with separately. So I’m gonna go to you first for any questions or comments that you may wish to share.

Okay, thank you. I have a lot of questions about this. And maybe from a higher level perspective, I’m wondering how we come forward with a proposal to basically double the municipal funding component of our emergency shelter system without any funding. Like this has biannual contracts now, which I totally understand two year contracts that make sense in terms of providing stability.

But from a staff perspective, how is it providing stability to the emergency shelter system when there’s no funding attached here? We’re being asked to take it from the operating budget contingency reserve this time, but this is gonna come again in two years and in other two years. And we’re going through a budget process. How is this coming separately like this?

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, through you. It is coming separately again as it comes out of the strategy and accountability table through the whole community system response work.

We recognize we are presented with the financial impacts and the ask, the resourcing ask. It allowed us to look at a number of different options on what we could accommodate and what we could not through conversations with our colleagues in finance and Ms. Barbone and her team. It was identified that in order to make this commitment to the sector and all the good work that they’ve been doing to be able to help them keep the lights on and the doors open, that this would be the avenue, the source of funding that we should pursue to make up that funding gap.

To presuppose what organizations will look like, what they will need in terms of funding or what our funding sources will be in two years would be, I don’t have the crystal ball to be able to do that. We don’t have our HPP allocations for two years out yet. It could look significantly different. There could be an additional increase.

We’ve also worked with service providers to understand that this is sustaining the sector, but it is a two-year commitment to start to shift the sector. So what organizations look like in two years as we start to adapt to highly supportive housing models and the models of hubs, it remains to be seen. So I can’t sit here before committee today and say these folks are gonna be back in two years with the exact same service delivery model requiring us to find the exact same amount of funding or increases in funding. The expectation is that this whole sector will look quite different in two years, but also that we don’t know what our funding allocation is from the federal or provincial government will look like in two years’ time.

Councillor Stevenson, just before I go back to you, I wanna get us back on track procedurally. My fault, nobody else’s. I didn’t get a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation, so we don’t actually have a motion on the floor to discuss yet. So I’m gonna look to correct that now.

I am gonna ask, as colleagues did here, Mr. Dickens indicate their intent is actually to come back in Q3 with a report rather than Q4. If there is a mover and a seconder that might want to move an alternate recommendation that says Q3 instead of Q4, rather than us having to amend the recommendation, just put an alternate motion on the floor now. So we’ll see, Councillor Palosa.

I’ll move staff’s original recommendation with replacing Q3 to Q4, just to tie that up administratively. And Councillor Ferriara, you’re seconding that. So okay, so we have a mover and a seconder now, and the motion that’s on the floor speaks to Q3 in part D. So just wanna bring that to everybody’s attention.

Now Councillor Stevenson, sorry to interrupt your train of thought there, but we’ll go back to you for your questions. No, it’s all good. So just clarity from staff then, when we were talking about the cold weather response not that long ago, and it was a one-time funding, there was no funding available. But now this, like you say you don’t know what’s gonna happen in two years, but there is a note here that says there could be two more contract renewals.

And this is our emergency shelter system with the beds in place that have been for a long, long time. So to basically, this is coming forward to us, asking us to double our municipal funding component of our emergency shelter system and put it through our overdraft, basically. Mr. Dickens.

Through you, Chair, renewals, as always, as the case is contingent on funding being available. So I’ll maybe start with that, but I’ll also pass it to Mr. Cooper, who may be able to elaborate on the other components of your question. Mr.

Cooper, go ahead. Thank you, and through the Chair, the funding is made up of our homeless prevention program funding, a significant portion of that funding does go to our shelter system. But in addition, the one time or not one time, the reaching home funding that was just recently announced for the city, the next two-year allocation is also being proposed to go to support the stability of the sector work. There was still a shortfall, as Mr.

Dickens had indicated, which is why we’re looking to the city reserve fund to fill that gap for the two-year period. Thank you. You brought up the reaching home money. That was just, we just received an extra 3.282 million for 2024, 2025.

Is that money all spoken for? Could we not be using that here? Mr. Cooper.

Thank you, and through the Chair, that money is allocated as part of this report, for the report, Councillor Stevenson. Sorry, so the new money that was just allocated is already, I’m confused, because this shows that our municipal funding component is $2,298,450, and then we’re asking for an additional amount of $2,124,946. Mr. Cooper.

  • Thank you, and through the Chair, if I could, that chart, the reaching home amount of $3,500,468. That is inclusive of historical investment for ongoing programs to, like the street level one at risk program, and another programs in the spreadsheet, but also then looks at allocating that additional $3.2 million as part of that $3.5 million. Councillor? Thank you, through the Chair.

I was actually referring to the January 11th, where we, I’m assuming I’m allowed to talk about this, but there was new money allocated, was there not? Thank you, and through the Chair, I can, there was an additional $3,282,615, in addition to our original allocation from the reaching home program. So that program has shifted from a five-year program to a nine-year program. The first two years of this allocation, which was included at $3.2 million top-up, was related to the federal budget, previous federal budget, and that’s why the federal government was able to provide that additional top-up for 24, 25, and 25, 26.

So that additional top-up has been earmarked for this stability to the sector support, in addition to a funding gap, which was identified to utilize the Municipal Reserve Fund. Mr. Stevenson. Apologies if I’m not following, but like we literally were just given $3 million, and it’s not available for this shortfall.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair.

The $3.2 million is part of the broader, part of this report and part of the considerations of other sources of funding in this report. It makes up that portion of that $3.5 million, $3,500,468 in the chart, just above section four. Okay, thank you. So I’m gonna let my other colleagues jump in here too, but I find this troublesome on so many levels to be asked to provide stability to a sector when we don’t have the funding, like we don’t have it.

And so we’ve got costs going up, when I did the math anywhere from, well there’s one outlier, St. Leonard’s is only up 10%, but the rest are up 23, 28, 32, 43, 40, 39% increases over the previous years. And we got a $25 million investment plus another 10 million coming that was supposed to be helping the system. So from us trying to explain it to the taxpayers, this seems sort of unbelievable that we’re being asked to spend money we don’t have to stabilize a system that I feel for the increases here, but we’ve got this across the board.

So for this to come this way asking us to, like I said, basically dip into our overdraft. I’m really struggling with it, even from a perspective of how the city staff come forward with this at this time and not around other things. So when do we have the money? When do we not have the money?

Just seems to be a little unclear, even when it comes to our homelessness funding. Is there some sort of city policy around this, around doing ongoing funding? ‘Cause this is not one-time funding. Like we can say we don’t know what’s gonna happen in two years, but this is our emergency shelter system.

This isn’t a one-time ask. Ms. Barbone, did you want to share any city policy comments around finance? Thank you through the chair.

So there are a number of city policies that this refers to and one of the things because this is a reserve versus a reserve fund, there isn’t a specific by-law that applies to this, but in the ongoing work that we’ve been doing to rationalize all of our reserves and our reserve funds, this is one of the, where we started with our reserve fund and sorry, with our reserve to rationalize what the balance should be, what it is used for, and that was one of the subject of a report that we brought forward to council. So essentially the policy that governs this is many of our fiscal practices and our surplus deficit. So this is basically where our surplus deficit goes. This is what forms our working capital.

So we have a target balance that we have tried to go forward through the policy. There is a discretion that’s been delegated to me that should there be a surplus deficit, I can top up this account if is required based on the needs. But this is our contingency, essentially. And it is utilized a very, I mean, it’s not an often thing that we go to, but certainly it needs to be council approved if it is brought forward.

So that is why it’s part of the recommendation today. This is being provided on a one-time basis over the two-year period. It is not intended to continue as a source. Certainly our practices are that if there is anything drawn from this, it needs to be within a very set period of time with an exit plan that we would not continue.

So the intent is not to continue this as a source in the future. It is being able to provide some runway over the next two-year period for the work to continue. So hopefully that gives you a little bit, but certainly where our strategic fiscal framework was applied, this kind of strategy in policies are reflected in the numerous policies with our surplus deficit or financial practices that we employ. It is a one-time source intended for a one-time purpose.

Thank you, Ms. Barbone, that was quite a bit of information. There are Councillor Stevenson. I just want to let you know, you’ve got about 45 seconds left of your five minutes.

I’ve got Councillor Trussell and Councillor Pribble on the list next. So I can go back to you or if you want to save your time, I can go to the next Councillor. And then if you want to get back on the list, we can do that too. Councillor Trussell, I have you next.

I’ll be very brief. I’m supporting the staff report and I really want to thank you for the very good work that’s been done here in terms of looking at different types of accounts. These are all political choices. And the money is there.

This council has to make decisions, difficult decisions about where we’re going to put the money. And I support this and that’s all I have to say. Thank you, Councillor Trussell. We’ll go to Councillor Pribble next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, to the staff in principle. And I do like the multi-year or two-year plan so we can, and the organization can plan properly. Having said that, having various conversations with these organizations, they did say, if you do a longer commitment, there will be money savings.

And with these increases, again, I do understand inflation costs are higher, but I didn’t expect these high increases. And in terms of the process, when there were these submissions, did we sit down with these organizations or did we go through their budgets and kind of looked at it and it really makes sense? There’s the increases that they are in line because, as I said before, I said at the beginning, I told, I was told by many, if we do a longer agreement, there will be savings. Thank you.

And we’re gonna go to Mr. Cooper for that. Thank you. And through the Chair, I’m gonna provide a little bit, maybe more context on to how and why this report sort of came about.

It is twofold as Mr. Dickens had indicated. We are in a contract renewal process. We have an existing procurement with these organizations to provide the services, but on contract renewal, if the organization cannot continue to meet the terms of the procurement, then the procurement would end.

And so to help mitigate any impacts on that, city staff were bringing this report forward for a new procurement for these organizations that were part of the 2022 procurement and other city procurements that we have on record to support that continued funding. We did sit down and meet with every organization that submitted a budget, had multiple conversations, myself and my team. We recognize the costs are significant. We’ve been hearing, I think, for the last number of years that costs are going up last July.

Council also approved a one-time funding increase for these organizations because of some challenges they were already experiencing. And in one comment to the term, our allocations for the provincial and federal government typically go anywhere from two to three years out. We’ve just received a four-year allocation for reaching home, but in years three and four, our allocation drops over 70%. So it does not afford us the opportunity to be able to commit those provincial and federal dollars to a program longer than two years.

Thank you, Mr. Cooper, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, and last question. If we do this to your commitment, are we limiting ourselves potentially to any higher levels of government funding that if we are already making this commitment will be, I do understand that there are some coming from province, from federal government, that it’s kind of up to us, how we decide, but are there certain specific ones that we did receive the provincial or federal funding?

And now because we are making this commitment, we would not be able to apply and qualify for it. Did we wanna start with Mr. Dickens or Ms. Barbone on that or Mr.

Cooper? Okay, Mr. Cooper. Thank you, and through the chair, it’s a complex question, an example I will give is we also received, when we received our reaching home allocation in the end of December, so which that allocation then begins April 1st, 2024 through to March 31st, 2027, I think is my numbers for those two years.

We also received a one time, again, from the federal government, a one time allocation to help with cold weather relief. That was about $1.4 million. That came in just over Christmas, and we had to have our report back to the federal government with that plan for utilizing those resources by April 30th, 2024. What typically our teams do is we really focus on utilizing the provincial and federal dollars first, before we really rely on the municipal dollars.

Should additional dollars become available from the provincial and federal government, I don’t think our advocacy ever stops for additional dollars. We would look to utilize those dollars to save the municipal dollars to go back into a municipal surplus account for future use. In addition to that, our teams are really focused on ensuring some of the stability for our teams or for our sector. We’ve really heard that over the last year, year and a half organizations need this stability.

We have to, I feel like we have to make this commitment to those organizations in order to then be able to advocate further to the province for any additional dollars or even the federal government under their next budget cycle, Sir Pribble. Thank you, Chair, no more questions, sir. And I have Councilor Raman next. Thank you.

I wanna start just with my question around the option to renew. So I’m a little confused. I’m supportive of the idea of two year funding for this current cycle up to 2026. I’m just wondering if you could provide more clarity on the option to renew because I feel like we always have the option to renew.

So I’m not sure why that language is pulled out separately and what it then perhaps ties our hands on potentially as a council. So I’m just wondering if you could speak to that. Mr. Cooper.

Thank you and through you, Mr. Chair. We do in our experience and working with our purchasing team and going through our procurement and then hearing to our procurement policy, we recognize on when a program comes up or a contract comes up for renewal. We do have to still abide by the original rationale for why that contract was originally initiated.

So we build in the extra multi-year renewals. So we provide flexibility for our teams and for the community and some assurances to the community that will allow us some time if we need to make a change to come to council while we’re still continuing the service because if we don’t fund the services in these doors closed then people are on the street. That’s the reality of what we work with. So we try to build in as utmost flexibility as we can within our contract renewal piece.

The one key item is those renewals are subject to available funding. And so obviously our homeless prevention program, we have a multi-year allocation, our reaching home program, as I mentioned earlier, we have a multi-year allocation. Typically we identify those funds ongoing for these programs, but obviously we still have to follow our procurement purchase or purchasing procurement policy. That’s how we’ve structured our contracts in the past.

And as I mentioned, when an organization can no longer meet the terms of the existing procurement, we need to re-secure. And because these organizations through the stability of the sector conversations at the whole of community system response tables indicated that they would not be able to meet the terms of their existing procurement, we are now bringing that forward today to re-secure those organizations for that two year term. And in two years, if we don’t have the funding, we’ll be looking to obviously bring another report to talk about how the system has shifted, how organizations have shifted, and should there be different, excuse me, should there be different requests for those organizations that will be part of that future report. We won’t just automatically renew that two years, but we added just to provide some flexibility for our teams in case something unknown happens.

We feel we’ve been caught in the past where we didn’t have a procurement extension, and we had to wind down the program, which potentially has some community impacts. Councilor Raman. Thank you. I’m still struggling to understand this one.

So from that perspective, we have normal engagement patterns with these organizations where, and we are extending a two year window. Can you give me an example of where we might have a situation where we have that option to renew that may be needed outside of our regular pattern for engagement? I’m just, I feel like there’s something I’m missing here, and I’m just trying to better understand what it is that I might be missing personally around the option to renew and why it’s beneficial to include that specific language versus, for instance, receiving a report where we would in 2026 or let’s say 2025 to better understand what that renewal would look like for two years at that point versus having that option to renew in here as specific language. Ms.

Barbara. Thank you. The simple answer is it’s in accordance with our procurement policy. It’s essentially the difference between starting a new contract versus the continuation or the amendment of an existing.

So with the new procurement, there’s a new contract and completely new procurement begins. The ability to renew ensures that we are amending something that already exists. Without those renewal options, the contract ends at that period of time and you begin again. So having that ability to have that procurement flexibility allows the council to then amend and continue it versus beginning all over again with the new contract.

Hopefully that’s a little bit clear. Councilor Raman. Thank you, that really helps actually. Thank you, I appreciate that.

My second, my next set of questions pertains to be the one-time funding request of up to 296,891. On page 16, it mentions that the one-time funding requests are for things like security upgrades and then they’re included, includes fundraising, compensation and diversity, recruitment, consulting. And then when I look at the individual allotments by organization, I see that reflected, I see phone service upgrades, I see security camera upgrades, compensation and diversity recruitment consultant, and then resting space security and other things mentioned herein. I’m just wondering what’s council’s flexibility on those items as one-offs in terms of, do we have the ability to agree to fund certain portions of that or is it all bulked together as one?

So for instance, if there was something that we weren’t supportive of the organization receiving funding for or had additional questions, just wondering how we go about doing that. Let’s go to Ms. Barboon on that first and then if there are other members of staff that need to contribute to that, we will go to them, but we’re just gonna give her a moment there to look at the specific section of the report that you’re referring to. And we’re gonna go to Mr.

Dickens first, Mr. Dickens. Through you Chair, I lost the rock paper scissors on this one. So in theory, council can make a decision to reduce the funding amount for an organization.

And that funding could be then, decision would be made, I guess, by the organization to reduce part of that budget. In terms of council weighing in on what an organization has proposed as part of their budget or what the core business needs are of their business, I’m not sure of council’s jurisdiction in that I would have to seek some other opinion. Through you, Chair, if I might just, legal might have some better opinion on their comments on the contracting and taking it outside of social and health development. I don’t sure council’s history on weighing in on procurement bids and contracts or proposals of other service areas and going through and itemized components and removing stuff, so legal might have to weigh in.

Well, and I was going to see if Ms. Pollot had anything to share with us in terms of thoughts on this. So I’m gonna go to her next. Thank you, and through the chair, without going into specifics, generally speaking, once we enter into a contract, we don’t dictate line by line what they’re doing.

There might be a way to include in the contract, specific areas where we want them to focus on, though. Councillor Robin. Okay, thank you. So in part B, we’re talking about one-time funding requests.

So if there was something that I was looking for, specifically that I wanted to pull out, I couldn’t pull it out, what I’m hearing is, I can just pull out the amount, but they’re all lumped together. So is it amount by organization? Could I get some more clarification on that? Let’s just give our staff a moment here.

Councillor, not to put you too much on the spot here, but, and maybe this isn’t even the way you’re thinking, but I wonder if you could maybe give a, for example, that would perhaps help guide staff in how they respond? For sure, sorry, so just to give an example, I’m seeing a number of instances where we’re receiving notes from the community on fundraising costs, as well as making up for shortcomings of fundraising. And I’m not aware that we have a policy around that at this time, but I’m concerned that we set up dangerous precedents for how organizations come to us and when they come to us to meet fundraising shortfalls or to cover the fundraising costs associated with an organization. So I wanna better understand how best to not engage in decision making that potentially sets of further precedents on that matter.

Okay, so we’ll start with Mr. Dickens on that. Through you, Chair, thank you. And the fundraising shortfall is included in here really as a nod to the service providers and a recognition that the city does not fully fund emergency shelters.

We don’t, some we fund at 60%, some at 80%, but we don’t fully fund the service providers. And they make up that gap through their rigorous fundraising efforts. This is a reflection of the fact that that source of income for them is no longer there to the levels it used to be. So we’ve included it as not an ongoing operational cost, but as a one time contribution to help them sort of remain whole with some of their work.

Not intended, take the point of however, but it’s not intended to become the homeless prevention program becoming a source of funding for folks that do not raise enough money at their events or through their fundraising efforts. This is just a transparent acknowledgement that we do not fund the system wholly. And they rely heavily on other sources of income. And those incomes are being impacted lately.

As far as item B or recommendation B with the one time funding, what we believe would be required is that B would have to be unpacked. It’s not set up as an agency by agency one time funding. So we would have to pull that apart, list each organization’s one time funding contribution and have council vote on them separately, we believe. Okay, that is helpful, I think, in terms of understanding process wise.

I am, however, just going to go to Ms. Pollot to see if there’s any additional comment from legal on that. Thank you, and through the chair, I think what Mr. Dickens had just indicated that we would have to go through line by line is accurate.

Thank you, Councilor Raman. Thank you, I appreciate that clarification and we’ll look to do so. I wanna ask about the workforce development table and specifically in item B with one time funding request. I see compensation and diversity recruitment consulting, and I’m just wondering, my understanding was some of the work from workforce development table was around engaging in this work as a whole of community, and we’re seeing it come up as an individual consulting cost for one agency.

I’m just wondering if that’s also something where we’re already engaging in that work around compensation for staff within the sector and where we’re talking about diversity, recruitment, consulting as well. If that cost should be coming out of one organization or should be in the summit, or sorry, the workforce development table is doing. Mr. Dickens, did you wanna start, Mr.

Cooper? Thank you, and through the chair, there is that work happening for sure at the workforce development table and the whole of community tables. I think what we see is a number of organizations that are doing this work and have been doing this work might be ahead of the curve, a little bit on that, and wanting to seek some supports for some of that additional consulting, specifically for their staff. So this request, I believe you’re referring to came in directly from WIOU, and so it was specifically directed to the work that WIOU has been doing with the operationalization of their emergency shelter and obviously, as they move towards implementing the hub system.

They’re leading the charge, I would say on a lot of this, and probably need to get out a little bit ahead of the workforce development table. Councilor Robin. Thank you, and just being mindful of my time, I will say that we’ve seen this in the multi-year budget as well in some of the business cases, and I didn’t support it in the business cases, nor would I support it here. I think where there’s an opportunity for a collaborative approach, especially around the direction that we’ve provided to do this work at the workforce development tables, I would be looking to pull that out separately as well.

So I’ll need some help amending, thank you. Okay, and I will let you know you’ve got about two, four minutes left on your time. You’ve been efficient with your questions. We will, so certainly that would be part B, that would be dealt with separately, and in terms of amending it, I hear what you’re saying about maybe needing some help on some of that.

I do not currently have anyone else on the speakers list, so I don’t have anyone to go to while we consult. So if you’ll bear with me for just a moment, I’m gonna take a minute to talk to the clerks, and then I’ll move along the speakers list. Okay, so Councilor Robin, understanding that you’ve got some more questions, we can move into that. I will say, just in talking with the clerks, what we can do is pull out part B, and then there could be some amendments made to remove specific pieces of the one-time funding in part B.

So if you have some, and I do have a couple other speakers on the speakers list, so after your questions, if you wanted to flag those particular items for us, we can slot those into a motion for you. And I’ll return the floor to you for your other questions. Thank you and through you. So I just wanted to ask about the security needs consulting, and then the resting space security as well.

Being that they’re two separate organizations, but I do know that we have had conversations around funding related to London Care’s homeless response service, and specifically around the security, and I’m just wondering that whether or not that amount has been exhausted, and that is why we’re seeing this come up again, and for how long this one-time funding is, they’re looking to utilize it, and my next question around security needs consulting, I understand we do some security consulting from time to time for our agency’s boards and commissions, just wondering with the whole of community response, whether or not that extends to other organizations where we’re now involved in longer procurements or partnerships with if we do any of that work as well, or if there’s additional work or support through LPS. Thank you, Councillor. Mr. Cooper, am I starting with you?

I see a couple of folks looking at the pages in their report, so we’ll go at you first. Thank you, through the chair, I chose scissors, and I lost, so this, the security piece first, so the amount from London Care’s is a shortfall. I identify they’ve exhausted all the previous dollars that were provided, and I think due to a specific acute incident that occurred at that organization where they had to increase security over a short period of time, that’s what they were seeing is this shortfall, so they don’t have a source of funding, as they indicated to me for that, and that is why they’ve included it in this request. On to the second question around the security needs.

That is, again, for why we use requests there, and it’s looking at an updated plan around their security needs for their downtown locations, so it’s gonna help them ensure they have proper risk mitigation and help minimize disruption to their housing programs, so that probably includes a number of things. Our corporate security teams do obviously support community businesses through various ways, and I think if should this amount be supported, we would make that connection as well with value to determine appropriate scope of the security assessment, and where we can be of assistance. Councilor ramen. Thank you, so through you, just so I further understand, so the city provides that kind of discussion around septeds and security thing needs, but so do London Police, and so is this over and above those resources provided already in the community, and the resting space security?

You said this is a shortfall. Do we anticipate seeing additional security-related requests coming forward? And I’m wondering if it’s coming to a committee in the near term. Mr.

Cooper. Thank you, and through the chair, I think, what value is recognized is they don’t have the expertise, perhaps, to lead that assessment, and lead that work for the security consultant piece, and so I think what they’re looking to do is hire consultant to do all that, to consult with LPS, to consult with perhaps our city corporate security, consult with the downtown BEAs, and sort of see what other organizations are doing from that security assessment perspective. I can say, what was provided to us was around a reassessment of their downtown locations, and trying to help minimize the disruptions and impacts that they’ve seen over the last couple of years for their housing programs. And so that’s the piece for the YU.

For the London Cares and other securities, typically we work with organizations to try and identify any security needs through their administration budget. We try to help minimize the number of one-off requests. I think what we’ve seen in the last year have been fairly acute aspects of that. I know in some of our submissions, there was a security request identified, but it wasn’t being identified to utilize city funds for that.

It was utilizing existing or internal donations, internal funds for that organization to offset their security. So we are seeing more and more of this, and it’s hard for me to look at the crystal ball and say if we’re gonna get some of these or not, but our typical approach is we do try to include it, or have the organization identify and include it in their administration cost. Our handcuff there is that our administration amounts and what agencies can identify for administration are fairly limited in amounts of dollars. Thank you, Mr.

Cooper. Councilor Raman, you’ve got about 30 seconds left, so I don’t know if you wanna hold that for now. And I’m gonna ask everybody to just be patient for a moment while I check with the clerks to see if there’s some language that we might wanna have read out. Okay, so there is some language that the clerks have drafted up, Councilor Raman, just for your inquiry.

So you could put forward an amendment to Part B, and it would read a motion to amend Part B to remove the costs related to compensation and diversity recruitment consultant at $14,970 and fundraising supports at $5,717, and that the new Part B would read as follows. One time, funding requests of up to $276,204 with costs related to compensation and diversity recruitment consultant and fundraising supports removed as outlined in schedule three as appended to the staff report for the period of April 1, 2024, to March 31st, 2025 be approved. So should you want to use your time to move that amendment or some of your time to move that amendment, the clerks do have language prepared for that. Thank you, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the help of the language, and I’d be looking to add in the security needs consultant at this time, I think, exhausting those resources that are available through LPS and through the city to be able to engage in that kind of understanding of what the security needs are before undertaking consultation.

I think that sounds like a reasonable approach, but that’s why I’d be looking to remove it. Okay, so we’ll get the clerks to further draft some language around that piece as well, and while they do that, I’m gonna move on to the speakers list, and I’ve got Councillor Stevenson next, and Councillor Stevenson, you’ve got about 45 seconds. Can we get the target and the current balance on this unrestricted reserve? Ms.

Barboon on the operating contingency reserve, or Mr. Dickens? Through you, Chair, Mr. Murray provided that to the Councillor just before the meeting, and I will pull it up.

It is currently $39.8 million. Thank you for that, Councillors. Oh, the target balance, what is our target balance to maintain that healthy reserve fund there? Under the chair, the target value is approximately $96 million.

So we’re going in the wrong direction, but certainly that is what we intended to do over a significant period of time. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Is there no other funding for cold weather or any other renewals that come forward for the rest of the year? Let’s start with Mr.

Dickens. Thank you, Chair, through you. As indicated, we have, for HPP funding, we have roughly $490,000 in change unallocated at this point. So today there would be no, outside of that available funding, there would be no additional funding set aside for a cold weather response at this time.

For the reaching home in the one-time funding as well? Cooper. And through the chair, the one-time reaching home funding, and I mentioned earlier, the one point for a million has to be expensed by April 30th, 2024. These contracts would begin April 1st, 2024.

So there isn’t the overlap to be able to utilize those funds for that program. The additional 3.2 million of reaching home is already being applied to these requests. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Councillor Stevenson, anything else right now? Okay, looking for any other speakers, not seeing any other speakers at the moment. Councillor ramen, I did wanna let you know as well that the clerks advised with this amendment, we would also actually have to amend part C because it actually does reduce the drawdown from the operating budget contingency. So there would actually be an amendment to clause B and a clause C.

So they’ve also added the component that you asked about with regard to moving the security needs consultant. So that’s updated as well. And we’re just gonna let them get that language finalized and into eScribe. You do have about 30 seconds left if you want to use that or if you wanna wait until the clerks have it in eScribe, we can wait.

Okay, if you’ve got another question, go ahead. Thank you, through you. This is on the letter from Unity Project. I just wanted to confirm that the annual funding they’re referring to, that that is mentioned, that is the funding that they’re referring to in their submission here.

Mr. Dickens. Thank you, Chair, and through you, the letter is reflective of what is in the report. It is not an additional ask above and beyond what’s already provided in the report and the recommendation.

Thank you. That’s right. Thank you. I’d be looking to understand how to amend to account for things like event loss and fundraising pressures.

Because again, it’s the same language that we’re seeing in other parts for one time funding. And I’m not sure how we set that precedence of making up for loss revenues. So I think that that one is not necessarily a staff question. I think that would be for us to decide through the amendment that you’re proposing.

So let’s see if Mr. Dickens has a thought on that. Thank you, Chair, through you. So, again, the reference to fundraising shortages or event losses or whatever that might be is essentially the organization being very transparent with Council that they used to cover their operating expenses through those pieces.

And so, as you’ll see in the report, we don’t have a line item that says the funding is going to cover a fundraising event or donation shortages or fundraising shortfalls to help them meet some sort of fundraising goal. So this is, I want to be clear, some organizations might have capital campaign projects or fundraising targets. And we’re not proposing to committee that we commit money to help them reach their fundraising goal. What the organization is saying is our staff costs, our operating costs, our building costs, we’re always offset by the amount of fundraising we do.

And so we are saying to you as committee, we want to fund them to operate, cover their operating expenses, cover their participant expenses, cover food expenses, cover those staff costs, recognizing we have to step in more because they’re losing the ability to draw on other sources of funding. Thank you, Mr. Dickens. And I just want to let colleagues know the amendment Councilor Raman was looking for is in E-Scribe now.

If people want to refresh and take a look, it will be in your voting E-Scribe. And Councilor Raman, you’ve got about 10 seconds left. Do you want to use that to move your amendment now? Thank you.

I will look to move this part of the amendment, yes. Okay, so Part B and C amendments are in E-Scribe. Is there a seconder for that? Councilor Pribble.

And now we’ll look for any discussion on the amendment, Mr. McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. And this kind of falls up on what Mr.

Dickens just said. So my confusion in terms of those other costs and at compensation, diversity recruitment, and then the security needs consultant, I’ve done a septed through the LPS for my area and they do provide that service. So those two I understand, what I’m looking for is a bit more clarity in terms of the fundraising support. And as you indicated, Mr.

Dickens, so what I’m concerned about is, is this to make up a shortfall for their operating dollars? And I don’t see it necessarily with the other organizations, but I don’t want to get into a situation where they’re asking us to cover something they need to operate versus fundraising, they would just fund other sorts of things. ‘Cause I don’t want to get into a situation where some of them have asked for it, but they’ve made it as a different ask and not called it out explicitly. Just give staff a minute to, we’ll check on that for you, Councilor, Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, the request is related to, I think that maybe the better way to put that, the request is related to increasing their brand and increasing the cost of that, the work that YOU does. And it’s to try and help support the organization to continue expanding the work that they do in community. I think part of all of our organizations realizes fundraising is part of that.

This is to help share and expand the work that they do in our community, Councilor McAllister. Okay, thank you and through the chair. And I appreciate that, but I’m just trying to understand then for the others, are they asking for the same thing, just explicitly not calling it out or just in terms of like, I think what I was looking for and what confused me as I think some of the others have indicated is in terms of the consistent, I know obviously each agency has different needs, but I’m just trying to understand why some were called out this way and if others are utilizing the money for the same purpose, but they’re just not calling it that. Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, the process for the sort of the acute needs that each organization has identified was through some consultation with our teams and really each organization identified the pressures that they’re experiencing today. As you see, there is a broad range of these asks. I think the message I heard cloud and clear from a number of these organizations is, these are things, some of these things or what we can’t pay for today, they kind of get kicked down the road to maybe next year’s budget if we get enough money or the year budget after that.

I think for that 57, 17 amount, it’s not paying a staff person to go out and fundraise for them. I think it’s paying for the work that the organization does to help them increase their awareness and their cause awareness in community, right? It is a portion of what they spend on that work. It is from everything, from brands for your clothing all the way to potentially social media work and everything in between.

Councilor McAllister. Thank you, through the chair. So I mean, I will support this amendment, but I think it just speaks to the confusion I’m having. And so like I’m not necessarily against in terms of if they came back with like some valid reasons, but I think from what I have in front of me and not having an adequate description, I think staff, you’ve done a good job in terms of what you’re trying to explain.

But I think it would maybe be beneficial to have a letter included to kind of more of a breakdown as to what the funds will be used for, because it’s just a bit too much of a broad stroke. And as Councilor Ramen indicated with this amendment, there were some alternatives that could have been explored for some of the others. I absolutely do think this is vitally important work and we do need to support it, but just getting a bit tighter in terms of like what exactly some of the money will be used for in the future would be appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor McAllister. Other speakers to the amendment? Seeing none, I’m just gonna ask Councilor Lehman if he would take the chair for a moment and I’ll just offer a couple of thoughts. I’ll go to the deputy mayor.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. So I can be supportive of this amendment. I agree with Councilor Ramen in particular around the compensation and diversity recruitment consultant and the security consultant.

I think there’s expertise in the community and embedded in the whole of community response tables that can address some of this work now. I don’t think everything needs to be sorted out to a consultant. I think some of this work, there are organizations with expertise in that area that can help an organization as we’re asking for the whole of community to do. So I can support that.

I am, I will say the other piece for me is I’m definitely concerned fundraising supports to raise awareness, raise branding coming to us for that kind of funding. And the organization in question does incredible work. And I think they actually have an excellent brand awareness out there already. So it would be a struggle for me to say that this is something where we need to backfill for them on.

So just wanted to share those thoughts as to why I’ll be supporting this. I’ll turn the chair back to Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I’ll resume the chair. I’ll look to see if there’s other speakers to this.

Seeing none, I’m seeing none online. So I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote on the amendment. Seeing the vote in the motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you colleagues.

So now I’m gonna just check with the mover and seconder on the main motion as amended. I’m seeing thumbs up and nodding that you’re okay to remain as the mover and seconder on the as amended version. So I did have Councillor Stevenson back on the speakers list. And I’ll look to you to see if you’ve got, you’ve used about another 11 seconds.

So you’re, you made really great use of your questions in the second round. You’ve got about 30, 35 seconds left. Minutes again. Oh yes, sorry, you’re right.

This is as amended. So we restart the clock. Thank you. So the additional, the one time funding, a lot of it is capital, phone system upgrades, security camera upgrades, computer purchases, laptop purchases, iPads.

It was there any consideration to go to the whole of community and get that funding through there? Mr. Dickens. Through you chair, no, we did not consider that for these, some of these capital upgrades.

We did not look to go to the fund for that. We know that the fund is very much interested in supporting the new whole of community system response when it comes to the creation of highly supportive housing units and the capital contributions towards that and the creation of hubs and the capital contributions towards that, which they have been able to do. We, while this runs in parallel, this is our existing system and as service manager, we are responsible for the existing system. And so we felt that it was best to come through this process and to go to the fund.

Councilor. Thank you. And on these contract renewals, where we at the end of all of the renewals, is that why there’s a new contract this time? ‘Cause again, just wondering if it was the other way, why not just renew and then have a one time amendment for these costs, but now we’ve got new contracts for these higher amounts.

Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair in our consultation with our purchasing department, they had recommended new contracts given the increase in term and the significant increase in cost. Councilor.

Knowing that and knowing we’re talking about, like I said, doubling our municipal component from 13% to 26% of our emergency shelter costs and it being almost $5 million, is that going to be reflected in our multi-year budget if council approves this? It’s going to add 0.3% a year approximately for subsequent years. Ms. Berbal.

Thank you through the chairs. So anything subsequent would have to come forward for council approval. This would not automatically go to the budget. So the contract is for a two year period.

So at the end of that two year period, there would need to be council decisions made. So whether they allow the system to change or there’s a different or additional provincial funding, et cetera, that’s what would be entertained. But these do not become ongoing costs because and that’s why clearly the recommendation also includes subject to funding. ‘Cause if the funding isn’t there, then the contract would cease and need to be re-amended.

Councilor Stevenson. Thank you. I just wanted to confirm through the chair that the additional 4.6 million will not result in any additional beds or services. Mr.

Dickens or Mr. Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, it’s going to maintain the existing system with the current shelter allotment, but also those 31 extra beds that Center of Hope has opened beyond the last two and a half years, as well as maintaining the 15 beds at the resting space. So no new additional beds, but we’re continuing with the funding and services of the beds that were added over the last couple of years.

Councilor. Thank you, and when I did the cost per bed per month on these, it ranges from 1392 to 3,778 a month with the exception of the lending care’s resting beds, which worked out to $7,400 a month. I just wondered if there was any explanation there as to why that one’s an outlier and also the additional administration request. Mr.

Cooper. Thank you and through the chair, I’m able to start with the first question, or the second question first, and maybe get to repeat that very first part of that question. The additional administration costs that are identified in London cares are really result of the challenges that our whole sector has experienced with the new homeless prevention program and city staff city included. There is a reduction in overall administration from 10% down to 5%.

And so that has been challenging municipalities for a number of years since we started to implement, not municipalities, our program, since we started implementing this program a couple years ago, we have had conversations with our ministry counterparts, and we’ve done some advocating for some one-time exemptions to that process, but the ministry has been very clear, it is, you know, our admin is down to 5%. So that is having a net impact on organizations and particularly London cares in this regard. And if you could repeat your first question again, thanks. Councilor.

There are costs for London cares per bed for the resting space. Mr. Cooper. Thank you.

So that cost is typically related to the staffing and costs for the space. The resting spaces are spaces that do support individuals who are restricted and cannot access many of the other services in our community. So typically there’s an increase in behaviors. They’ve been kind of doing some of the work that the ongoing, as we stand up the hubs, we’ll be kind of taking over over the next couple of years, but London cares has been doing that work for the last number of years, and the staff ratios I think are what, and the staffing costs are what really make up a large bulk of that budget.

Councilor Stevenson. Okay, thank you for all the answers. Just one last question, I guess. My concern is that if council goes ahead and does this and approves the 4.6 million out of this unrestricted reserve, is it setting some kind of precedent that we then have that 39 million available or 35 million, whatever’s left, available for the other shortfalls that we have in so many other services that are important to Londoners?

That 39 million, if all applied to the current year would take 5% off of the tax rate. So just wondering if we’re setting a precedent by using this for this. Ms. Barbong.

Thank you through the chairs. So by using it on a one-time basis, there is not a precedent. This is because it is a contingency, it is intended there as on a limited basis to support council in funding something that has no other source. So with that being said, one of the things that we do need to be cautious of is not depleting that reserve felt fully, so that if we were to have something that was some form of an emergency, we would not have sources to go to in the event.

So I think given the need, this is certainly before council as an opportunity for a one-time basis to support the two-year stabilization. Subsequent to that, there will need to be decisions made as to how that proceeds in the form of service delivery or council. So it’s not a precedent. Council has gone to this historically when there has been no other source.

That is what this is available for, but it is to be used on a limited basis because once it’s depleted, there is very little that really, other than our corporate surplus, there’s nothing else that goes to support this in terms of meeting our target and providing working capital. So I would say, although it may be unrestricted, I would use it very carefully and with a limited basis on council’s priorities. Thank you, Ms. Berwann.

Looking to see if there are any other speakers on this. Councilor Perbele, the amendment has been voted on, so it’s the main motion as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like us to consider, and I do agree, and as I said at the beginning, the two-year plan, I think it gives a stability to the organizations we were approached, that there will be cost savings, et cetera. I do believe we need to start somewhere. I would like to propose an amendment that we approve it with a deduction of 7%, which is a costing savings of $2.5 million and approve it. I think the feeling is what I heard from my colleagues that they are in support of it.

I do think we need to start somewhere, do look at the cost savings, 7% decrease from every organizations from what they proposed. It’s about $2.5 million savings for the city, and if the clerk can help me visit this amendment, I would appreciate it, thank you. Hold for just one moment while I confer with the clerk. Hey, Councilor, I’m gonna just ask you for a little clarification here in conferring with the clerk.

You’re asking for a blanket 7% reduction on the Part C drawdown on the contingency reserve fund, which would just impact all of the services, as well as impact a 7% increase to the capital in Part B. Is that what you’re asking for? No, but I was asking, and I don’t know if it’s within the procurement policy or if we can even do that, but what I was looking at is the two-year plans that we are committing to the agencies. This one for all across to be lowered by 7%.

I don’t know if we can do it in terms of the procurement policy, but if there is any way to do it. Yes, that’s kind of my intention. Thank you, Chair. Give me one moment to confer with the clerk, please.

Okay, so Councilor Pribble, just in conferring with the clerk, we just wanna make sure that you are proposing 7% reduction specific to this report and the recommendations that are before us because the way that you described it, it sounded like a 7% reduction across the board to procurement policies. And you’re trying to speak specifically to what’s before us in terms of this sole source, housing stability services agreement. It really comes to point A, schedule one. Very point A, schedule one, is that correct?

Yes. So I’m just gonna check with Ms. Bergone and Mr. Dickens as well.

The advice of the clerk on this would be, an amendment like this would have to be, so it’s amending clause A of the motion as amended, which is the, and it would just read less 7% in part A, that would impact everything in schedule one. And so we’re just looking to you for a little bit of guidance in terms of that impact in terms of your drawdown on contingency on the capital, and just in general, would that require you to just go back to all of the providers and review all of the other pieces of the schedule? Through you, Chair, looking at schedule one and the total two-year impact of $35,722,721, to find a 7% reduction on that total value, would require us absolutely going back to each service provider to look at what they have submitted as their funding needs and requirements. From a procurement standpoint, a 7% reduction per agency to get to that target could result in organization, it could impact our procurement as organizations may not sign a contract and enter into an agreement because it would not be able to perform or provide the services.

Thank you. So that is helpful because I’m gonna advise you, Councillor Pribble, that as the chair, based on the response that we’ve had from our staff, this would not be an amendment today, this would be a referral back to staff with specific direction to reduce by 10%, or by 7%, because they would have to go back to all of the service providers, review everything, and bring back a new set of agreements to us. So it’s not an amendment, it is a motion to refer with direction that you would need to put forward. So I’m going back to you to see if you wish to— Your chair, no, sorry, I was thinking about my question.

Yes, I would love to do that, having said that before, I would like to have a feedback from the staff, from Mr. Cooper, from Mr. Dickens, in terms of going back, because I do realize that this work is not done overnight. If I can receive your feedback on this one, thank you.

Okay, Councillor, there’s gotta be a motion on the floor for staff to respond to, so you’ve either gotta remove the referral or not. I’m not gonna ask staff to speculate on what they need to do without a motion on the floor. Okay, I would like to move for the referral, thank you. Okay, I’m gonna look to see if there’s a seconder for that.

I do not see a seconder in chambers or online. Coming back to the main motion as amended, any speakers to that? Mayor Morgan. Yes, to the main motion.

So I’m gonna support the main motion. I wanna make a comment given there’s numbers in here, and given the discussion that we almost had. Things have cost to them, and you see in the proposal here that costs do go up over time. Even when the municipality tries to drive cost savings, it required a thorough service review program that has multiple components to it to find efficiencies and drive savings.

Many of the organizations here are looking to try to do very difficult work with limited staff, limited budgets. The capacity to do some of that work is simply not there. They try each and every day to find the most efficient ways possible. But the idea of the discussion that we almost had about expecting the same kind of level and depth of review that we have the capacity to hear because we have a multi-year budget and can spend that time between them to do it, you know, it’s just not out there.

And I know in the past, the province has supported things like this where there’s been the audit and accountability fund where municipalities and other agencies can apply to to try to improve processes. But you have to recognize the capacity that organizations have to actually do some of the things you ask of them. And so I support this. I recognize that it’s more.

I know that there’s cost escalation out there, you know, and I think, you know, this is a reasonable proposal to stabilize the system over a period of time. There were some minor changes made, I supported that. But I think that this, you know, this is a, you know, from a big picture perspective, this is one part of a big challenge that we’re trying to solve. And these are organizations trying to do their piece through a system that is both stabilizing, working very hard and also in transition, right?

And so we’re working to build to something even better. And so I think this is a reasonable proposal to have to get through the next little while. And I also wanna say to the treasurer’s point, you know, the use of the operating budget contingency reserve on a short-term basis, you know, to certain degree, we have this to make sure that we have the opportunities. We have a healthy reserve to make sure that the municipality has the access to capital that it needs.

And it can be used in limited ways. But we also have to recognize that what we never wanna do is halfway through the year, go back to taxpayers and say, we didn’t collect enough money, we need more, right? So that means we have to have stabilizations and reserves to a certain degree that we have free ability to move around and that the administration can use for the day-to-day operations of the corporation. And so we just, I support the use of it here, but I would echo the treasurer’s deputy city manager’s caution to say, you know, this is not a precedent in the public’s expectations to be that this happens rarely and only in circumstances where it’s deemed appropriate and supported by our staff that it does not put at risk our ability to capitalize the corporation.

Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I have no other speakers, so I’m gonna look for one final time, Councilor Trussa. Yeah, just to say, I just really support what the mayor just said and I’m not gonna repeat it, so yes, thank you. Thank you, Councilor.

No one else on the speakers list, I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Sorry, just questioning if the mover and seconder is correct on that one, as we had agreed to it as amended. Just procedurally, I’m still in support. Thank you, Councilor.

Actually, we will, that corrected, to Councilor Palosa and Councilor Ferrara. So we’ll just cancel that vote and then we’ll reopen it with the correct. Closing the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Thank you, colleagues, moving along.

We have one more item that was deferred from the consent agenda. That is the community advisory committee on planning terms of reference item. This was pulled by Councilor Hopkins. So Councilor Hopkins, I’ll go to you first, please.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I pulled it, I do have a number of questions on it. That’s why I pulled it.

And I do want to thank the Councilor for finding an opportunity to have the urban design somehow put into our, as we can see into our advisory group. And we’re here to approve the terms of reference. And I do have a question around, I can see it’s being added to recommend that the urban design policy to ensure the buildings and public spaces demonstrate a high level of design that fit well within their context. And of order, Councilor Palosa?

Just that the item could be moved and seconded to allow for proper conversation when it’s on the floor. Thank you. This is the practice you’ve had as the budgetary recently to make sure that that’s happening. Do we have a mover and a seconder for the staff recommendation, moved by Councilor Cuddy, seconded by Councilor Layman?

So that’s, that is on the floor. Thank you for catching me on that. Councilor Hopkins, if you’d continue. Yeah, thank you.

And again, I want to thank the Councilor for finding an opportunity to have urban design put forward in some of our policies, as we see it’s in our advisory group here. And it’s referenced in the terms of reference as well. I would like to follow up on the process going forward having a better understanding how many members we have of the CACP at the moment. And will this, I guess my first question will be, will this position be advertised?

Or how does that work going forward? So there are currently 13 members, Councilor. So I’m just gonna ask the clerk to respond to the full, what a full compliment for that committee would be. Thank you through the chair.

I believe the full compliment is 15. If I recall and that believe is indicated in the terms of reference. I understand the full compliment is 15, but given that we are looking at some expertise in this advisory group, how will we know if there’s any expertise within the group or would we go forward and advertise for this expertise? And I’ll go to the clerk for that.

Thank you. We could pull the members of CACP to determine whether there is existing knowledge base there. Certainly any advertisement for back-filling positions could indicate the expanded terms of reference. Should it be approved today?

Councilor? Yeah, thank you for that. And just following up on a letter that we also received from the public and this to come from the chair from the CACP, I wanted to just make sure, given the concerns of this advisory group, it’s not really clear when it comes to what they are responsible for. I remember at one time was just heritage, but now we do look at agricultural rule and other various planning and development matters.

We are now adding urban design. So I just wanted to know if they were consulted and had input into the terms of reference. And I will go to the city clerk for that. Thank you through the chair.

For clarity, this report is a very narrow technical report based on a specific direction to bring back the terms of reference, the CACP, for consideration of the inclusion of urban design. This report does not address item C, and that was a resolution of council for an information report addressing matters related to urban design rewards, sorry, urban design awards, and any other matters relevant to the dissolution of the urban design peer review panel. So this terms of reference is not a comprehensive adjustment or change to the terms of reference. It’s specifically addressing what we were directed to do, which is add urban design.

We did not consult with the CACP, but should council wish the terms of reference go back to CACP, certainly that is an option. I would note that the chair of CACP indicated that discussion related to the terms of reference was either on an upcoming agenda or would be on an upcoming agenda for their discussion. And of course, that would flow to a standing committee and ultimately council for your consideration, sir. Yeah, thank you on that.

And with that information, I would like to maybe bring forward an amendment. And then since this is a narrow recommendation, and since the CACP will be discussing this at their next meeting, if it could be referred to their meeting and then reported back to us, I’ll put that amendment forward. I was going to suggest maybe it would go to a more fulsome review as we review all our advisory groups. And I know that’s coming forward in the spring.

I guess I’m looking to you, Mr. Chair, through staff is, which is the better way to go. So in quick conversation with the clerk, it wouldn’t be an amendment to refer this to the advisory committee. It would be a referral of the entire report to the advisory committee for them to review and then report back at a future committee meeting.

So we’d be looking for a full referral if that’s the direction you wanted to go, Councillor. Yes, I would prefer that. I would like to speak to C as well, but those are just further questions, but I would like to put that amendment and maybe speak to C as well. So C is only with respect to the communication, sorry, in the staff report there, but it’s not actually part of the recommendation, so.

My apologies, I do want to, I do have a couple of questions on the motion that we sent regarding the awards as well, but I don’t want it to interfere with the amendment that’s on the floor. So if we’re going to, so again, I just want to come back to, we’re not actually amending, we’re referring this entire report to the advisory committee. So first of all, let me see if there’s a seconder for that referral, Councillor ramen. So the referral takes precedence and that’s been moved and seconded.

I would just suggest Councillor, since the C is in a council resolution and not on the recommendation, that probably Mr. May, there’s could provide you an update on the urban design review panel item offline from the committee meeting, because I don’t think, because we don’t have a recommendation coming forward on that today, in fact that it is a work is ongoing on that. And so that would be more appropriate offline, but we’ve got a referral moved and seconded now. So any discussion on the referral?

Councillor, trust out. Thank you very much for making and seconding that motion. I think it’s something we need to do. I want this to go back to the advisory committee.

I think the letter that was sent to us was very, very reasonable. And before I take any further action on this, I want to hear from them. So thank you for sending in that letter. And I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Thank you, Councillor. And I did have on the main motion as originally moved, Councillor Ramen on the speakers list. Now we have a referral. Councillor, did you want to speak to the referral or are you good now?

Just dido on the referral, that’s all. Okay, so looking for any further speakers on this. Seeing none and seeing none online, the vote. Mr.

Trosso, closing the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Thank you colleagues. That concludes our items for direction.

We now move into deferred matters and additional business. We had one item added. I will let colleagues know I did not request snacks for today’s meeting, because the original agenda did not have the added on it. But we are ready to go ahead with the added and clerk advised that they got snacks for us anyway.

We have an added from Mayor Morgan, Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins. I’m going to go to Mayor Morgan to see if he wants to make some introductory comments and put a motion on the floor. Yes, I do. And I just want to thank some of my colleagues who work within some of our external organizations.

I know Councillor Hopkins does. Councillor Frank does. Councillor ramen does as well. All doing work externally on half the municipality in three different advocacy components.

So as I mentioned, I think during the tabling of the budget, I can’t remember. There was a lot of questions there. It was a bit of a blur. But I did say, what are the things that was coming before Council at some point was some support for some activity that’s being done externally?

And you’ll see a large part of this report is actually related to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and their desire to get some support for a common resolution across multiple municipalities for what they’re doing on the request for the province of Ontario to undertake a comprehensive social and economic prosperity review to promote the stability and sustainability of municipal finances across Ontario. The second part of that motion is actually just a general support from this council for the ways that we can promote this within the different organizations that we’re a part of. Now, I will tell you, that may look like very different things depending on the organization. In some cases, it might look like we were supported the annual resolution.

In some cases, it might look like a new motion that’s brought forward, just some general support for that. I’m gonna provide a little more detail and justification. But what I’d first like to do is perhaps get the motion on the floor for support, which is as you’ve seen in the draft letter. So that is also in our East Cribe, and I’m looking for a seconder, and I see that in Councilor Hopkins, Mayor Morgan.

Okay, so let me provide some justification for this. So we are not alone in the challenges we are facing, both within our budget, as well as within our, particularly our capital projects. As we all know, there are many examples of projects that simply cost more today than they did before. I think, although we’ve had agreements with the province and the federal governments in the past, that municipalities are generally on the hook for the additional costs, I don’t think anybody actually expected cost to escalate to the level that they did through the pandemic, to the level that they are today.

Municipalities plan on capital time horizons that are 10, 15, 20 years. So our capital planning, from a cost perspective, is out of alignment with where the realities are today, and we continue to correct that through successive multi-year budgets and budget updates. But as colleagues know, that means we are in the position to perhaps have to defer existing streams of funding into other projects that are a higher priority, even if we have a number of critical priorities. I’m not saying this is anyone’s fault at any level of government, and I’m not saying the solution, is anyone of ours to share the burden of a loan.

But what we need to do is have a meaningful and realistic conversation about what we do about this, particularly at the municipal level where, despite the fact that we are one of the hottest economies and significant per capita contributors to GDP, that economic activity does not translate into additional funding for the municipalities to use to support the growth that we’re seeing within capital projects. Certainly other levels of government can see that on their balance books, whether that’s increased income taxes through wage appreciation or economic activity in sales taxes that happen. For the most part, we’re kind of stuck with revenue tools that don’t really fundamentally change whether the economy is good or bad. But the costs do, right, the costs do.

And so although our revenue tools are relatively fixed with the exception of some assessment growth, the cost of our long-term capital planning renewal is fixed and has escalated. I used a couple of examples here, that certainly those aren’t the only ones. And so our desire here across the municipal sector is to have support from municipal councils to engage in this ongoing discussion about the federal provincial levels on the municipal, federal, provincial, fiscal framework and what that looks like in the future. All of us have the same goal.

We all want to provide great quality of life for our common constituents. We all need to participate in common funding efforts on things like municipal infrastructure and capital and transportation. But we need to have a new recognition of the capacity of municipal governments to actually meaningfully engage in this in modern cities. I’ve said this before, the property tax system in the province of Ontario is 150 years old.

It’s not how you build modern cities. And so this discussion has to happen. And two of the government’s credit, both provincially and federally, they are open and willing partners on this. Look at what the province of Ontario is doing with their engagements with the city of Toronto.

They are working inside of the existing fiscal framework to recognize incredible pressures that they have, whether that’s the uploading of significant municipal assets or looking at additional costs. The federal government’s doing the same. But this needs to be structured in a much more coherent way. And we need to talk about it from a systems perspective, not as these one-off cost pressures.

And so that’s what the motion is asking us for, is to support our desire, Amos desire, FCM’s desire and OBCM’s desire to engage in this conversation and have your support as municipal councils for us to spend our time and some of our advocacy on this piece, which I think is incredibly important, not just to this council, but the council that comes 10, 15, 20 years from now. Because how this framework is set is going to determine the capacity of us and future councils to fund the type of infrastructure that we need to grow a modern city. So I hope you’ll support it. Happy to answer any questions colleagues have.

And I know my other colleagues who engage in this work can also comment on their own about the work they’re doing or any commentary they’d like to add. And I appreciate their engagement on this. And that was a little over time, but I didn’t want to challenge to the chair on my first meeting, chairing SPPC. So I gave you a little leeway there and Councillor Hopkins, I have you next.

Yeah, thank you. And thank you to the mayor for your remarks there. I think it’s really important that we underline, we are not alone. And there’s 444 municipalities.

And I just want to speak a little bit about the conversation that we’re having at AMO. And this is the resolution that we’re bringing forward for hopefully support. We are asking the province for a review of the municipal framework. It was last adjusted in 2008.

We want to work with the province. It is fair to say that Ontario spending per capita is the lowest in Canada. Nearly half of municipal spending in Ontario is for services in areas of provincial responsibility. And you can see in the resolution it speaks to daycare, long-term care, social services that we are now and healthcare that we are becoming, having that responsibility, it’s growing.

We, municipalities rely heavily on property taxes. And it does not grow the economy or inflation. We are all experiencing unprecedented growth as well in our municipalities. Current fiscal arrangements under my municipality’s ability to invest in the infrastructure costs.

And our mayor spoke to the infrastructure costs that we are being challenged with here in the city. And I want to thank the mayor’s office for preparing this letter. ‘Cause when I saw these numbers, I had to double check these numbers because I could not believe the costs that we are now being burdened with. So with that, I really want to thank OVCM and FCM as well as AMO for the work that we are trying to do with the provincial government.

We all have an interest in how our tax dollars are spent. So I’m looking forward to you supporting AMO’s resolution. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Any other speakers to this?

Seeing none, then the motion has been moved and seconded. I’m going to ask the clerk to open the vote. Closing the vote. Motion carries, to zero.

Noting Councillor Van Mereberg and absent. Thank you, colleagues. That concludes all of our agenda items with my promise next time to channel my inner Councillor Closa and make sure we have movers and seconders before we begin discussion. I’m going to look for a motion to adjourn.

By Councillor Ferrera and seconded by Councillor Cudi. We can do this by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries.

Thank you, everyone. Have a great rest of your day.