Open Council

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

Open Council

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

February 8, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 9:33 AM; it being noted that P. Van Meerbergen, and S. Hillier were in remote attendance.

3.   Scheduled Items

3.1   Mayor’s Budget

2024-02-01 Mayor

3.21   Amendment - Business Case P-L3

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-L3 – More Homes Built Faster Act, Bill 23 – Statutory Exemptions.

Motion Failed (2 to 13)

3.22   Amendment - Business Case P-40

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Trosow

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include one-time funding in 2024 for the Board Governance Training initiative of Business Case P-40 – Pillar Nonprofit Network – Strengthening and Building Capacity in the Nonprofit Sector as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $60,000    2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Operating Expenditures: $0             2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: $0             2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: $0             2027 Tax Levy: $0

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.23   Amendment - Business Case P-51

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include the revised conventional service hours for 2024 only for Business Case P-51 – Transit Service Hours Growth, as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023, as approved by the London Transit Commission on January 31, 2024, by increasing funding as follows:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $1,646,600  2024 Tax Levy: $1,646,600

2025 Operating Expenditures: $1,646,600  2025 Tax Levy: $1,646,600

2026 Operating Expenditures: $1,646,600  2026 Tax Levy: $1,646,600

2027 Operating Expenditures: $1,646,600  2027 Tax Levy: $1,646,600

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

That pursuant to section 31.6 of the Council Procedure By-law, Councillor D. Ferreira BE PERMITTED to speak an additional 5 minutes with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

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

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 12:44 PM and reconvenes at 1:19 PM.

3.24   Amendment - Business Case P-53

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Road Safety Initiative #3 – Provision of Basic Sweeping and Plowing of Boulevard Bike Lanes for Business Case P-53 – Road Safety Enhancements, as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023, offset by an equal reduction to the London Police Services operating budget:

2024 Operating Expenditures: Roadways: $300,000; London Police Service: -$300,000     2024 Tax Levy:  $0

2025 Operating Expenditures: Roadways: $300,000; London Police Service: -$300,000     2025 Tax Levy:  $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: Roadways: $300,000; London Police Service: -$300,000     2026 Tax Levy:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: Roadways: $300,000; London Police Service: -$300,000     2027 Tax Levy:  $0

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

3.25   Amendment - Business Case P-62

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to fund 50% of Business Case P-62 – Environmentally Significant Areas Management as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023, with annual funding as follows:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $70,000, Tax Levy: $70,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $73,000, Tax Levy: $73,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $144,500, Tax Levy: $144,500

2027 Operating Expenditures: $148,000, Tax Levy: $148,000

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

3.26   Amendment - Business Case P-65

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Van Meerbergen

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-year Budget BE AMENDED by removing funding for the two additional Administrative Assistant positions related to Business Case P-65 – Legislative and Council Services:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$170,000     2024 Tax Levy:  -$170,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$170,000     2025 Tax Levy:  -$170,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$170,000     2026 Tax Levy:  -$170,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$170,000     2027 Tax Levy   -$170,000

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

3.27   Amendment - Capital Project PD1218

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Capital Project PD1218 London’s Downtown Plan – Small Scale Projects as set out in the Base Capital Budget in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2024 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2024 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2025 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2025 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2026 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2026 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2027 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2027 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

That upon general consent, with no objection being raised, pursuant to section 35.10 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Committee decision with respect to item 3.27 Capital Project PD1218 London’s Downtown Plan BE RECONSIDERED.

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Capital Project PD1218 London’s Downtown Plan – Small Scale Projects as set out in the Base Capital Budget in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget referred by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2024 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2024 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2025 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2025 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2026 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2026 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2027 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2027 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

3.28   Amendment - Capital Project RC1036

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Hillier

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Capital Project RC1036 Dundas Place Equipment as set out in the Base Capital Budget of the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2024 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2024 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2025 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2025 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2026 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2026 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$100,000  2027 Tax Levy: -$100,000  2027 Capital Expenditures: -$100,000

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Items for Direction 4.1 to 4.4 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

4.1   Tourism London

2024-02-01 Submission - (4.1) Tourism London - Base Budget

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from Tourism London BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.2   Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from Upper Thames River Conservation Authority BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.3   Covent Garden Market Parking Garage Repairs - Business Case P-66

2024-02-01 Submission - (4.3) Covent Garden Market Business Case 66

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from Covent Garden Market BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

4.4   London Police Services

2024-02-01 Submission - (4.4) London Police Service Base Budget

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the submission from London Police Services BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

6.2   Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Committee rise and go into Committee, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering a matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality.

Motion Passed (8 to 6)

That Committee convenes In Closed Session, from 10:42 AM to 10:53 AM.

6.3   Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Committee rise and go into Committee, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering a personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, and communications necessary for that purpose.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:58 PM to 2:12 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by A. Hopkins

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE RECESSED until 9:30 AM Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Motion Passed

The meeting recessed at 3:00 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 (4 hours, 55 minutes)

[21:27] Good morning, everyone. If we can just settle in. If those joining us online can put their screens on, just if I can verify that you’re here. This is still the second budget committee meeting. Just it’s, we recess. So it’s actually the third day of the same meeting. For those tuning in, Councillors and Chambers with me are all, except the two joining me virtually, which is Councillor Hillier and Councillor Vammar-Riggins. We do have a full compliment. The City of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats, communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting.

[22:07] Please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425, or budget committee at London.ca. I’ll also note, as I said, this is the second budget committee meeting and the third day of it. Also, it could be known as Councillor Ferre’s birthday party. So welcome everyone. And sorry, David, happy birthday. I’m sure a great gift would be a concise meeting. There will be snacks later. So everyone can hold their congratulatory messages till then. As we move through the agenda today, I’ll just make sure we start off on the same page that some amendments are potentially still coming in, but we’re gonna start the day with PL number three.

[22:57] And then I’ll move through the business cases I’m aware of in numerical order being P40, P51, P62, P65. And then there’s two base budget potential amendments that’s been circulated in advance. And I’m not aware of anything for water and wastewater. So that’s currently as your agenda sits for today. On Friday, we had 18 amendments we dealt with. Currently, we have seven.

[23:30] So at the end of the day, if there’s no further amendments, instead of recessing, we would adjourn procedurally as there be no other matters to be dealt with by the committee. Question from Councillor Troso. Yes, I did advise the clerk that there are going to be amendments coming forth from London Public Library. Staff is working on building issues right now to determine exactly what that’s going to look at. And there are a few other things that they need to be researching. Those are not gonna come forward today or tomorrow. And we are going to have another board meeting.

[24:05] So I would anticipate they would come up next Thursday. Thank you for that. I’ll just say that if the committee is dealt with its business today, as said previously, those meeting dates would be released and there would be no next Thursday, Friday, as the committee’s meeting amendments today as moved by Councillors would be done. And there’s nothing left on the floor to deal with for amendments. Well, I would just, I would strongly object to that on the grounds that we have been told all along that we have February to bring forward amendments. You know, rather than rush something to the table, just to have something on the table, we’re doing our diligence and we’re taking some of the points that we’re made about having to redo the library budget very, very.

[24:49] No, I’m gonna finish, Sean, because I’m just— No, sorry, point of order. Yeah, sorry. Councillor, I’ll need your mic just a point of order proceed. So Deputy Mayor Lewis. Madam Chair, the councilor has referenced that we were told we have all of February to bring forward amendments. That is not the case. We have eight days reserved for a meeting, eight days which were set aside before strong Mayor Powers were even introduced. It is not required, nor has it been the practice of this or previous councils to extend meetings because Councillors are not prepared to bring business forward.

[25:27] Thank you, I’m good. Thank you, I’m gonna take a point of privilege. Okay, so just a second, I need to recognize the point of privilege first. And then we’ll come back to this as the clerk looks for preceding things. Councillor Trosto. I really take strong issue with being accused of not being prepared to come forward. And I know you wanna get this done, you know? But the fact of the matter is the library has been given some very serious challenges. And they are engaging in due diligence right now. And for you to accuse me of not being prepared, I really take issue with that.

[26:02] I’ve been working very hard on this and so have people and the staff. So to sit there and say, well, Councillor Trosto was not prepared, I really take issue with that. You think I’m trying to delay this? Madam Chair, I now have to call another point of personal privilege because at no point did I say Councillor Trosto is trying to delay this. And so I would request that the Councillor withdraw his comment. I think the clear implication was you were talking about me clearly. Okay, thank you. I did note too that other Councillors do have potential things as well behind the scenes.

[26:36] Just one moment while I confer with the clerk for the procedural issue of that. And I do recognize that some are going through their first multi-year budget and others, agency boards and commissions are making adaptations. But right now we are sitting as councils just to get that advice as council procedurally. And then Councillor Hopkins, I do see you as well. Just one moment, please. Okay, thank you for your patience with that.

[28:45] I would take Deputy Mayor’s Lewis comments that it could pertain to all Councillors, just not the Councillor who is speaking at the moment, realizing that other people are still working behind the scenes on things. It is the process. I understand how it could be taken very personally. Procedurally wise, the clerk’s advice is that if there’s no amendments, at the end of the day, still left on the floor to have for us to deal with, that business before us would be exhausted.

[29:22] At that point, either someone could ask to recess for days, but the proper procedure would normally be a German since it was done. On the 29th at council, as we looked to amend things, it would be things that we’d already spoke about being brought forward, not new business on the 29th, realizing that’s the day that we would package up our amendments to give back to the mayor for his purview, if you would like to veto anything or not.

[29:58] So procedurally, that’s it. If you would like to hear from the clerk, that’s fine too. Mr. Schultz is free to speak on that. Currently resolve each of those for information prior to moving to Councillor Hopkins as she had her hand up as well. Councillor Hopkins, sorry. Councillor Stevenson, your mic’s on for, you must have bumped it.

[30:35] Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I too, to take that personally, I know Deputy Mayor was not speaking to a certain Councillor, but to everyone, and I too have been working. This is the mayor’s budget. This is a different way to how we have done the multi-year budget in the past. So it is taking me time to get staff, and I’m not talking about city staff, but I’m talking about getting this information and not putting too much pressure on the clerks, because they are doing a lot of work.

[31:12] And so my question is, since we cannot bring amendments, and I want to confirm that on the 29th, if our amendments aren’t in good order, and I do want to do my due diligence, looking into making sure, and understanding the implications of my amendment before I put it on the floor. And so I can speak to it, so I can speak to it in a way that is real. When is the next opportunity to bring forward amendments, if they’re not ready today?

[31:59] Just a clarification might be an amendment on a topic that we already discussed here, or a new amendment that hasn’t, we haven’t discussed that topic yet. New amendment. We’re just working on some official procedural numbers for you and dates, just one moment.

[33:30] Thank you, the advice I’ve been given is if it was business that we hadn’t already discussed and be a new item that the counselor, who would like to move something forward, would need to provide a notice of motion as laid out in the procedural by-law, and the deadline for that, as it’s a special council meeting on the 29th, the deadline would be 9 a.m. on Wednesday, February 21st. Thank you for that information.

[34:08] I think we need that clarification. We were, I was under the assumption that we had 30 days from when the mayor’s budget was released to bring forward amendments. So again, we can bring forward new amendments. 21st is the notice of motion that goes forward. What committee does it go forward to? Yeah, it goes to that council meeting on the 29th. So the motion will, I’ll just let the clerk officially explain that.

[34:47] Thank you through the chair. The notice of motion procedures are set out under section 11.3 with referral to section 6.1 of the council procedure by-law. That relates to the notice of motion that’s required to submit and add to the council agenda. A majority of members present would need to give leave for the introduction of such a motion. But we need to give leave for each motion to move forward. Okay, sorry, and just confirmed that each motion coming forward will need leave to accept it. Councilor Huppens will follow up.

[35:22] Thank you for that information. Looking to see, I see councilor for our next, and then councilor ramen. Thank you. So just from what I see on the conversation here, if we move to adjourn at this meeting today, we would have to bring any amendments to council meeting. I forget what the date was, but if we only move to recess, then we can come back to this budget committee for any possible future amendments just to confirm. Yes, just as chair, I would deem that and have to rule it out of order as we’re not recasting to come back to any business that we know of to deal with.

[36:15] That’s where the issue is that there’s no motions. On the floor and the business committee would have been concluded that we knew about. Okay, I think I understand. So I do see what’s happening. I understand the intent to be expeditious here, but I would myself as a new councilor and the new process have at least some time to just mull over what everything that we kind of move here today and what we’ve done already. Like I myself and I know all of you have been on a very long sprint working here, but I think we need to be as diligent as we can, considering that we’re talking about the next four years and how that impacts the city.

[36:52] So I would be amenable to, I would not like to adjourn, but I’m not sure what the process is, how exactly all the details, but I kind of understand. But I would like, you know, at least to give us that extra budget committee day. I feel like we’re almost done, but I feel like we should not put the clock on ourselves. Thank you, Councillor Ramen. Thank you and through you. I appreciate hearing from my colleagues on this matter, and I want to thank Councillor Ferreira for what he said so eloquently, because I probably wouldn’t be as eloquent as he is.

[37:28] I have to say that I think what I’m hearing is the desire for a recess in order to continue, but you’re saying that items need to be on the agenda. So I think we’re faced with a choice as to how we go forward in terms of bringing amendments just so that we have business ready if we need it for the next day, so that we can get more time for Friday and then into preceding days.

[38:02] I don’t want to have to go that route so that we are able to have discussions, but unfortunately we’re in a position where that may be the case. And I’ll say I’m still having ongoing conversations with community groups, with organizations with ABCs that I’m waiting for answers on that are just not available right now to give those answers. And so I think it’s important that it’s not just our timing and it’s not just how we’re moving through this, but I do think there are options in front of us and then I’ll be certain to use all recesses today to be able to time out our process today to get us to where we need to go.

[38:48] So if my colleagues will hopefully be amenable to taking some time when we need it today to be able to process some of the amendments we’re working through to better understand some of the implications to those amendments. So it may be a little bit slower if that’s the case today in order to get through the business, which may extend us into tomorrow, which then could extend us into next week. So with that, I know the first one’s pretty meaty, so I wanna make sure that we give ourselves enough time. Thanks.

[39:21] Thank you. I’ll just note at least one colleague has said it’s not even this week, they’re ready to be ready, maybe next week. So just as I know some people, it’s always a vote of council, committee, like majority rules, but just realizing some people said it’s not even tomorrow they need time for, you’re looking at the end of next week or after that. So just highlighting that as well. Councillor Hopkins, a follow-up question? Yeah, thank you for recognizing me again, and just following up on my colleagues’ comments around recess and the other option, which is to bring notices of motion to the special council meeting on the 29th.

[40:02] That could be a very long day too, and I think it could even maybe, or can it jeopardize our process going forward, just maybe through you to the clerks to have a better understanding for all of us on how we are gonna proceed through the process here. If that’s the case. Yeah, on the process on the 29th, how that would look, okay. Thank you through the chair.

[40:45] On the 29th, there will be several reports, there will be the budget committee report from the continuation meeting that we’re currently in. There will also be the 27th PPM report, and any notices of motions would also be on that agenda. The standard process for a council meeting is to deal with the committee reports in order, dealing with the items that were recommended by committee. Any notices of motions would be dealt with at that same meeting separately. Sorry, that would also be the first PPM report as well.

[41:21] Thank you. So you’re okay, looking further questions on anything that’s been mentioned this morning before we proceed as item PL number three was up, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, and I appreciate it. I just wanna make sure it’s important for us to be on the same page so that when we get to a point, people don’t say I didn’t know what we were doing. And then we create a little bit of chaos in that moment. So I just wanna be clear on your intent on the meetings. We’re in a budget committee meeting.

[41:57] So under legislation, I had to table a budget and I did. Now we’re in the process of amending that budget, but the budget is the municipal budget. So no one makes any amendments, that’s the budget. So that’s the municipal budget. Council has the legislative responsibility to make changes to that if they want. We have a series of meetings to do so, but those amendments need to be ratified. And I presume those amendments too that are made would also be the subject of discussion at the PPM, right? Because we’ve made a series of changes and counselors may wanna get the public feedback on that. And then the report of both of those things align at council and they would have the opportunity to adjust any of the amendments that maybe they don’t feel landed the right way based on the public feedback on the amendment process at the PPM.

[42:45] If a counselor feels like something is missed, they could use the notice of motion provision to say, the committee report of the budget committee that’s going to council, we do this all the time, committee reports go to council and you deal with the items in that committee report. If there’s something beyond that, you provide a notice of motion and so you could do that. So that’s, I think my understanding of the process based on what you said, but I think it’s really important for us to all be on the same page so that no one gets to a point in this process and then says, that’s not what I thought we were doing. So I guess I wanna ask is as I articulated it, what we’re doing or is it something slightly different?

[43:22] I believe what you stated is accurate. Councilor Hopkins? Yes, and I really wanna get this right. So just following up on the mayor’s comments then, I appreciate that the public participation meeting, which is on the 27th, but the notice of motion has to be in on the 21st. And I really think we really need to just stop a little bit and really understand how that process looks like and going forward.

[44:03] I think having a recess as well as an opportunity for a notice of motion is available to us from what I heard from the legislative requirements. So just wanna make sure that we are in that process that is requiring us to make amendments to the mayor’s budget and that we’re allowed recesses and that we are allowed notices of motions. Yeah, absolutely, you’re allowed recesses and notice of motion and just one thing I would clarify is that you’re not required to make any amendments to the mayor’s budget.

[44:44] That’s up to our consideration if we wanna make an amendment. But yet recesses, notice of motion, you’re correct in that. I’ll also note as we go through this, staff is in this room at their desk and in committee rooms on standby as our partners at agency boards and commissions watching it on standby, should we have questions? So if you’re okay, we will commence with questions and a motion by Councillor Stevenson on PL3.

[45:23] Hey, if you open a scribe, the wording’s already in there. Councillor I’ll ask that you read it out for those in the gallery and those viewing with us. And then after that, would you like to be my first speaker? Perfect, and then I will be timing as always. Please proceed. Okay, thank you. I’d like to put forward the motion that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove business case PL3, more homes built, faster act, bill 23 statutory exemptions.

[46:00] Thank you, and your seconder on this one is Councillor Per bele, I believe. Councillor Per bele is indicated that’s correct. So Councillor, if you’d like to introduce it to us, please proceed. Yeah, thank you. Like many other of my colleagues, I think I’ve been looking for ways to help bring down the tax rate. You know, it was 8.8 now, it’s 8.6, but it is a big concern to a lot of lenders. So I’ve been looking for ways to bring that down to ease the burden without sacrificing the much needed services in our city.

[46:34] So I did want to say a thank you to Mr. Murray. I’ve been sending a lot of emails seeking out ways where there was funding that could possibly be postponed or removed for now. So this one here is a large dollar amount. It’s 3,300,000 this year, 5,000 in 2025, sorry, 5 million. Yeah, 3,300,000, then 5 million in 2025, 6,600,000 in the next two years. And you know, housing is such a focus for lenders and for this council, but this money is not going to be building homes.

[47:16] It is a cushion in the event that the province does not follow through with their commitment to make London and other cities whole. So Minister Clark said that they would make the city’s whole. Minister Klandra confirmed that. And we’ve got our mayor as vice chair on the Ontario big city mayor’s caucus, which is going to be lobbying and doing the government relations to ensure that the province follows through on that. And so for me, I’m saying the province has committed and recommitted that they will make us whole.

[47:57] And we are saying that it would be prudent to prepare for the possibility that they do not. And I don’t know that lenders want to pay this year right now in the event that the province may not follow through. So I wanted to bring it forward to say, you know, I think it’s prudent that we wait and see what does happen. They had said that they would do audits. They’d said that they would get back to us with details. That’s going to happen this year.

[48:29] And I think that we can, this is something we can deal with in the event that it happens. It’s almost as though the forecast is sunny weather. And we’re saying that it would still be prudent to purchase an umbrella. And that may be true, but I’m not sure that lenders feel that way with the tax levy rate, the way that it is situated right now. So I’m interested in what my colleagues have to say. Thank you, looking for further speakers. Hey, Mr. Mayor.

[49:05] Yes, so I appreciate everything the counselor has said about the desire to try to lower the tax rate. I think all of us share that. In this particular business case, what’s occurring is the province actually has passed the legislation that reduces, that creates the exemptions, that reduces the inflows into the DC fund for affordable housing. So if someone goes and builds something under that category, the money is not going to be flowing into the DC fund, which we all know has a plan for infrastructure for it, a multi-year plan in consultation with the development community to ensure that we’re building the infrastructure needed to build the homes.

[49:45] So this money is not going to flow in from the DC’s ‘cause there’s a past and approved exemption at the provincial level that it’s not there anymore. So I agree, I would be great. It would be great if the province made us whole, particularly on this and a number of other things, including the things that we’ve deferred to avoid the costs until down the road. But they haven’t yet. And so we face two choices here. Cross our fingers and hope that it’s going to happen in the timeframe that we’d like, creating a giant hole in our ability to fund the infrastructure needed to build the housing, which is a critical thing that we have to do in this city by underfunding the DC fund by 21 some odd million dollars over the course of the multi-year budget.

[50:30] 3 million, 3.3 million dollars this year. Or what we can do is we can put this money in the budget and should sometime before the end of the year, the province say, yes, you know what? We’re going to actually provide a grant and backfill the DC funds and put the money in on your behalf. But what would happen then is we would be taking no risk by leaving a hole in our budget. The province comes through as a hero and we get to lower the tax rate a whole bunch in 2025 because it would be both the allocation that we put aside for 2024.

[51:05] What we know we have to put aside for 2025 and the future years. But I just, I think that there’s a very high risk approach to this which is removing the money without knowing that it’s going to come for sure and creating a hole in our budget and maybe compromising our ability to build the infrastructure and fulfill the DC capital plan that we have. Or we can continue our efforts and take no risk and maybe have a big reward for Londoners next year if we’re able to get the province to actually provide the grant to backfill this particular thing as well as a number of others.

[51:37] And then 2025, the tax rate comes down, you know, by almost upwards of 3/4 of a percent or so. I’m just doing some rough math there. So my preference is not to take the chance on this to actually put the money in the DC fund to plan to do it. And then on the chance, or without hoping that they do it on the timeframe we have. They may ultimately make us hole and I believe that the minister’s commitments are there. But we have no idea the timeframe under which they’re going to do that.

[52:09] If they put it in the provincial budget and they say it’s going to start in 2025, we created a giant problem for ourselves in 2024. So we need to put the money in. We need to fill this hole because the exemptions are already approved and they’re already there. And then we need to continue the aggressive lobbying work that we are doing for all municipalities and AMO and OBCM and everybody else to say this is really important to us. So take the results from your audits. Look at what municipalities had to do in this budget cycle. It started to actually fund the costs of the legislation that has been passed at the provincial level.

[52:44] But I just don’t believe in doing that today because I think it creates great risk with, you know, without any guarantee that it comes to fruition. And there are great rewards to be had down the road still if we put this money in and we’re able to successfully make us whole completely. And again, making us whole isn’t just this part. There are a number of other components of the legislation that we’re looking for support and funding for. So that’s my opinion. I certainly appreciate what the Councillors are trying to do with this. Certainly appreciate the desire to keep the tax rate down. I think this is a very high risk approach to doing so that may have unintended consequences.

[53:20] Should the province not follow through on its commitment? Which again, I don’t think they won’t but we don’t know that they are. And we have a whole on our budget now that we have to fill. Thank you, further speakers. I’ll recognize Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Pribble. Yeah, thank you. And, you know, I wanna thank the Councillor for trying to find ways to decrease our tax levy, especially in 2024 ‘cause it is a big one. But I do have concerns when it comes to the fact that as a city, housing is important.

[54:00] We need to build. We have the problem right now. I know at AMO, we’re advocating strongly with the provincial government to try to make us whole. And if they do that this year, that would be wonderful. We can just move that decrease going throughout the next years. But I do think I agree completely with the mayor. We are at risk. When we have these challenges of housing, building is really, really important in our city. And we need to feel secure and show that we are doing everything possible to make sure that we can continue doing the housing that is needed.

[54:44] And I think it gives a strong message to the development community who greatly is responsible for doing a lot of the building of our homes as well. So I appreciate what the council’s doing, but I will not be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I will still be supporting it. And very fair points were just said by the mayor and the councilor. But this is still unknown.

[55:18] And the situation we are in with our expenses and projections of property tax increases. And there will be even some proposed additions right now that will potentially increase and add to the budget. And as it is an unknown, I would still prefer not to include this in the budget and treat it once we do know the exact implications to these financial conditions, to treat it with the annual update and not to make a decision right now. Yes, if we were in a different situation, if we were situation increasing tax rate 4%, completely agree 100%, but we are not in that situation.

[55:56] So that’s the reason why I will still support this removal. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Ferrera and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you. So I see what the Councillor is doing as well or the Councillors I should say. And I appreciate that. I would 100% vote with you on this if we knew that we were gonna get the funds. This would be the most significant cut that we had made and it would give us so much wiggle room. But as is the comments that we saw from the mayor and comments from Councillor Hopkins, I feel the exact same way. We don’t necessarily know if that commitment will lead to action.

[56:31] So that’s really kind of where I’m around right now. I do hope that we do get made whole and then we can see as the mayor stated that lowering of the four year average property tax rate increase would be a good news story when it happens. But just because of that, and with the time frames and everything, it would just be too risky for me to support that at this time, so I would not be supporting the motion. Thank you. Can I go to Councillor Frank first and then I’ll circle back. Thank you and through the chair to staff, I was just hoping actually maybe to hear from staff a bit about what they see as the risks.

[57:08] I know that the mayor outlines them, but I’m just hoping to hear like what would happen in reality if we didn’t allocate some of this funding over the next four years into this pot of money. Ms. Bertbaum. Thank you through the chair. So this estimate that we’ve put forward for the contribution to support these, these are rail costs. This is not a cushion. This is the fund that will need to fund in whole all of the exemptions that the province has entertained and added to the development charges legislation. So for 2023, our calculations at this point estimated total cost of $10 million with respect to exemptions that is now not put into the development charge statutory reserves to backstop the exemptions that have been put forward.

[58:03] So we’re already at a $10 million liability. I expect that that is going to continue to grow, which is where we’ve got the increase here. These were estimates, these were early estimates that we brought forward our report in the fall that did refer very significantly. And when we wrote this to the province making us whole, because that was never defined. However, what I would say is that with some of the announcements that occurred before Christmas, a lot of the conversation has been focused around some of the significant impacts that have yet to hit us because our by-law is deferred.

[58:40] So where items have been removed that cannot be funded anymore and the results of the phase in, that alone was in excess of $90 million. So this was not included in those numbers at the original point in time. So the risk is very real. This amount has to be paid to make those development charges whole at the end of the day because that is what supports the investment to support the infrastructure for the houses that need to be built in order to support the mayor’s pledge to provide the housing.

[59:15] So there is a possibility. There may be some funding that may come. And I hope that the advocacy efforts continue and are successful. But I do not believe given that there were previous exemptions in the by-law, or sorry, in the legislation that provided small exemptions that ultimately had to be funded from the municipality, these exemptions are not very different. So I’m not holding out a significant amount of hope that we will be made fully on these. But I do hope that there is a significant movement in trying to make us whole for a lot of the other impacts that we have been able to defer as a result of delaying the study.

[1:00:00] So are you good? Oh, I was just gonna ask a quick follow-up. And to follow up with that, so then what would happen is we’d have a hole in the budget. And then, for example, city staff, we need to go into the DC fund to go and pay for a new sewer and there wouldn’t be money. And we just wouldn’t do the sewer. And then therefore that project wouldn’t move forward. Is that what would happen? Ms. Perbal? Thank you. So the money to provide the infrastructure based on the development charges background study is outlined. So when we would go to the funds that would have been identified, where we are short, those funds would either need to be raised or we would need to defer projects.

[1:00:36] That’s where the GMIS strategy comes in and there’s that process to constantly review. That’s where Mr. Mather’s team does a great deal of work annually to look at that. And if we need to make any adjustments from a financial perspective. But certainly that is a significant impact is that if the funds are not there and the DCs are short, we would need to look at either raising the funds to make this hole or we would be looking to defer projects. Okay, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I appreciate the conversation. But when we talk about, you know, the fear of not having the cash flow available, the 2022 report had 323 million in the DC reserve.

[1:01:18] So I understand, you know, even according to this report, 278 million of it was committed or allocated, but it still leaves almost 45 million. That was in 2022. So yes, I understand that, you know, we’d have to possibly have to shift priorities, but to say that we, you know, wouldn’t be able to put a sewer in or something. I don’t, I don’t, I don’t see that myself. I do, I do have three things to follow up on with this. One is when we talk about advocating and continuing advocacy for the province to fulfill their commitment of making the municipalities hole, if we fill the hole and we show that both council and the residents are willing to fill the hole themselves, is it not going to make it more challenging to advocate for the province to make up for a shortfall that we have already planned for?

[1:02:19] I’m not sure if staff can speak on the perception of it. Staff is indicating they know that they can’t speak on the perception of. I would know, would the mayor or someone else who’s doing the advocacy be able to comment on whether that, you know, hurts the advocacy efforts, if there’s already a plan in place and the funds are already set aside? Just one second. I will note that no councilor or the mayor has to reply. So it’s a question of would you like to reply, Mr. Mayor? I love replying.

[1:02:54] So no, I don’t think it’s going to put a significant, it’s going to significantly change our advocacy efforts because this is a very, fairly unified position that municipalities have. I would also say, you know, you can look at it from the other perspective. If municipalities account for this funding, which I will say I think is the responsible thing to do. And each and every year I have to meet with Moody’s about our credit rating. And they look at the way that we manage our liabilities and the way that we set aside money. They look at our ability to capitalize the organization. They look at our ability to be able to fund the things that they know were legislatively obligated to fund.

[1:03:33] We’re legislatively obligated to grant this exemption. It exists. So this is something that people look at. On the advocacy side, I would tell you my approach here with the provincial government would be, there’s a big giant win for you in 2025 if municipalities do this, like a big one. You get to be part of lowering the tax rate for a whole bunch of people across this province by simply fulfilling the commitment that you’ve made. And here’s a really clear example of one part of the commitment where if you do this, you’re going to help us bring down the tax rate, which everybody in London, what I’m sure love to see brought down with the provincial government simply fulfilling the obligations to fund the costs of their legislation.

[1:04:12] And this is just one example of the cost of that legislation. I actually think, I actually think there’s a win in this for the province when they follow through on their commitment. What we get to do in the meantime is be responsible for our credit rating agencies and those who watch how we manage the finances of the organization and say, this is a cost that does exist today. There’s no maybe in this. It is the exemptions that are in the legislation that do create the whole in the DC fund. So I think funding them is responsible. I think that there’s a win for the province if they come through next year.

[1:04:47] I don’t think it has to be right now. I think they get to help us lower the tax rate next year. And this is a government who seems to like to do those sorts of things. So I anticipate that there’s a compelling argument to make on this. So no, I don’t think it’ll impact the lobbying efforts. It might change some of the dynamics around it a little bit, but this is not going to change the resolve of mayors or AMO or anybody else in advocating for what is a very clear commitment by the province to say we’re going to recognize the costs that our legislation put on you. And we’re going to have that conversation about how to make you whole.

[1:05:20] Thank you, I recognize that was your question. I also have more speakers and you still do have a minute left. I have Councillor Hopkins and then Councillor Robin. Yeah, regarding the council’s question around the advocacy and the concerns there and the mayor said it very well. I’m not really going to add to that. I know all municipalities at the AMO table have to, we have to do it. We have to make sure we have that money set aside and we will be cheering and the mayors, I think there are possibilities that the province can take that opportunity to look at what we are doing, what we are forced to do and then giving us some leeway going forward.

[1:06:04] And then again, all those numbers in the future will start to change. So we will be cheering, that’s for sure. Thank you, Councillor Robin. Thank you and through you. I’m sorry that I didn’t get this question to staff ahead of time, but I didn’t know that we’d be discussing this at length. I’m just wondering if anyone can share, are there any other cities that are not backstopping this amount or planning to in their budgets? Thank you, I realize we’re all at different processes in our budget, but if you’re aware of any, Ms. Berbo?

[1:06:42] Thank you, through the chair. So some municipalities had contributions to fund other statutory exemptions already. This has been a topic of great discussion along our regional treasurer’s team. This has been clearly one of the first things we did was seek a legal opinion on whether we were obligated to do so. The legislation is very, very clear that the municipality is obligated to fund that gap and that gap cannot be made up for by increasing development charges in the future and by drawing down on the DC reserves to fund those costs that have been exempted.

[1:07:21] So our understanding is that every municipality that is aware of this and has a significant issue was looking at how to fund this because legislatively, we are required and that’s the unfortunate reality is we are obligated and there’s no other way to raise those funds. Councillor? Thank you, I appreciate that. That does clarify a lot for me as we are obligated. However, I appreciate Councillor Stevenson bringing this forward because I do think it does speak to our negotiating position on this and I agree with you.

[1:07:56] If we didn’t have the, we didn’t have to have the money sitting in a pot, it would give us a stronger negotiating position. So I absolutely agree with you on that. It would actually probably inspire other people in the community to also raise alarm bells about the fact that we are not being made whole on these matters as well. So I hear where our, our AMO and big city mayors are on this and why they’re doing that negotiation the way they’re doing it and I appreciate that they are.

[1:08:33] But I will say, I know that some may be more comfortable with accepting the province on their word that they’re going to make us whole. I personally appreciate that we’re putting money aside because we do not have a firm commitment at this time and I do think it’s important that we make it very clear to the public that this is a risk and this is a huge risk for us. And so write to your MPPs, tell them that you’re concerned because this risk is on the province, is the province’s responsibility. And if they want to see changes, the province can, can firmly commit today or by the end of this month that they are going to do this.

[1:09:11] And if they do that, they remove this risk and we have time to amend. So I’m happy to make these changes and remove this once the province firmly commits. And so until that time, I appreciate the fiscal prudence and I appreciate the fact that we set this money aside. Thank you, looking for last call for speakers, Councillor Trostau. To the chair, could I ask planning staff what the implications would be for any particular development? I’m not gonna name anyone in particular, but any particular development application coming forth that would have a development charge issues if we don’t have this money available, what would happen?

[1:10:00] Through the chair, so this funding for the most part would go to support those that the nonprofit organizations that are looking at being able to develop new affordable housing. So we have our 3000 unit plan, our 3000 unit plan allows us at this time to provide a $45,000 grant to be able to provide those housing units to move forward. So if this funding doesn’t, we’d have to figure out how we operationalize that, but the only way that we could really see how that could possibly happen is to reduce that amount to be able to fund that DC portion. So it could mean that $20,000 to $28,000 be reduced from that capital grant portion that we can offer affordable housing providers.

[1:10:40] Councillor. Through the chair again, to follow up, if we don’t include this money in the budget and the province does not come through with their promise, does, do we run the risk of having to delay any particular delay or put off or stop any particular development application? Through the chair, we wouldn’t be delaying any because we’re gonna be, if that application moves forward, we’ll have a commitment through legislation to be able to fund it.

[1:11:16] It just means that we have less opportunity to be able to partner with folks and provide them capital grants to be able to incentivize affordable housing. And what if it was a situation where it wasn’t working with the nonprofit for affordable housing? What if it was just a regular development application? Through the chair. So if it was a regular development application, the city would have to find a source to be able to support that. That’s what this funding was going to be able to provide for.

[1:11:49] So it would just mean that we’re gonna be have to pay that amount in some form or way. So we wouldn’t really have a choice. However, it would have implications as far as what we’d have be able to spend and provide for future capital grants to anyone who wants to move forward with affordable housing. Councilor. And if we were put in that position, where would we, what are some possibilities for where we would get that money, if it’s not in the budget? Through the chair, I’ll let the City Treasurer refer to that.

[1:12:21] There is minimal locations that I know that that funding can come forward, but I will let her speak to that. Ms. Provost. Thank you through the chair. So it would need to come from a municipal source. So the only options we would have is to draw it from some one-time source, which given that this is an ongoing legislative option, the we have very, so we don’t have a source right now that would provide for this. So we would need to identify and remove from a current reserve, from a for another purpose, to try to fund the money, to fund the exemptions that have been granted to date.

[1:12:59] So it would be a liability that we would need to extinguish. I’m sorry. Okay, thank you very much. And I’ll wrap this up then. I’m adamantly opposed to this amendment. I think we’d be running a huge risk. And so far, the province has not made good on their promise. And if they made good on their promise between now and when we’re done with this budget, then that is wonderful. Perhaps this could be an impetus to move this along, hopefully without onerous conditions. We need the province to honor their make good pledge.

[1:13:37] We need the province to honor their make good pledge. And they have not done so so far. And I am not willing to speculate. I am not willing to gamble some of the things that I’ve heard that could happen if the province doesn’t do that, which is not to say we should not continue our advocacy with the province. I think it would be very imprudent for us to remove this from the budget. And I really, I agree with the mayor. I agree with some other people have been saying.

[1:14:11] I just do not think this is a good idea. And we may well regret this very badly later. So please vote no on this. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. Well, the main reasons that maybe staff can correct me if my numbers are not correct. We have in the DC Reserve Fund is 323 million, committed to 78. So there’s 45 million balance in this account if my math is correct. And if that would be the case, then what we are projecting next four years, 21 and a half million, we should have in the Reserve Fund double that amount.

[1:14:53] So if there are no certain updates that I’m missing, I would certainly reevaluate. If this is the case, then I don’t see us having an issue doing a sure somewhere because we are actually currently have balanced double what we are projecting for next four years. Thank you. That’s a question to the staff, please, through the chair. Thank you. I’m not sure those are two different funds. And also, I know we have a AAA credit rating that I know the Reserve Funds need to be kept at a certain level. So if you just update that and ideally we’ll have funds kept at. Thank you through the chair.

[1:15:30] So those Reserve Funds are statutory Reserve Funds to fund the projects. The DC legislation explicitly has rules against using the exemptions being funded from those Reserve Funds. So those Reserve Funds are what was anticipated and funded through the development charges. These exemptions cannot be funded through those Reserve Funds. So yes, that funding and those balances are there, but those are for the support through the development charges legislation to support the infrastructure in the background study.

[1:16:04] The exemptions mean that the money did not go into those Reserve Funds and is short and cannot be funded through those cash balances. Thank you. A follow up, Councilor Pribble? Yes, follow up. So if I understand correctly, there are two different funds, the fund. Is there, what is the balance in the other fund that potentially would let us fund these exemptions pertaining to the loss of the DC charges that are currently waived?

[1:16:39] Okay, Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So the Councilor is referring to the DC incentive Reserve Fund, which has a balance in the approximately 13 or 14 million dollar range. Now, I will just caution that those funds do not represent a significant amount of money because if we were to have a significant new project come forward, so for instance, a significant new industrial employer as an example that had the right to draw on those funds, you could in that situation be looking at a very significant draw against those 13 or 14 million dollars of resources.

[1:17:23] You know, you could be, even for one potential incentive, you could be upwards of 10 million dollars, you know, quite easily. So I’ll just caution that, you know, 13 or 14 million dollars in that fund is not a really substantial balance. Councilor Pivol? Last good question and to the staff. And I do realize I’m certainly hoping, like all of us, that the provincial government is going to make the decision during this year. And we know exactly where we stand. And I do understand if we take it off, if we take it off from year one, then automatically it’s going to go up here to the percentage is going to go up.

[1:18:01] But as Mayor and other Councilor said that, you know, we are going to be cheering next year if these things come through, would it be advantageous? If that’s the case, what we are basing this on, that we are going to look for uplift starting next year, then wouldn’t be advantageous at least for this year to do it for 2024. And then once it’s done this year, then we leave 25, 26, 27. And even though next year it might go point one up, we are going to be hopefully cheering and we’ll bring it down next year.

[1:18:33] Would it be advantageous? Or if you can kind of give me a feedback on my thinking, but I was just saying, thank you, staff. Thank you. And staff like to provide any comments on that. Thank you through the chair. I hope you maybe just clarify that question for us because I’m not entirely sure that we understand. Thank you. Councillor.

[1:19:05] Okay, so current motion is to take it completely off 24, 25, 26, 27. If you were to do it currently only for 2024 and leave 25, 26, 27 in place, we are addressing the year one which there will be savings. I do understand that the percentage would go up in 25. I know if staff can put this into craft just for us to see it, but would it make sense? So at least, again, the pressure is out there and we need to address every little thing trying to come up as the best possible numbers for this year.

[1:19:46] Would it make sense to do 24? Because we don’t know, take it down to zero, leave it 25, 26, 27, and hopefully, as was said, we’ll be cheering next year that we are gonna take it down because province came through. Thank you, I’ll caution that that’s odd. Wipe in the motion is on the floor as you’re changing it a little bit with your questions. Mr. Murray wants to speak to that. I think how staff have already done a pretty good job of dangers as we consider certain considerations, but please answer that.

[1:20:18] And then I’ll also note that Councillor Pribble has 30 seconds remaining. Thank you through the chair. So in terms of not funding this for 2024, I would caution against that because that effectively amounts to using a one-time funding source, in this case, drawing down on the balance that currently exists in our DC incentive reserve fund, drawing on that to fund ongoing costs that currently exist. So consistent with our core financial principles and our strategic financial framework, we do not advise using one-time sources to fund costs that we know at least at this point, our ongoing obligations and liabilities of the city.

[1:21:02] Councillor. Thank you, no more questions? Okay, I had the mayor next and then maybe somebody else. Mr. Mayor. Yes, I just wanna be clear through the chair to our colleagues, like what is being said here? We cannot not fund the fund. You can’t leave a balance in the fund. The legislation’s very prescriptive to say that you can’t fund it with surpluses in the fund. You can’t fund it any other way, but you gotta put money in to do this. The only way to actually avoid absorbing the costs is to stop building affordable housing in the city because these are DC exemptions related to affordable housing which is completely counter to what we’re saying.

[1:21:39] We’re doing in multiple parts of the other budget. We know that we’re trying to build more affordable housing in the city. So we know that we’re going to face these costs. They are costs now. They are ongoing costs. Offsetting it with one-time money is not responsible. And frankly, the province put us in a position here where we don’t have much of a choice, but to fund this from a municipal source, which is why making us whole argument is so incredibly important because this is something that we have to do. Like this is why it’s in the legislatively required section of the budget.

[1:22:11] This is why it goes in. This is why you’re not seeing a bunch of people writing us saying, don’t do this. We don’t have any choice on this piece. It can be incredibly frustrating. You cannot wanna do it, but like we don’t have much of a choice here unless we stop building affordable housing in the city and stop incurring the exemptions, which I don’t think anybody here wants to do. So I agree with everything. You know what, the province brings forward legislation every spring within the housing. Maybe they fix this sometime earlier, early enough that we can make an adjustment. Maybe it’s gonna be sometime this year.

[1:22:43] Once we know that we have options to adjust our budget, but until then, we have to fund the costs that we know were anticipated to incur. We have to actually start to realize that in 2023, we already ran these costs up, right? Not knowing when. It’s time to actually start putting this in the budget in a way so that we don’t create a bigger problem for ourselves down the road until we know what happens in the future. Thank you, just one second. So Mayor, that eats up the rest of your time.

[1:23:18] Just to let you know, I have Councillor Trowso and Sam, you’ve used up about three minutes. I’m just gonna note too that I’m hearing a lot of like-minded thoughts from Councillors if it’s already gonna be essentially, if everyone’s ready to make a decision, I would encourage us to move towards a vote. Just realizing we do have a day ahead of us. So I have Councillor Trowso and then I do recognize Councillor Stevenson.

[1:23:52] Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, should we not fund this? And should contingency happen where we have to find money someplace else? What does that do to our overall excellent fiscal position? Does it, is there a risk to our ability to borrow? Is there a risk to our credit rating? Are there other risks that have not been foreseen yet? And I also have a similar question for the city solicitor which I will get to after I hear Treasurer’s answer. Thank you, Ms. Barbell.

[1:24:30] Thank you through the chair. So one particular decision in isolation doesn’t necessarily impede the ability of the city to maintain its AAA credit rating. Sorry, Ms. Barbell, if you’ve just maybe bent a little bit closer, can we just try again? Thank you through the chair. So one decision in isolation to draw down from reserves, for example, to fund an ongoing cost, does not impede the city necessarily to maintain its AAA credit rating. But it’s a successive decision to continue to fund ongoing costs with one-time draws on our reserve funds that could significantly add up to that potential risk of creating a problem and a significant liability in the future that ultimately will need to be funded.

[1:25:16] So in this particular case, it is absolutely, I mean, we know for 2023, the approximate amount of the exemptions is $10 million, a little over $10 million. So that alone needs to be funded. We are estimating based on what we’re expecting for this year that we might have a little bit lower amount, but that we’re going to have another significant cost to fund for 2024, based on what we know is coming with respect to potentially nonprofit and rental housing that is anticipated.

[1:25:53] So those costs are real and need to be funded. And certainly one of the key principles that we always rely on is that when we know that there is a cost that needs to be funded on an ongoing basis, particularly in this case where it is a statutory legislative exemption, that is a cost that would need to be funded because it creates an obligation for the municipality. And over time, those costs are going to continue when we don’t have a funding source. So as we continue to draw upon all the reserves, it’s the strength of the reserves in our reserve funds and our limited debt that has put the city in a very well positioned position for the future to be sustainable.

[1:26:36] As we continue, or if we wrote that, it will happen over time, but it will put this municipality at risk over a period of time and potentially have an impact on the AAA credit rating as we continue to make those decisions. But one decision in isolation would not create such a change immediately. Thank you. So you have 30 seconds remaining. I’d like to just ask the solicitor, are there any legal or liability concerns here if something happens where we have to draw down these funds or if a particular affordable housing project is jeopardized, is there anything we should be concerned from a legal or liability point of view?

[1:27:25] To staff, I think in order to answer that, I may have to go in camera to provide you with advice. I move that we go into closed session to get an answer to that question because it’s very troubling to me and I do wanna hear what you have to say. Is there a seconder?

[1:28:07] Answer for a second. I’m advised that I can take a speaker’s list on to go in closed session or not, or we can just call the question of closed session or not to get clients to your privilege on what was said. Hey, that motion’s in e-scribe if you wanna refresh. Is that, it is open for voting or did you need to raise a question, Deputy Mayor Lewis?

[1:28:49] Yeah, I’m sorry, Madam Chair, I just wanted you to clarify, did you say you cannot take a speaker’s list? I can take a speaker’s list on this but it is strictly on to go on closed session or not. So, I would like to speak to that. Okay, and I do time for these two, proceed. That’s okay, I am gonna be very brief. I don’t need to go into closed session, I’m not supporting this motion and I’m ready to vote it down. Councillor Robin.

[1:29:24] Thank you, through you. I would appreciate the opportunity to go in closed session to discuss this. I think that the Councillor and Councillor Perbold, Councillor Stevenson have raised some good points. I think that there’s a need to further discuss any liabilities and understand it fully and I think that’s the expectation that people have that I will understand it fully. Thank you. Okay, any further speakers? Calling the question. Councillor McAlister, Councillor Lewis.

[1:30:15] Lewis votes no. Councillor McAlister has left the room. Closing the vote, motion carries eight to six. Recording in progress. Okay, so just let everyone know, council members stay put, the gallery needs to vacate, please. Okay, I’m turning to the vice chair to report out for me.

[1:34:07] I’ll report that progress was made for reasons going into camera. Councillor Van Merbergen, if you just give indication that you’re there, as I do see Councillor Hillier, hey, Councillor Van Merbergen, when you get back or whatnot, just indicate that you’re with us. Okay, so some colleagues have already exhausted their time, looking to see if there’s any further speakers before I call the question.

[1:34:40] Councillor Stevenson, you have one in it. I won’t need it all. I appreciate the discussion. I’m going to continue to support this. If I would do it now, I would just do 2024, make it zero and leave the other ones. But I’m not going to make an amendment because I don’t believe it’s supported. If somebody else wants to do that, I would support that. The DC incentive reserve fund is, from what I can see two and a half million higher than what it was projected to be in the last budget update. So I was just hoping to reduce the tax levy on the residents for 2024 in the hopes that we wouldn’t need to do this.

[1:35:21] I do understand that we may be put in that position. I also understand that this business case is a recommendation for prudence in the budgeting and that they’ve chosen the midpoint. Staff has chosen the midpoint of the estimate. So some of the dire talk that is happening here could still happen anyway. Thank you. That concludes Councillor Stevenson’s time. I do see Councillor Ramen. So I’ll recognize Councillor Ramen. And then after this, I will make some comments in general vote today.

[1:35:56] Thank you through you. I’m just wondering if staff might be able to comment on the rationale behind the midpoint and whether or not they feel that there’s any risk associated with being at the midpoint. Staff, thank you through the chair. So when we initially put this forward, that was at our best estimate in time and certainly the amount of affordable housing built in any given year is never going to be static. So the intent was to come up with the best estimate and obviously be as mindful of the potential tax impacts as possible.

[1:36:36] So there is some risk here. We do know our number for 2023. We have some projections for 2024, but they will vary. So as you can see, it is going up. And if there are amendments required to those amounts, those would need to come forward through future budgets. And certainly we were trying to limit the risk and but at the same time, leave some opportunity should some funding come forward that might potentially help. So this was trying to find a conservative way forward based on the information we had at the time when this was created.

[1:37:11] So yes, there is some risk and we would need to manage that. But this is also putting that fully to a significant amount. Doesn’t make sense to take money from the taxpayers if it wouldn’t be required. So generally with reserve funds, we try to smooth over time. But that is why you do see an incremental increase in the future as we hope because housing takes some time to get started. We’re thinking that, you know, obviously, especially as our 3000 unit plan and some of the great work that the Scott Mathers team is doing that that would increase over time. But there is a risk that there may not be a sufficient balance for sure that potentially might need to be alleviated in the future.

[1:37:48] Councilor? Thank you. I appreciate that. And I understand that there’s a potential for us to have more conversation through committee, I believe it’s corporate services committee about how we message this out to the taxpayer in terms of providing more opportunity for them to understand why we are looking at some of these legislative changes and what those impacts are. Thank you. Thank you. That exhausts my speaker’s list. Pulling the question, holding the motion fails two to 13. Thank you.

[1:38:40] As we’re going numerically, next up is going to be the case P40. This is a Councilor Hopkins, Councilor Trousa motion. Just as we start that conversation, I’ll state two things. As chair, my duty is to chair an efficient meeting. We all have our entitled to five minutes but it’s plus potential extensions. I will note that item failed two to 13 and about an hour and a half was spent on it. On Friday, we did deal with 18.

[1:39:19] The question is people wanting more time and a fear of recess versus adjournment. My job is still to move this through as efficiently as possible. For those thinking and managing time, I will say that I’ve been requested that February 16th would be released as a potential budget day as it’s a long weekend to make sure that people can deal with board and family issues. If people may or may not be ready on the 15th, if you knew and came prepared, realizing there’s board work community conversations in the background, we would still have the 22nd or 23rd, which is still after the notice of motion day.

[1:40:12] So actually giving you more time to do committee work at committee versus notice of emotions. I am trying to move us along. That is an accurate perception. I’m not trying to stop conversation. And yes, absolutely that committee, the council day could get messy with a lot of notice emotions coming. And I do prefer to do committee work at committee. And I do prefer to use all of our time efficiently, both of ours and staff. So I will proceed on to business case P40. Just at this rate, we will get done about three to four business cases.

[1:40:48] Ron Friday, you, I don’t wanna say you rocked, but you did rock. You had amazing progress in address 18 issues. So I am mindful we’re at, I always lay at the direction of committee, but if that’s where we’re at at some point, just think about what dates you would be ready for as I rather have efficient meetings than long meetings ‘cause people feel pressured for time. So those are my concerns as chair and where I’m at. Happy to discuss timelines at lunch.

[1:41:20] So I am moving on to the business case P40. I will ask Councillor Hopkins as the mover to read it out, just for those people who are joining us in the gallery and online for they can see and hear it. Councillor Troso, you’re still good to be the seconder. Okay, Councillor second. And it is in E-Scribe for those who have E-Scribe who can refresh. And then Councillor Hopkins, I’ll go to you as the first speaker and start your time once you’ve read out the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for those comments as well. I really do appreciate it.

[1:41:55] So the amendment that I’d like to move forward is that the mayor’s 2024-27 multi-year budget be amended to include one-time funding for 2024 for the Board of Governance Training Initiative of business case 40, which is the Pillow Nonprofit Networks strengthening and building capacity in the nonprofit sector as set out in civic administration draft 24-27 multi-year budget referred by the SBBC on December the 12th to be funded from the community investments reserve fund.

[1:42:31] And as you can see, the dates are set out with 60,000 being applied in 2024. And— Thank you. And I will also note that the CEO of Pillar being Marine Cassidy is with us virtually. Should there be questions for that organization as well? They are with us. Councillor, if you’d like to introduce, make your comments? Yeah, thank you. And I would encourage my colleagues to take advantage of having Marine Cassidy here with us this evening to ask specific questions on what not what Pillar does.

[1:43:08] And I’m bringing this motion forward because basically I’m a big believer in nonprofits, businesses, and their request was not in the mayor’s budget proposal or the mayor’s budget. I think the amount will sort of take the organization through the next year as a bridge opportunity for them to take advantage of some other opportunities. And this money, like any nonprofit organization, is really important.

[1:43:48] I don’t think it’s— I wish that we could be more, but I’m trying to get a consensus here from all of this on council. I really think the opportunity when it comes to board governance training, and Pillar does a really good job in supporting nonprofits that we, as a city, support, as well as our own boards and agencies, can take advantage of this training aspect. The other part is it’s really important.

[1:44:24] Nonprofits, a lot of them, have challenges when it comes to the governance. A lot of them do fail, not having opportunities for training and keeping their board of governance whole and solid. And this will give that opportunity to have nonprofits take advantage of it. So I am hoping my colleagues will support this request, I think, to counsel it yourself for seconding this and look for your support. Thank you, further speakers.

[1:45:03] Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll be brief. I’ll be an absolute no on this. We’ve had two programs now, the Library CMHA Program and the Community Gardens Program that have started dipping into this fund. This fund is not there to be a bridge fund or a one-time source of funding for everybody who didn’t get their request in the budget. It’s laid right out in our budget business case. The Pillar chose to start seeking permanent-based funding from the city, rather than pursue the London Community Grants Multi-Her stream. I’ve talked with former counselor, now the director of Pillar in this Cassidy, as recently as yesterday.

[1:45:42] I expressed to her that I won’t be supporting this. It is not the public person’s job to, in my opinion, support every not-for-profit. Some of them fail to be blunt. Some of them should fail. Not every business, small business, succeeds either, that he fail, and it’s not our job to support them any more than it is a not-for-profit organization. There are a number of not-for-profits in the city who do duplication of work. And maybe that’s one of the reasons that some of them struggle more than others.

[1:46:15] Opportunities to merge, to work through charity organizations, to do work in other ways, is the way to go. And I am not going to be supporting continuing to dip into reserve funds to give one-time funding for projects that did not get included in the mayor’s budget. Further speakers? Councillor Troso. Thank you very much to the chair. If I could take the opportunity to ask the director to maybe explain to us why we’re looking at this fund right now, how they landed on the substantial reduction from what was in the mayor’s budget, and why this remains essential.

[1:46:59] Maybe also, what are the risks involved when these organizations fail? That’s a lot, but I would like to ask her to explain that. Thank you. OK, so that was to Councillor Cassy. I don’t think she could say why this specific funding. The business case that they submitted. I almost called you Councillor. So Ms. Cassidy, did you hear the question adequately? Or OK, just I saw you turning your screen on. So I do not time you, but I do ask you to be concise.

[1:47:33] So please, and welcome. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s nice to be back before this committee. And I thank you for the opportunity to address the question. It is the prerogative of the Councillors to make the motions that they make. So pillar did submit their business case for what we felt is the need in the community and in the nonprofit sector, which serves the community. So it’s all about that direct support to the nonprofit sector that does the services for the different levels of government.

[1:48:05] And in particular, with everything that’s going on in the city, for the municipal government as well. So the importance of the board governance training, it’s our flagship program at pillar. And we serve right now about 100 individuals a year come through that program. We’re doubling it this year to 200. It is a paid program. And so these are individuals from nonprofit organizations that come to pillar for this training.

[1:48:38] And they’re the organizations that can pay for it. So there are a number of organizations that have very tight resources, especially as the nonprofit sector continues to struggle and recover post-pandemic. The pandemic hit the nonprofit sector particularly hard, and their recovery has been particularly daunting and slow. When you have nonprofit organizations who are looking at what their resources are, and private donations are down, funding organizations, their donations are down, government funding is tight as you all know.

[1:49:18] So you have certain organizations that are struggling between spending money on delivering services or buying supplies and such to be able to deliver their services or taking the board training. And that’s a very, very difficult decision for them to make, but when they’re faced with oftentimes struggling people in front of them who they serve, whom they serve, it’s a bit of a no-brainer. They do what’s right in front of them. They do the work that’s right in front of them, and they forgo their training.

[1:49:50] Now, why the board training is particularly important is because the board is the foundation, just like Council is the foundation of City Hall and all of the operations that run out of City Hall, the board for a nonprofit organization is the foundation of the organization. They lead the strategic, deciding on the strategic direction. They hire the executive director or CEO, and everything stems from there. So often when you see, for example, in the nonprofit daycare sector or nonprofit youth sports and arts programming, the boards are made up of parent volunteers or people that have a particular interest in that, the cause of that organization.

[1:50:36] So many times these volunteers come without a lot of board experience. They may not understand what their roles responsibilities are, what their liabilities are, their personal liabilities are. So having this foundational board governance training is especially essential. And we’re seeing in the news right now the nonprofit affordable housing, that the city is, that development, that the city is taking over that, sorry, that nonprofit housing organization.

[1:51:10] And right now they’re operating without a board. What happens when there is no board, the governance under the legislation, the governance responsibilities falls to the executive director. So then you see all sorts of challenges because the executive director is already dealing with all of the operational. So it would be akin to your city manager taking on the entire role of city council. So you would understand the challenges that that individual would face. So as I said, the board is the foundation of the nonprofit organization and having them well trained is essential.

[1:51:51] I will look for further speakers or a follow-up from Councillor Trausa. Yes, thank you, that’s very helpful. Well, I’m certainly going to be supporting this. I think we are just going to get ourselves in deeper difficulty in our nonprofit sector if we don’t throw this lifeline out there. I’m disappointed that this is where it’s come to. I would like to see much more. I think this is the type of capacity building organization that I think gives back to the city many times over. And I’d like to see a larger allocation to them.

[1:52:26] But under the circumstances, here we are. I think we’ve, the maker of the motion, myself and the executive director have gone out of our way to cut this back as far as it can be cut back. So I’m going to be asking for your support for this very, very limited allocation. And hopefully this will put us in a better setting and maybe help us save some of the fledgling, struggling nonprofits from going under.

[1:53:01] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Frayer. And then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you. So I’m in support of this. It’s a very reasonable ask. And you know, it does very impactful work with and how they spend their money is very prudent. And I’d also point out that we’ve heard this before but pillar is the nonprofits of nonprofits. And I would also like to say that when I went there and I spoke with the reps at pillar, you know, I came in coming with maybe some ideas to cut some of the initiatives, but then I was floored on what pillar told me how engaged pillar is with the situation that we’re in, with the community that they’re interacting with.

[1:53:41] So I feel like this is a very reasonable ask. 60,000 for the first year. And with no tax levy impact too, I am in full support of that. Councillor Hopkins. Yes, thank you for recognizing me again. Just responding to a few comments, which I appreciate from my colleagues through you, maybe the staff. I’d like to have a better understanding. First of all, bridge financing can be applied through the community reserve fund.

[1:54:14] And why this fund is more associates with the ask as opposed to the tax levies through you. Thank you, Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So this is a one-time funding ask for a one-time funding commitment. And for that reason, using a one-time funding source such as a reserve or reserve fund is appropriate. The community investment reserve fund itself is as you may recall from last week’s discussion. It is, excuse me, Council’s fund that you have considerable discretion over.

[1:54:54] This is the fund that receives 25% of any year-end surplus that may materialize at the end of any given year. And the parameters on the fund are quite flexible. So this certainly would be something that would qualify as an acceptable use of that fund. And given that it is only a one-time commitment would be appropriate to fund from a one-time source. Thank you. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you through you, Madam Chair, to staff for the response. So this is appropriate. I just wish it was more.

[1:55:30] And I really do believe this is about community building. Community building is very, very important in our city. So I hope you can support it. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you to staff. I’m just wondering if you can give us an indication of how much is in that reserve fund, Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. Currently before this decision point in front of you, the current uncommitted balance in that fund is approximately $270,000.

[1:56:08] Councillor ramen. Thank you. I’m wondering if Ms. Cassidy might be able to comment. In the original business case, the budget breakdown was provided with personnel costs, general administrative costs and material and supplies costs. I’m just wondering what this new amount represents in terms of that breakdown. Ms. Cassidy. Yeah, thank you for the question. It’s about the same percentage wise of breakdown because this is a training program that is delivered online.

[1:56:43] The bulk of the expense for pillar in delivering the training is the personnel costs. And it’s a four part series. Each module is a four part series. So, and it’s a half a day or a little less than a half a day of training. So that is generally the cost is personnel. So there’s, we factor in a certain percentage for all our overhead and IT costs and that sort of thing, but the bulk is personnel.

[1:57:18] Councillor ramen. Thank you. And just to clarify, the participants are paying participants. So with this money, what we would do is extend our reach to those nonprofits that cannot afford to pay for the cost of the program. An example of an organization that has come a long way after going through pillars, programming is something like 519 Pursuit, who started out as two young women delivering socks and food to people living on the street and living rough in the city of London.

[1:57:53] They’ve gone through a number of different, not necessarily just the board governance training. They’ve gone through a number of different programs at pillar, but these are the kinds of organizations that have become really viable and helpful organizations that have really, you know, their participation in the forgotten 519 really led to where we are now with the whole of community system response and the health and homelessness strategy. So that’s the power of some of these grassroots organizations that are making those choices between governance training for their board or delivering the service and programs that they do for the community.

[1:58:28] So it would be allowing those nonprofits that don’t have the resources to pay for the board governance training. Councillor Rama, a follow-up for? Thank you, that exhausts my questions, I appreciate it. I have no announcements on the speakers this at the moment. So just taking a look online, I see none. In chambers, I see none. Calling the question. Closing the vote and the motion fails six to nine.

[1:59:14] Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Cassidy, for your work in the community. That concludes that item. The next item, if they’re looking going numerically, if they’re looking to move it at this time, is business case P-51. This is a Councillor Ferra in Frank. Councillor Ferra, okay, just one second. Okay, it is in the system. Councillor Frank, you’re still the seconder. Okay, that’s confirmed. So it’s just loading in the East Drive. Once again, Councillor Ferra, I’m gonna ask you to read it out for those joining us and that’s gonna go perfect.

[1:59:48] It’s up on the screen for people in the gallery can see it and online. And then if you want to be the first speaker, I will start your time after that. Thank you. You want me to read the motion first? Yeah? Yes, please. Okay, so the motion that Councillor Frank and I have brought to you is that the Mayors 2024-2027 multi-year budget be amended to include the revised conventional service hours for 2024 only for business case P-51 transit service hours growth. As set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 multi-year budget referred to by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12th, 2023 as approved by the London Transit Commission on January 31st, 2024 by increasing the funding as follows.

[2:00:36] Would you like me to read the years as well? Maybe just the first year and say it’s the same for all the years. Okay, so 2024 operational expenses, 1,646,600 and that is the same with the tax levy and that would be the only growth. So this motion that we brought to you was a severe, severe compromise. And frankly, it’s not enough. It’s not even close. Councillor and Frank and I are proposing the motion and like I said, it’s for increases for 2024 only.

[2:01:12] And it will have a 0.2% increase on the property tax increase for 2024, bringing it back to 8.8% where the mayor’s budget originally stood. So this is it for 18,000 hours and you will have that carried over but there would be no growth after that. So really, what does 18,000 hours get us? And simply put, it doesn’t get us that much at all because it won’t even get us a new route. Our new route is approximately 20,300 hours for that regular 30-minute frequency route.

[2:01:48] So it doesn’t really, it’s not really gonna help. And I know that all of us want to bring in industrial routes and all of us wanna have workers, have physical access to work so they can work. So here are some of the things that it would get us. We could add just under four buses to existing routes to address crowd and concerns in 2024 and nothing else until we do this whole thing again. And a few of you have residents and wards who need exactly this. So my question to you is, are you ready to let the games begin on who gets these routes?

[2:02:24] 50% of routes are driving by passengers daily due to bus conditions being full. And this data is accurate because the way this data is calculated is when the operator looks in their rear view mirror in the bus and it’s totally packed. Like everyone is in there like sardines, they press a button, assign clips on the outside, nobody can get in and that data is recorded. So that is hard data. In the last six days and I’ve been asking for this, I received a lot of communications and firsthand accounts of exactly this. I actually have over a thousand right now.

[2:03:01] So there’s a lot of data that show that this is one of the greatest barriers to a lot of things and to the labor market is one. And there’s a great city of London report called the labor market participation in the London economic region that touches on these points. I definitely suggest you read this, it’s a great read and it’s quite new. So we all know that London is growing very fast. It grew 10% five years, 2016 to 2021. There’s some fresh data that we have from the LTC. And some of that is there’s been a 11% increase from 2023 January to this January 2024 and 11% increase in riders.

[2:03:40] That looks like growth to me and it will continue to increase that way. So we’ve heard this, the LTC is faced massive increases in its expenditures, personnel costs, fuel, maintenance, insurance. And right now there are people being passed by, by full buses jam-packed and they’re missing work and they’re missing school and they’re missing appointments. And I’d be really interested to see how many people have been fired because they can’t even arrive at a job consistently. That would be a great data point that I would love to show here, but it’s hard to get.

[2:04:15] So the reality is that without any growth hours that conventional transit, we will continue to leave people behind at stops. So I ask you, ask yourself, how does someone hold a job like that? How do you make an appointment and actually make it like that? How do you have any consistency in your daily lives if you’re depending on our public transit? You won’t even try to look for a job because you know you’re not gonna be able to get there. You don’t have that reliability component. We wonder why our labor participation rate is low. I would argue at this, we do see it in other municipalities, but this is a big barrier here.

[2:04:52] So that’s just simply because if you’re stuck in these situations and you’re stuck in these situations ‘cause you rely on public transit, that means they rely on you on the decision that you make right now. So don’t let them down. Pair of transit went through this, exactly through this. And thankfully the mayor’s budget has addressed that. It’s brought significant changes that I have a lot of hope you will see improve on the services there. But now we’re at risk of doing that to conventional transit.

[2:05:26] 30 seconds. Can I get a mover for an additional five minutes of time? Like I would have a speaker’s list. I’m always happy to come back to you if you don’t need it right now. Oh, I need it right now. How long an additional— I probably won’t need it, but let’s just hedge our bets and do five minutes. Okay, so I have a requester of an additional five minutes, a seconder of Councilor Hopkins for the five minutes. Okay, so the vote will come up in e-scribe, I’m told, of a yay or nay for an additional five minutes for Councilor Ferrara.

[2:06:10] So just one moment as it comes up. Okay, the sir, truss out. Closing the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[2:07:10] Okay, so I’ll restart your five minutes, but manage your time if you want to save some for later to jump back in. Thank you, and thank you. Happy birthday to me, I appreciate that. So going back to putting ourselves in the same position with conventional transit, like we did, pair of transit. So here’s some other ways to look at it. Access to the labor market, vital component to economic growth. And we’re talking about how people get to the areas that they need to be and where they can shop and spend cash. This access is vital to our tax base and growing it. And anyone involved in managing factories or dealing with supply chains knows that a reliable chain to keep things moving and smooth running is very vital.

[2:07:54] So a reliable public transit system is absolutely no different. It’s just as simply as reliable as that supply chain in that logistics movement. And it’s key to providing equity and inclusion. And it’s green, public transit is very green. It won’t get greener than this. And it’s key to attracting prospective employers to London. Compared to our peers in Ontario, it will make us competitive. So if we want to bring in good employers, we need to start propping up our public transit. So I barely scraped the surface, but reliable public transit intersects pretty much all of our strategic plan, and it’s vitally important.

[2:08:35] So it might even be the best bang for our buck compared to other business cases that we’re looking at. So now I’ve got to speak to the base budget. The base budget is 9.2% as outlined in the draft, multi-year budget, that’s 9.2%. I forget what page that’s on, but if someone can tell me what page that’s on, I would definitely like to reference that. The total base budget amount of 40% which we have seen, you’d have to calculate that using the cumulative increase from 2027 divided by the numbers from 2023.

[2:09:14] The net tax levy increase, if you take that number and you divide it by 2023, you get just over 40%. That’s a cumulative increase. That is the way we do calculations for tests. Does not capture the time periods in between those five years. We need to incrementally calculate those time periods. The way you do that is you take the average annual increase. The multi-year budget, draft budget on that page, whatever it is, I forget, calculates that way. It’s the correct way to do this calculation.

[2:09:50] So we’re actually at a 9.2% increase on the base budget. You can do the calculation yourself. So all I’m asking you, really what to do, is we need to figure out a way to make sure that people are able to get picked up from the bus so they can have that reliability component in there. And I want to know that people will get a ride so they know where they’re going. This 18,000 hours, like I have said, I’ve just totally ripped my motion apart, but it is not enough. The clerk has just circulated, to all of you, a motion that I would like you to put out on the floor.

[2:10:27] Amend my motion. Give me a friendly amendment to my motion. However you want, but we need more. ‘Cause you’ll be heroes if you do it. So I’ll stop there. Thank you, Councillor, procedurally, if you want your original motion that you do. So for all the Councillors, something just got circulated. The numbers are drastically, drastically higher than what the Councillor’s just discussed. So it’s just come out, yeah. So if you check your emails, it’s in there.

[2:11:01] So the Councillor’s asking that you amend what he’s put on the floor. I will fully recognize the Councillor could have put the one he just circulated on the floor. So as just as we’re trying to have a conversation, you’re advocating for one thing, you’re actually asking for another. I’m just gonna caution that it makes it hard for people who’s trying to follow along, including your fellow Councillors to actually know where we’re trying to go. But someone can move an amendment absolutely at any time. The Councillor circulated out what he would like as an amendment, someone wants to make an amendment. So I don’t know if anyone’s looking to make that amendment.

[2:11:43] Okay, so the clerk has advised, if you would like what you just circulated, you can withdraw what you already have on the floor. If no one has an issue and go with the other one. I’m just not sure of your intention, Councillor Ferra. My intention is to spark a collaborative effort right here. I would put the motion on the floor, but I feel like we have some Councillors who understand what I’m saying. So I’m giving an easy win to you. So I would really hope that you would give me a friendly amendment to my motion. It would not be a friendly amendment that I’m being advised of.

[2:12:19] So currently the motion on the floor is the 1.6, yeah, 1.646, Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me. I do have a question about procedure ‘cause I just wanna make sure when we are voting here, what we’re doing. So the procedure is that there is an amendment on the floor. There’s no amendment. So we’re speaking to the main motion. If that fails, can the amendment be brought forward then? I would say procedurally, it sounds like Councillor Ferra has put on a starting point of a conversation.

[2:12:59] He’s hoping someone wants more. If someone wants to move more, they’re welcome to make an amendment to do it. Should this fail, it would give you a good indication of if people aren’t willing to do this much, they might not be willing to do more. But I would deem that these numbers are materially different enough that if someone did want to try for a higher amount, even though a lower amount failed, procedurally they’re welcome to. Councillor Ferra.

[2:13:32] Thank you, sorry for being lenient. Sorry for being lenient with me. Some of the numbers, let me just clarify. Each of the year increases with this amendment that you saw circulating is 0.2% and that will— Okay, sorry, I’m gonna have to ask you to stop. You have a now procedure question. So we have, I guess, really point of order question. Thank you, point of order, yes. So my question is, are we on the motion that is in front of us? Or now we discussing a motion that isn’t on the floor? So if we could stay with the motion that’s on the floor or pull the motion and put the other one on the floor or amend or whatever needs to be done so that we’re dealing with the motion ‘cause I think it’s getting very confusing.

[2:14:13] Okay, so I hear that. Dr. Mayor Lewis is yours, point of order, the same point of order. Okay, so right now on the floor, it’s the 1.6, keep speaking points to that unless someone wants to move something different ‘cause as of right now, there is nothing extra on the floor besides what’s in the E-Scribe and what the counselor has already talked about. Okay, so I got two more hands. I’m assuming these are both points. So hold the speakers list. Okay, so points of order I see are done. We’re good, it’s what’s on the floor and in the E-Scribe that’s on the floor, that’s what we’re speaking to. And I do have the speakers list growing, so happy to manage that. Councilor, you have about two minutes left of your additional five minutes that you were given.

[2:14:49] I’ll wait and I’ll hear what the council has to say. Okay, not sure. Councilor McAllister wanted to be next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis and then other hands as they come up. Thank you and through the chair. I appreciate Councilor Verara and Frank putting this forward. It is definitely something in terms, what I’ve heard as these budget discussions have gone on, the conventional transit hours. I just think in terms of where we’re at, I’m more comfortable in terms of the 1.6.

[2:15:26] It does get us back to where we started, but I do appreciate that this is a very important issue in terms of what we’re hearing from Londoners. I think we have to acknowledge the conventional transit limitations. There is a desire from the public to VCC and expansion. I would say to, you know, I’m just speaking on this motion, but in terms of anything else that does come forward, I would really want to see the modeling for that in terms of how to impact the tax levy. Just realizing that this just came before us, so I have no idea of what that would look like.

[2:16:04] Thank you. So I just paused our time there. Would you like to see the modeling now? At any time, Mr. Murray and his team has his magic graph that he could pull up, would you like to see it if you took this 1.6 and change? Okay, Mr. Murray, could your team just drop this into their spreadsheet and when you’re ready, just let me know. And then Councillor McAllister, would you have potentially a follow-up question or would I just go to my next speaker? Thank you through the chair.

[2:16:55] So the figures that Councillor Ferrera previously referenced are correct. So the impact of the amendment that is on the floor is a 0.2% impact or increase to the 2024 tax levy. So that would mean an increase from where we’re currently sitting at 8.6 up to 8.8. On a four-year average basis, there is no impact. So we still would remain at 7.4% rounded based on this amendment.

[2:17:32] So the only tax levy impact associated with this amendment is in 2024 to bring us from 8.6 up to 8.8. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Loose is next on my speaker’s list. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m gonna focus on the amendment and the reason why, well, I appreciate the work that the Councillor has put into it. And I think what is on the floor is much more reasonable than what was in the original business case. I still won’t be supporting it. And I wanna share the reasons why. We heard from the Councillor the 11% increase in January, 2023 over January, sorry, of 2024 over 2023.

[2:18:13] Yet when the LTC was before us early in 2023, before a standing committee of this council, they said ridership is going to decrease when their fairs went up. While their fairs have gone up and their ridership has not decreased. That right there raises a serious red flag for me on how projections are being made and estimates are being made by the LTC. I appreciate the data on the people left behind. That is hard data. I think a number of the other, well, I know that a number of the other data points we are given by the commission is based on a formula, not based on hard rider counts.

[2:18:53] I’m also mindful of the fact that, in addition to the approximately 40% base budget increase that Councillor Ferrer referenced that’s provided for in the mayor’s base budget, the actual base budget increase year over year in the four years cumulative actually gets to about 49% when you include the fair increases and the gas tax revenue increases. So I’m very concerned that an organization that’s getting a 49% increase to its base budget that told us ridership was going to go down and ridership has gone up is telling us that they cannot make any new service improvements with all of this additional funding.

[2:19:39] I’m also concerned that once again, we have the London Transit Commission seeking to add these costs on the property tax levy. There is an additional source of revenue in this city called assessment growth. And when a business case can be made, buys a service specifically to the growth of the city, not to service enhancements, but to actual growth. When a case can be made that, and I hope Councillor Ramen won’t mind, I’m gonna use Hyde Park as an example ‘cause they’ve had tremendous growth over there.

[2:20:16] But if there was a case made that the LTC needs funding to create a new route to serve Hyde Park because 5,000 more people are living there today than we’re living there in the last budget, that is a growth-based business case. That is a business case that could be submitted for assessment growth and not on the property tax base. Unfortunately, LTC has chosen not to do that. They’ve chosen to ask for everything out of the property tax base. I actually do believe that there is a component of this debate that is growth pays for growth.

[2:20:53] And I think that that is where some of these service hour increases need to come from. We talked about industrial service in Councillor Ferrer’s comments, he mentioned that. I wanna point out that 400 new jobs are coming to Veterans Memorial Parkway when WSIB staffs up this year. That is an actual growth example. An increase in jobs along a corridor that now could justify an increase in transit service along that corridor. The same thing that led to the route created out to Innovation Park because of the expansion of Bosco and Roxy’s.

[2:21:30] That is a growth business case. That is not a burden to be put on the existing property taxpayer. So I’m really, really frustrated. The time and time again, we see the LTC not get assessment growth business cases approved because they’re not tied to growth. They’re based on service enhancements. Well, growth is where we need to put the growth in transit service. It is to those residents in Hyde Park. It is to those growing industrial jobs. It is to maple leaf foods where an employer actually built a transit turnaround station that transit doesn’t go to.

[2:22:08] And yet those jobs are growth. So to put all of this in the property tax base rather than to make reasonable requests through assessment growth to add new hours and new routes, that to me is a fundamental mistake. I think that we have to ask some serious questions about the estimates and numbers we are getting from this organization. I am actually not going to be comfortable giving the LTC any more than what’s in the base budget right now and the pair of transit investment until we consider whether or not we need to have a third party auditing firm, a KPMGE, a Price Cooper Waterhouse or someone like that come in and actually take a hard look at the operations and the books.

[2:22:49] Thank you. You do have about 30 seconds left, just in your timing. I will also note that Ms. Palenci from LTC is online should be questioned directly to hers. They had logged on. So Deputy Mayor Lucif, a question comes up. I will certainly circle back, realizing that you may not be aware of that resource. Next on my speaker’s list, I have Councillor Privel and then Councillor Frank. Thank you and we talked about certain numbers and I just want to clarify as well that if I look at the city contribution for the years 24 to 25, 25, 26, 27, it is at 4% just like the other agencies.

[2:23:26] There’s a 1% age it’s from 23 to 24 that goes up to 37.3% and the reason for that is because LTC actually dipped into the reserves and that’s the amount of 9.7 million that distorts it the first year. And that’s why it’s looking kind of the number as high as it was said, but otherwise if you reverse the reserves, then we are actually 4% year on year growth which is not out of line with anyone else.

[2:24:01] I do agree and I will support this amendment. I do think, I agree with the deputant mayor when he said that this should be also included or this should be a case included in the growth assessment. It does make sense to me. But on the other hand, right now we need certain guarantees, certain guarantees for the public. And if you look at in our planning committee meetings and I know that these buildings, these infills will not be built tomorrow. I understand that. But on the other hand, if you feel behind then we might have to play a big catch up game just like we did now with the police services.

[2:24:35] And we are saying we are approving these infills and we are stating that we are doing this because we will have improved public transportation. And some of the statistics and me as a commissioner, I’m a the other commissioner on LTC. If I look at the province wide and nationwide statistics that are accessible to me, actually our LTC in terms of the efficiency, in terms of the return investment, in terms of municipality putting money in and the share in terms of revenue share, in terms of municipal contribution and fare box contribution.

[2:25:15] LTC actually is looking really good. I’m not saying that there is always room for improvement with any organization. But again, what’s accessible for me, both financial statements as well as benchmarking, as well as other statistics, I would not be able to make honestly some of the statements that were made in terms of negatively towards the LTC management or the commission. I will support this. I do think that we need to revisit this and we do LTC has to make a strong case for the growth assessment.

[2:25:47] But I will certainly support the year one because there has to be a certain guarantee and we get to stand behind our work if we are approving these projects and we are telling people, we are going to improve our public transportation and then we don’t. And I honestly don’t know right now, I don’t have any statistics from another city in Ontario or Canada that will show me we are really return on investment for City of London, is really bad, is really poor or any negative word I will be using as someone I heard during the last week. Thank you. Thank you, you used up three minutes just to let you know and I have Councillor Frank next.

[2:26:23] Thank you. So I’ll obviously be supporting this. And I think we need to really look at the reality and to Councillor Pribble’s point, the LTC has been underfunded by the City for decades and it requires a significant increase in order to address the chronic underfunding and this is that opportunity. As of 2019 and 2021 when the LTC compares with other similar cities of similar size, the LTC gets the lowest municipal subsidy in comparison. So that includes Barry Brampton, Burlington, Durham, Guelph, Hamilton, Kingston, Mississauga, Guelph, Wilson, Catherine, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Windsor, and York Region.

[2:26:59] The LTC gets the lowest subsidy from the municipality in comparison to all those other cities. So right now it’s around 45% of their operating funding comes from the municipality. The rest comes from fares, gas, tax, grants, and other agreements and the other city’s transit systems get somewhere between 50 to 70% of their operating budget from their municipalities. So this operating increase will bring us to the average. We are at the bottom right now. So that is why it’s big because we’re at the bottom, we’re trying to get to the middle. And if we provide the increased base budget and some additional service growth money as we’re proposing, the LTC will probably still be at the bottom of the average for municipal investment.

[2:27:39] So I don’t understand how we can chastise an agency for not meeting our expectations when we give them barely enough to function. As well, the LTC has managed inflationary pressures for years without coming to City Hall for handout. Over COVID there’s federal grant funding that they’re able to use. And in last year they dipped very heavily into their reserves to cover their increased expenses. I wish other agencies would tap into their reserves before coming to us for more funding. And the number one source of emissions and money is from cars. And we know people drive because there are very few alternatives for them to get to work or to get to school. And when I was canvassing, I still remember the story where when I was knocking on somebody’s door, they live in my ward, they go to Fanshawe over in Councillor Cuddy’s ward.

[2:28:21] They had for the first year taken the bus, but it got to the point where they had to take two buses, they kept missing their transfers, and they kept missing class. So they bought a car, and that’s costing them around $11,000 a year. So students are buying cars because they can’t take the bus to get to school. So in order to give people another option, we have to improve our transit. And we’ve heard from LTC, funding their operating budget as we’re going to, is not going to improve the service. So if we want to improve the service, we actually have to allocate some funding towards it. And so I think the only people that lose out if we don’t improve this budget case today are the people that actually take transit.

[2:28:59] And we can have a longer discussion about looking into various aspects of LTC and their operations. But today, the only people who will lose out are transit riders. So I think that we have a duty to be able to provide better service to them so that they can get to work in school and get around the city. So I’ll be supporting this amendment. Thank you. You also use three minutes of your time. Further speakers would be Councillor Stevenson, Councillor Troso and then the mayor. Thank you. A question to staff, just to clarify, because there was discussion of using the assessment growth to pay for growth.

[2:29:38] But my understanding is that that is another issue that expanding the service into the new areas is a separate issue. And the ability to meet the need that is currently happening where the buses are over capacity, that that’s not an option. Sorry, just for clarification, would you also want to know what that assessment growth process is to bring it through that way or just? No, I think I understand that part. It’s just, I want to just clarify that that isn’t something that is available to meet this particular need of expanding the capacity on our current routes.

[2:30:12] Mr. Murray. Thank you, through the chair. The assessment growth policy is very prescriptive in terms of those potential growth asks that are eligible for funding through that process. Historically, the challenge with the London Transit Assessment Growth Request has been that the bulk of the case has focused more on what we would call the service improvement or the service enhancement aspect of it and not speaking directly to issues such as the deputy mayor raised earlier in relation to expanding service to new subdivisions or new industrial areas or addressing growth in ridership due to population growth.

[2:31:03] Rather, the case was framed more in a general service in enhancement or improvement way, which becomes very difficult for us as the administrators of that policy to support a request of that nature that doesn’t align well, at least as written with the policy. So that’s been the challenge we’ve faced before. Now, having said that, certainly there is the ability for London Transit to continue submitting assessment growth cases for those costs that they can clearly demonstrate are linked to growth, and we would certainly encourage them to do that, but that has been challenging in the past.

[2:31:41] Councillor Stevenson. Yes, thank you for that. I have been looking for ways to bring the tax rate down and to provide the funding for much needed services for Londoners, and one of the reasons I brought the other business case forward this morning was to try to find a way to do that. I will be supporting this motion because the people aren’t, like to have 50% of the buses over capacity that on our current routes just doesn’t work, and we have many Londoners who are struggling right now who rely on that transit.

[2:32:24] I do think it’s a basic need. It’s something we committed to, public safety, housing, and transit in our strategic plan. And there are a lot of people who are struggling financially who may start looking at letting go of their car to make ends meet, and we need to have a stable transit system. So as much as I don’t want to see an increase in the tax levy, and I’m still open to whatever we can do to reduce that, I will be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Troevsau. Thank you, through the chair.

[2:32:58] What I’m really worried about here is we get into a discussion about what this or that agency should have done, and yes, I share many of the concerns. I’ve stated those here at the table over the last year. What I do not want to do and what I am not willing to do is hold the riders hostage for these decisions. The riders need relief. And it’s not just a situation where, if we don’t give the riders relief, the status quo is just going to stay the same.

[2:33:31] It’s going to go down, it’s going to get worse. People are going to give up on public transit. They’re going to say, you know, this is not a reliable system. I’m hearing time and time again from people in my ward that they cannot go about their essential daily business. And yes, it’s going to jobs, it’s going to the hospital, it’s often going to class. It’s also going up the campus where people have part-time jobs. It is creating, it is creating a hardship on people who rely on transit. And it’s devaluing this system and it’s forcing people into automobiles.

[2:34:10] Before we even finish the mobility master plan, we’re forcing people back into automobiles. And we can’t do that. Now, I’ve gotten a lot of comments and I know that the Student Council at Western has done an extensive survey on this and they’ve gotten many, many, many comments. But just to sum them up, the service is not reliable. And at some point, the student groups are going to have to say, why are we paying this full amount to start, to get transit passes?

[2:34:48] Because our transit passes don’t work. We have transit passes in our pocket, but they don’t help us, they don’t help us. And again, it’s not just the students. We have got a number of development applications now, pending along the Oxford Street corridor. And I’ll last planning staff if they’re able to off the top of their head. When you put together the big Mud Creek People Book subdivision and the other one that’s coming along Oxford and the one on Beaver Book, how many additional units are we looking at and how many additional people are we looking at, could you answer that just really quickly through the chair?

[2:35:31] I don’t have an exact number, but it’s hundreds, if not thousands, of units. That is one of the significant corridors that we’re looking to try to intensify. And I’m very much aligned with our London Plan goals. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. I am so concerned about intensifying that corridor, not because I don’t think we need more intensified housing, but we can’t support it. We do not have the transit infrastructure to support it. And if you think Oxford is bad now, it’s just going to get worse when we put all these new apartment buildings up.

[2:36:07] Are we able to say no to this otherwise worthwhile project? Are we able to put holding provisions onto our land use approval? We are going to have to do something because we’re being choked. So all in all, I am not really happy with the smaller amount that is on the table right now. I am most certainly going to support it. And I am most certainly going to be advocating for other forms of relief for this transit agency. And people on this council can have a lot of criticisms of this agency.

[2:36:44] But I do not want to put the onus on this on our riders. And that’s why I’m going to be supporting this measure. And thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. OK, thank you very much. And I appreciate the comments so far. So I want to say a couple of things on this. One is I know Councillor Ferreira gave his explanation. But I want to just talk about what was put in the budget.

[2:37:17] And that is a move from $45 million of municipal base funding, not accounting for the fare or the gas tax. A move from that base, just the base, by 2027 to what is $64.5 million. So we’re about an $18.7 million increase, which when Councillor Frank says this has been underfunded for decades, I don’t disagree. In fact, I said it in the state of the city, which is why I support such a substantial increase to the base budget.

[2:37:51] Now, on top of that, there are other base allocations that were put in the budget that I tabled that bring that amount of increase to $68 million. So $45.8 to $68 million, which is a 49% increase. And the deputy mayor is actually wrong with his numbers. That doesn’t include the fares or the gas taxes. I think that they have made a fair increase. And in the articulation of some of the challenges for that fair increase, I think the LTC was very clear in the caution that they take in the approach to fair increases, in that if you would increase fares too much, ridership goes down.

[2:38:24] Now, in this situation, it seems like they’ve actually in a very positive situation where they’ve instituted a fair increase, but ridership is up. So it seems to me when I put this budget together that making a substantial increase to base, recognizing some of the things that they’ve done in the past few years was a good step. Recognizing that the fair increase should generate, ideally, a little more revenue than they anticipated because they put it up, they expect it to go down, but people continue to use transit seems like there should be something there. But what I listened to very carefully in the PPM and from many others who wrote in, and I know that it was said that, you know, we could have winners here.

[2:39:04] There are winners here. There are paratransit winners here. And I don’t know why anybody is in celebrating that. And I know to the great frustration of people in the community in the paratransit community and advocates there who say, hey, we just got a substantive increase in a service that we’ve been, you know, for decades saying needs improvement. And so I think that there’s a huge celebration here for the equity of those individuals in that system. It’s pretty important that we do not only make that investment, but recognize that it happened and continue to improve that service. So there is millions more in the base for paratransit and specialized service.

[2:39:40] I also want to recognize that although we’re not talking about it in this business case, and I’ll be cautious to the chair, we’re also supporting as a council in phase one, we’ve asked for permission to move money over, including $80 million of municipal money into the $199 million phase one of the high berry facility rebuild. And this budget that I tabled actually includes the business case that says in the capital plan, let’s actually authorize the $74 million in the future capital planning for the phase two of the $275 million facility. So when people talk about big facilities being built, transit is one that is getting a significant long overdue investment in one of their facilities, which sets us up very well for the future of transit as we complete the mass mobility plan and start to roll out rapid transit in the future.

[2:40:25] It is difficult for me to go much beyond that and what I put in the base budget because I do agree with the assessments that growth should pay for growth. And what I don’t want to do is punish anybody for past decisions. What I want to do is help them with future ones. So the assessment growth policy, as Mr. Murray said, might be a little restrictive in some cases. It’s our policy that’s delegated authority. The treasurer and the deputy city manager of financial sports has to execute that policy in the way we went with the way we did it. If there is some sort of significant sticking point that is not allowing the transit commission to basically follow through on the basic concept that cities getting bigger, more people are coming here, part of the new taxes should go towards supplying transit, then it’s incumbent on us from a policy perspective to fix that before the next assessment growth review.

[2:41:12] And I think that that’s a reasonable thing to do as well. And so there is an opportunity for growth-based dollars in the system and I know from some of the campaign that the LTC has put out that they’re targeting the growth of the city and a growing city as a significant constraint on them. And I think new tax dollars coming into the city in part should go towards funding transit in our city. So this largest increase that we’ve seen in as long as I can remember in transit can be celebrated, but there’s also people who would like to criticize it as well because it is not everything.

[2:41:47] It is not the 75% base ask with everything in that the commission asked for. It’s about 2/3 of that. 30 seconds. So let me say to Councillor Ferreira, it’s your birthday. So we talked, I’m not gonna support this, but I wanna be clear. I don’t think what you’re asking for here is unreasonable. I think you’re being relatively responsible the way you’re trying to frame it. I actually think growth is the way to go in the future on this, but I’m not gonna veto this if it goes through, right? And I made that commitment to you yesterday. So this is a mayor’s budget that was tabled.

[2:42:21] It’s becoming council’s budget and I’m gonna respect the Democratic will of council on this all the way through. So I’ll listen to what colleagues have to say, but right now I stand by the budget that I table. Thank you, Councillor Huppens. Yeah, thank you. And I wanna thank the mayor as well for his comments about whatever decision we make here at council that you will not veto this business case. I think that to me sends a loud message on the importance of transit in our city. And I’m just gonna start off very simply.

[2:42:59] I have lived in this city for over 35 years, moved to Byron, had to learn how to drive a car ‘cause there was no transit. Today, there is still little transit. The southwest end of the city is all about development. And we have very few and little opportunities. I sat on the London board for a number of months, having gone through COVID and the challenges that the LTC had, but I believe strongly that this commission is underfunded.

[2:43:40] We need to see transit out there. We need to see it as a viable way of moving around our city. We are a growing city. Big cities need transit. Good infrastructure. We are going through just finished the EI on the infrastructure project on Oxford Street West from sanatorium all the way to West Alborn, major infrastructure project of improving, widening the road to allow for the congestion that exists out in the West End.

[2:44:19] One of the things I hear over and over again is will this infrastructure allow and provide better transit service? Can’t just put cars, keep on putting cars on our roads. We need to see transit so we can use it. Residents in Ward 9 want to use transit, the student that wants to go to Western doesn’t want their parents to drive them to school. They want to be able to get reliable transit. Visitors coming into our city, staying with friends and relatives, don’t want them to have to drive them all over the city.

[2:45:02] They want, again, reliable transit. So I really want to thank the two Councillors for bringing this forward. My term on the past couple of councils, it is chronically and has been underfunded. We need to change. We need to support our transit services. I don’t want to get into climate change plan. I don’t want to get into the mobility plan ‘cause we could be here all afternoon, the importance of supporting this business case. So I really hope my colleagues will do so.

[2:45:39] Thank you, Councillor Stevenson, and you have three minutes left. Thank you, like my fellow colleagues, I think there’s been a lot of late nights and I’ve been told that I spoke conflicting statements so I just want to be clear. I am supporting this motion. There are a lot of people who are really, really struggling in our city. We can’t do anything about the fixed incomes that aren’t enough. We can do what we can do, and I know we are in terms of housing, but there’s nothing immediate that’s going to take time. And if there are people who rely on public transit who don’t have any other option, and if we can help them, there’s very little that we can do as a municipality, but if I can help them such that the bus that comes to their stop has room for them to get on, then that’s what I’m going to do.

[2:46:27] So I will be supporting. Thank you, Councillor Pribble, you have two minutes left. Thank you. I want to mention that there’s a dollar amount that’s going around and I just want to reiterate that it’s related in terms of the dollar volume increases. There’s the 2023, $9.7 million that came from reserves, and that’s a reflection of kind of when we look at the increase in the budget for LTC. So I just want to reiterate that, again, that $9.7 million, it makes a difference in terms of looking at the number.

[2:46:59] But I just want to let you know that even if these 18,000 hours, even if they go through and for the public, it’s not that it’s going to make a dramatic change that we say 18,000 hours and we are winners, we are going to have a great transportation. I just want to let you know, Hamilton, last year, 49,000 hours, Waterloo, this year, 50,000. Brampton, 108,000. All these three regions, they are giving, the city contribution is 40 to $50 million more than what we do. If I look at the operational and profitability ratios, which has come from the study from which I took from the numbers that’s done by CUDA, a fact book, our operational and profitability ratios are either the best or one of the best.

[2:47:45] I just want to reiterate that the 18,000 hours, which I’m hoping is going to go through, it’s not going to be a game changer that we are going to have buses flying up and down the streets in London. Thank you. Thank you. Yep. So I do have speakers list, I’m trying to let people have first before other people start doing seconds and thirds. So Councilor, I don’t believe you’ve spoken at all to this. So we have your full five minutes. Thank you and through you. I appreciate the conversation that we’ve been able to have on this and I think that I hope the public is finding this conversation helpful as well.

[2:48:19] I want to thank the mayor for his comments on where he was and his thinking on, including in the mayor’s budget and the ongoing conversation around assessment growth and to Deputy Mayor Lewis on Hyde Park. I appreciate that as well. That’s the priority for me as well. Yeah, this has been a conundrum for me around why we haven’t been using assessment growth appropriately, especially in my ward and the mayor’s former ward where there has been explosive growth in Ward 9 as well. And yet we haven’t kept pace with transit.

[2:48:58] I wanted to, if it’s possible, through you, ask a question to Ms. Polashny. And I’m just wondering if she might be able to share a little bit more about this conventional transit service growth hours in relationship to the chart that was provided on page 650 and the changes that are being proposed through this amendment, how it impacts that chart in terms of ridership increase, percents increase in service hours, et cetera. And then the complement adjustments as we look at it. Absolutely, Ms. Polashny, welcome.

[2:49:35] It’s your choice if you want to just have audio or audio and visual. If you would like the councilor’s question repeated, happy to do that. And just FYI, I do not time your responses. I just ask that you’re concise. Sorry, we can’t hear you. Yeah, there we go. Sorry, I thought you were unmuting me. Just trying to pull up the spreadsheet that talks about those numbers. So I believe just to confirm first that the councilor’s question was with respect to the decrease to 18,000 hours versus 25. Can I just confirm that before I go?

[2:50:11] Yes. All the way through. Thank you. Yeah, I just want wanting to understand the impacts for your service in terms of that percentage increase in service hours, ridership increase and complement adjustments so that the public’s able to understand what they may see differently other than four buses. Right, so I’ll give it to you in total for over the four year period. So if we look over the four year period when we talked, when we, in the initial request for the 25,000 hours, that represented an approximate 14% increase in service hours in total.

[2:50:45] We anticipated that that would generate approximately 1.5 million additional riders. And that would require, again, over the four year period, complement adjustment of 75 FTEs. Going down to the 18,000 over the four year period, that would represent, well, again, we’re only in one, sorry, we’re only in one year. If we were to do 18,000 for the four year, that would represent 72,000 hours in total, or an approximate 10% increase in service hours, and just over a million in riders.

[2:51:22] If you’d like me to talk specifically to 2024, I can do that too, since we are really only talking about the one year. So, thank you. Okay, so are we only talking about the one year here at this point? The amendment on the floor is the $1,646,600 over the same amount over the four years. Yeah, so the four years is what’s before us? No. This is where I’m confused because the original circulated motion had only, and then this motion on the floor does not, so can we correct and have the right motion in front of us?

[2:52:01] That would be very helpful for the discussion. Can I speak to that? Okay, so the motion on the floor is an increase for the first year, 2024, and from what I understand, that will be caught into the base budget. So we will continue to have that extra amount on top of the base budget year over year, but we will not have an increase on top of those years. What I circulated was the revised commission ask from January 29th or 31st, but that’s not the motion we’re speaking to. It was the motion that I would hope that someone would pull out and put it on the floor. This one just has the 1.6 in change for, and if that is an increase for the first year, maybe I’ll look to Mr. Murray to— I will go to Mr. Murray.

[2:52:40] Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. That’s okay, thank you. Yeah, if staff just wanna explain that the increase as we see on the screen, the motion that’s on the floor is— Thank you, through the chair. So the amendment that is on the floor is for an increase of 18,000 service hours in 2024. Those 18,000 hours will continue, obviously, in 2025, 26, and 27. What this amendment does not provide for is then incremental additional hours in 2025 or 2026 or 2027. This is an increase in 2024 that will then carry throughout the four years.

[2:53:20] Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Raman. Thank you, that helps a lot with the discussion. I appreciate that. Okay, so yes, any additional insights, Ms. Plushney, if that’s possible to go to her to ask, if there’s any additional insights she can provide on that, that would be very helpful. This is something I have heard from many people in the community about being passed over at the bus stop waiting for, to get to work and to get to school and everywhere else. So absolutely a concern, but then I also wanna talk about assessment growth in a moment too.

[2:53:56] Okay, thank you, Ms. Plushney. So if we look at just 2024, the difference would be our original ask would have seen an increase in service hours of approximately 3.5% over what’s currently in place, a ridership increase of 375,000 riders and a compliment adjustment of almost 20 FTEs. The revised request, we’ll see an increase in service hours of 2.5% on approximate 270,000 additional riders and a compliment adjustment of 12 FTEs.

[2:54:34] Councilor? Thank you. And I’m not certain if the LTC has had a chance to meet and discuss what was in the mayor’s budget and versus what was in your business case. But based on the conversation that we’ve been having, is there plans to take a look and come back for assessment growth asks in the future based on the conversation that’s been going on? Ms. Plushney?

[2:55:09] Through the chair, the commission really hasn’t met since this discussion around assessment growth has surfaced, the commission certainly was aware of the assessment growth piece. Unfortunately, as a number of other speakers have talked about this morning, the issues that we’re currently dealing with and trying to address are occurring on corridors where we’ve already got transit and we’re looking at enhancing that, which doesn’t right now meet that policy. So that is why the business case came forward in the manner that it did, but certainly going forward, obviously the commission will be able to take a look at that more in depth and see if there are ways to attract that assessment growth funding versus coming back for base funding for the growth.

[2:55:57] Councilor? Thank you, yes, I appreciate that. As I mentioned, I’m very interested in seeing some growth into un-serviced areas in the ward and seeing growth in ridership in general. I’m supportive of the amendment that’s provided here. I think that it’s on balance what we can do right now. And I appreciate the willingness of councilors to bring this forward. I too have been hearing from residents.

[2:56:31] Unfortunately, I feel like this will not address all of the pain that they’re feeling in transit right now. So I like that we’re hopeful as well that there’s opportunity through assessment growth to do more, thank you. Thank you, that concludes that speaker’s questions at the moment, they still have two minutes. My speaker’s list is a little bit all over the place. I’m looking to see who wanted to be next. I have Deputy Mayor Lewis, I was staying on my list and then I haven’t spoken yet.

[2:57:04] And then that’s the point I’ll step in. But happy to yield the floor to Deputy Mayor Lewis. I think you had about 30 some seconds yet, but Ms. Palenci is here and if you had questions, she wasn’t here originally or I didn’t see her. So I’ll turn it to you. Through you chair, question is quick to Mr. Murray, through you, in the assessment growth case, I want some clarity on the comments in response to Councillor Stevenson’s question. If the transit commission were to come forward with a case to Councillor Truss’ point on Oxford Street and said 800 units of housing have been added, therefore we need to add X number of service hours to service those new residents, that would be acceptable for assessment growth, correct?

[2:57:46] Mr. Murray, how does that meet your policy? Is that nail in it? So we would have to see the specifics and the details of the case that LTC would put together, but in general terms growth in un-service areas or growth improvements to service growth in existing areas that can be clearly demonstrated with appropriate metrics would be eligible through assessment growth. Thank you. Also very quickly, I understand Councillor Truss’ point, frustration students at Western and Fanshawe may have, but I think it’s important to note that the commission chose to only pass along a 5% fair increase to them, while every other rider in the city got an 18% increase.

[2:58:28] If students want better transit service, they’re going to have to help pay for it as well. Thank you. That would include your five minutes. I have Councillor Troso next if you want to go right now. If not, I do have other speakers. Yes, just very briefly. And the Student Association enters into negotiations with the Transit Commission at some point. And I just don’t, I don’t think that’s a reasonable complaint about the students.

[2:59:01] I will say this though, ‘cause I did get some supplemental information from the students. They did a survey, I didn’t say this before, 418 out of 603 respondents were unhappy with the service because they’re consistently late and they persistently drive past persons. And characteristic comment was, I was originally planning on relying on busing, even after my parents offered to buy me a car living off campus. But after a year of this, I’m going to have to get into the car. One minute, just let you know.

[2:59:35] And just one more point about the effect of this on the neighborhood. And I’m always looking at effects on the near-campus neighborhood. It is going to alleviate some of the problems because if every time there’s an additional car, that creates more congestion. In the area, it creates more lawn parking, it creates more complaints. And the final point I want to make, which I don’t think has been mentioned yet, is with everything else going on, the university has made it very clear that they are embarking on a period of enrollment growth. So this is really a good time to be offering service enhancements, not just in the near-campus neighborhood or the campus area, but throughout the city.

[3:00:18] This will help us a lot in our area. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. If you could take the chair for, I can make some comments. And then I’m not sure if you’re on my speaker’s list after me or who’s next, and do tie me. I’ll take the chair and I’ll go to Councillor Closa. Thank you, definitely an important conversation. And, you know, I’m always really straight up. So my concerns with this one is I do like, I know we’re talking some at broader strokes of transit throughout the city and areas that have never been serviced need to be serviced and hearing absolutely the areas that are experiencing growth and needing transit options.

[3:01:08] And at no point does Council get to choose where those roads go. And for me, that really is an assessment business growth case, which I am really hoping to see and be able to support when that comes forward as the city is definitely expanding. And I do see the buses for students full parking up to a curb and knowing that some are being left behind in its service issues and ridership issues of who you’re servicing and who’s being left behind and the impacts it’s having on their lives.

[3:01:45] I will also say it is a motion not to come before. This committee has were strictly talking about dollars and budgets as before us, but it has been mentioned. So it is the concern that students paid a 5% increase versus the 18 that actually the different secondary post-secondary institutions do pay different amounts. I do understand that to collect more would need to be triggered by a referendum. But if we’re looking to help cover the cost of enhancements to those services, I do believe that’s a fair place to start a conversation and go looking.

[3:02:19] As a second term councilor, we have had the LTC before us as they do regularly making the reports. And at some points it was a pride in the low cost per ridership that they’re able to deliver and the low cost per ride versus other municipalities costing more and their service delivery of really those routes that are popular, they’re being serviced. So I’ll leave my comments there. I do believe there’s opportunities to come forward through different committees asking LTC for making even the post-secondary institutions equal and collecting more fares potentially through there.

[3:03:02] I am really pleased with the, I know it’s still not the full increase they’ve asked for, but the increase in the investment we’re already making and especially in paratransit as we welcomed so many in hearing their personal stories and their difficulties. So I don’t wanna ever make them feel that the transit that they need and the way they need it was not recognized. So I do appreciate those conversations and council putting that money in that budget at this time. Mr. Presenting Officer. Thank you, I’ll return the chair to the monkey chair. Thank you, my speaker’s list.

[3:03:43] Okay, I know I had Councillor Ferreira. Okay, so I’m also, I’m also getting texts. So this is where we’re at, just for everyone to know, lunch was ready, normally we stop at 12. Ideally I like to wrap up a motion that we’re on just to make sure that we don’t accidentally talk about anything while we’re on break, just for public perception. So like I said, as soon as this is done my intention is to break and most people are almost out of time or they are already out of time. So I’m gonna go to Councillor Cuddy first. He has not gotten to speak today or he gets to speak but he hasn’t spoken on this motion yet.

[3:04:17] And then Councillor McAlister has only used one minute and I’ll go to him and then Councillor Ferre has two minutes left of the 10 minutes he was given. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are working, I think most Councillors know Deputy Mayor Lewis and I are working with the Thames Valley School Board on a pilot project to eliminate yellow buses for secondary school students. We will be probably doing a test trial in the fall, probably in September of 2025 or 2024.

[3:04:54] We’ll be reviewing the needs for ridership when we increase, and this will probably go through, when we increase with the Thames Valley District Super Board and probably the Catholic District School Board will be needing to review all of the ridership at that time in which we’ll probably be looking at funding for that purpose because we’ll be taking the kids off of yellow buses and putting them on our buses. So I will be supporting this, but I will be supporting that trial when we move forward. Thank you. Thank you, and definitely an exciting pilot project that we’re looking forward to getting an update on.

[3:05:26] Councillor McAlister, you have up to four minutes. Thank you through the chair and I appreciate the discussion. I know this is a topic that obviously, we deeply care about, Londoners deeply care about, and I just wanted to put another lens on this in terms of how this is very much a basic need for the city. And we’ve talked a lot in terms of the growth assessment, and that’s great, and I know we have to plan for that growth, but I feel like it’s also important that I raise the voice of Londoners who I think are often forgotten these conversations, and there are people that I represent who don’t have any other option.

[3:06:02] This is it, really transit is how they get around. This is how they live their lives, is how they get to work. They don’t have any other option. Like I even heard in terms of referencing students, like, oh well, I didn’t want to buy a car, but I did. And that’s great, but there is an entire part of our population that doesn’t have that as an option, and I don’t think that we can forget them in this conversation. These are people who are feeling the pinch more than anyone, some of our most vulnerable people in London need this service desperately. And I think what’s being put before us is a reasonable compromise in terms of growth.

[3:06:36] We need it, and the people who need it the most, the buses are passing them by. These are people, you know, you’ve got single parents, a lot of people work in minimum wage jobs. These are folks who don’t have another option. And for me, this is something we need to do, as it’s a basic need for people to be able to live their lives. So I would either recommend that my fellow colleagues support this, I don’t know what your birthday wish is, Councillor Ferrer, but I hope this is it, and I hope you get supportive counsel on this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Ferrer.

[3:07:15] Well, thank you. So there’s tens of thousands of riders who rely on LTC, and that 50% would be, you know, I think it would be wise to maybe say that’s half of those tens of thousands of riders daily that are missing the bus. Again, to the 18,000 hours, you know, I’ll take what I can get, but that does only give us less, it’s actually 3.75 if you do the numbers, roots, extra frequency to current roots. So to those riders who ride those 3.75 roots, you know, I’m glad that you got what you needed, but for everybody else, we’re not getting anything.

[3:07:52] And that’s gonna be over four years, the next four years. So that’s why I’m concerned. That’s why I’m asking for more, but I figured, you know, come in reasonable, come in with a compromise knowing this council. So I would be happy to get that. So I guess I’ll leave it right there. Okay, just one moment, please. And thank you. Councillor van Merbergen, you have not spoken yet, you have up to five minutes.

[3:08:27] Thank you, Chair. I think we heard loud and clear from the mayor about the size of the increase that’s already baked into this budget. We’ve achieved a very modest reduction in our previous efforts, only to find that we’re now at a point where we’re gonna add back in to the budget, affecting all taxpayers, not just the 7 or 8% of people that use buses. If we wanna be truly compassionate to all Londoners, we have to continue to find savings and not add back in to the budget on something which has already experienced a very large increase.

[3:09:21] So I’m a definite no on another increase into our budget, going back up to 8.8, especially for year 2024. And I think, again, we have to focus on the needs and the situation of all Londoners. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. I will have one clerk administrative thing in a moment, but looking for further speakers while I wait for Mr. Schultz’s return to me.

[3:10:00] So just one moment, please. Yeah, that’s what I’m doing. I’m ahead of you. So just let you know, there’s a question that I am waiting for a confirmation on for motion wording, so just one moment. So the question that came up earlier in this discussion and throughout the discussion is as it pertains to the word, only within the preamble prior to the listing of the years in the 1.6 and change million of funding.

[3:10:45] So right now it says that the service hours for 24, only the monetary list contains years in addition to 2024. So that is the question I’ve gotten behind the scenes. So we’re going to Mr. Murray and Ms. Barbone for their clarification. I just want to make sure everyone’s clear on what we’re voting on before we actually vote. And for the public since they’re following along with us. Thank you through the chair. So the word only refers to incremental hours only in 2024. Now, once you add those incremental hours, they become part of the ongoing base budget and they will continue into future years as well.

[3:11:30] The previous motion that was circulated by Councillor Ferreira as well spoke to adding— Let’s not speak about that one. Let’s not, let’s not then. Let’s keep it to this one. And again, specifically, it’s referring to only the incremental hours in 2024. That is why the word only is in there. So 2024 is the only one to go up, but once it ends in, you keep doing it. Okay, so I’m seeing a nod from the mover and the seconder that that’s right, clarification from the Councillor Pribble.

[3:12:08] Thank you, and this will be a question actually for Mrs. Falechney. I have a question because are we sticking to these four amounts? Are we sticking to the hours? Because I believe that the cost of 18,000 hours in 25, 26, and 27 is gonna be higher. So I just wanna, I would just want Mrs. Falechney to be aware that if this goes through, we are sticking to the amount of dollars, but not amount of hours. If she could give me a feedback on this. I don’t know if she can see the amounts that they are saying for all four years.

[3:12:40] Yeah, I would also say that Council, we have a number, a monetary number before us, versus what that buys us for service hours. So it’s the funds that we provide. Mrs. Falechney, I guess a clarification of what that buys us, Councillor Pribble. I can’t see the motion that is in front of Council. I did provide a schedule to staff, to civic administration that looked at the costs associated, but I can’t see what’s in front of Council to comment. Councillor Pribble.

[3:13:16] I just want to add that I’m certainly supportive of what I already mentioned, but my point is that everyone who is voting for it and even LTC, they are aware that we are approving dollars, but those dollars in 25, 26, 27, actually will offer less hours of the service. That was my point only. Yep. So everyone is aware of it, that’s all. Thank you, Mrs. Falechney. That’s the questions for you, and Councillor Pribble, that concludes your five minutes of speaking time. So yes, fair point of what we pay today, there’s inflation. My speakers list at the moment, it’s exhausted, except for Councillor ramen.

[3:13:59] And Councillor ramen, you have two minutes remaining. Thank you and through you. Okay, so now I’m confused again, because we were on the word only for 2024, and we talked about the increase in 18,000 hours. And now we’re saying again that those hours are not going to be reflected because of increases and that we’re tying it to a dollar amount. And I’m just wondering if we can get an idea of what that may represent in terms of hours in those projected years of 2025, 26, 27, I’m sorry, but I think this is where we’re getting a little bit challenged when we’re looking at amending business cases without having the same amount and qualifying data that we did to look at the business case.

[3:14:49] It just makes it muddier and I wanna be very crystal clear as to what I voted on. Thank you. And absolutely what’s before us is the monetary amount versus the service areas that were mentioned along the way. The motion before us strictly says the monetary amount. I’m not sure what labor negotiations may be forthcoming at the LTC within this multi-year budget process. Are you, sorry, just for clarification, we’re looking for Ms. Polensky of a projection of what 1.6 million might get you in service hours?

[3:15:22] Just, sorry, just, I know that Ms. Polensky, if you’re still, is she still with us? Perfect, if you come back on screen. So just for clarification that it was looking at adding, we’ll just roughly call it 1.6 million dollars in operating for 2024, which would be carried through going forward. And the question from Councilor Raman essentially is, what would that get you per service hours if you know? Again, I mean, it would entirely depend on inflationary impacts in the budget.

[3:16:00] It’s not a number that I can come up with here on the floor and tell you what those impacts would be. I can tell you that this is the way budgets are prepared. So, I mean, this is the way we’ve prepared our budgets that when we put something in, obviously it gets built into the base and inflationary impacts going forward would be addressed if they were significant through the annual budget update. So if there was a need to, you know, to adjust that annual budget allocation to continue to provide the same level of service, then LTC would reach out through that annual budget update to in order to do that, to ensure that service levels remain the same.

[3:16:38] I’m not sure if that’s helpful. Nope, always a good reminder that this is the multi-year budget, we still have annual budget updates as we go. Councilor Roman. Thank you. And Councilor Perbal shared with me the revised projections with 18,000 hours. And I can see that there’s, you know, $200,000 increase almost each year in 2025, 2026, and then 2027, there’s about a 300,000 increase to keep the growth hours at 18,000 hours based on those projections.

[3:17:14] So I think that that’s actually helpful information for Council to have is what that looks like. I’m not sure if that’s something that can be shared with us because I do think it’s helpful for all of us to be able to see that information and understand it clearly. With just having a number that’s stagnant for that time period, it doesn’t reflect what we’re agreeing to in terms of the amount of hours that we’re trying to support, and it does, it’s kind of misleading in the sense that we would have to adjust in 20, in the budget, I can’t think of the word right now, but in those conversations further every year to look at those adjustments.

[3:17:59] So I do feel like I’m less confident in the information that’s being provided when it’s not clearly tied to those service hours as it was in the transit service hours growth business case in the same way. So I like to look at it from the apples to apples comparison. So I understand the rationale, but I just want to be very clear with the public to say yes, I supported 18,000 hours of growth hours, and you know, oh, but I didn’t support it all the way to fund it in 25, 26, and 27, doesn’t sit right with me.

[3:18:31] So I think where the mayor’s budget actually provided more clarity in terms of yes, we’re providing support in the base budget, and we still have the opportunity to look at adjustments in the future and to assessment growth. I’m just, again, if more information can be provided, I think it’s helpful. Thank you. Just let me know that you have exceeded your five minutes at this point as I didn’t want to cut you off. I will say that it was a counselor who said this is what it’s going to buy you. We’re voting strictly on the numbers with, that’s before us.

[3:19:06] And it was a counselor who said it should be able to get you four buses, existing routes, but we are strictly voting on the operating expenditures that’s been put for us. Councillor Hopkins, I will recognize you and you have up to two minutes. Yeah, Ms. Pelichney answered my question. There are reviews on an annual basis through the updates for the budget. So I do share the same concerns that the counselor has as well. I would like to see more and more clarity, but I am confident that we need to do more, and this is the beginning, and going forward, I think we can have these annual conversations on where we are.

[3:19:55] Thank you. Seeing no other speakers on my list and most of the exhausts there are five minutes, calling the question. Voting the vote, motion fails, seven to eight. Thank you for that.

[3:20:31] For those in the gallery, Councils in the 29th, when anything that we’ve done here is finalized, there’s also a public participation meeting on the 27th, and I know some correspondence have still been coming in. Just since you’ve been with us all day, I want to recognize you and thank you. I did promise lunch, we will move to that. Just after lunch, just so we can queue up, he scribed that business case P53 was a Councillor Frank and Councillor Hawkins, are you prepared to deal with that after lunch? So I have a thumbs up.

[3:21:03] That’s your road to safety enhancements. Okay, so that’s accurate. I’m looking for a motion to recess for lunch and the amount of time you’re looking at going for. Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’m going to move a 30-minute lunch recess for us. Okay, I have a seconder and Councillor Stevenson. 30-minute lunch has been moved. A hand vote of all in favor of a 30-minute lunch break. Motion carries.

[3:21:38] Thank you, 1.15 to be back, please. If everyone can regain their seats and if the Councillor’s online, just from the cameras on, hello, greetings, Councillor Hillier, looking for Councillor Vanmarie Bergen as well.

[3:28:28] Perfect, welcome back. As we commence, we are on to business case P53. It is loaded in the system. I’m going to ask the Councillor Frank to read it out just for those following along. And then if you want me the first speaker, happy to start timing at that point. Thank you. The motion is that the mayor’s 2024-2027 multi-year budget be amended to include road safety initiative number three, provision of basic sweeping and plowing of Boulevard bike lanes for business case P53, road safety enhancements, as set out in the civic administration draft 2024-2027 multi-year budget, referred by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12th, 2023, offset by an equal reduction to the police operating budget.

[3:29:18] 2024 operating expenditures, roadways 300,000, one police service negative 300,000 property tax levy $0. And that repeats 2025, 2026 and 2027. Thank you. If you want to be the first speaker, please proceed. Thank you, yes. So I’m not sure if other Councillors face the same flurry of emails as I did, but over the past week, I’ve gotten significant input from the community saying that they would like to see the bike lanes sweeping and plowing prioritized in this budget. And it was not included in the mayor’s budget.

[3:29:52] And so this is an effort, it’s not the full ask, but it is, again, a good portion of the way to being able to address the sweeping and plowing of Boulevard bike lanes. And given that there is a lot of pressure right now to keep the property tax levy as low as possible, I was seeking other locations to find some funding. And given that the police budget is putting pressure on all of our other services, this to me seemed like, again, a very small amount of reduction in their overall ask. And I think that it’s very important that we have some maintenance of our, in Boulevard bike lanes, right now there’s no current maintenance.

[3:30:33] So there’s no snow removal, there’s no sweeping. So oftentimes those bike lanes can fill up with gravel. People aren’t able to bike on them safely because if you’ve tried biking, essentially on gravel, your bike slips a lot and you’re not able to break. And given there’s a lot of people and a lot of residents who would like to be able to use the infrastructure that we have, I thought it was important that we allocate some funding towards basic maintenance. And I think a lot of people would be, again, we’ve talked about how we’re trying to meet our mission reduction targets. We have to give people viable alternatives to just driving. And if our, in Boulevard bike lanes are maintained, people might be more likely to actually use them.

[3:31:13] So hoping that there’s some support for this, given that it is not increasing the tax levy. Six, thank you. I have my speakers list on this one. I’ll go to Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. So first of all, I don’t agree that it’s not increasing the tax levy. And as was said in the presentation of the budget, by the mayor, as was mentioned to us by civic administration as well. While we can cut the global police budget, they can appeal to the Ontario Civilian Commission to get that restored.

[3:31:48] So there’s no guarantee that this is a cut in the budget. P-53 was actually already dealt with as well on Friday. And this item was not included because as civic administration indicated, there are no provincial standards for in Boulevard bike lanes. And unlike Councilor Frank, I’ve had zero requests to deal with the in Boulevard bike lane plowing. In fact, if anything, I get complaints that we’re spending too much investing in cleaning the bike lanes in the winter and not doing a good enough job on our roads. I then tell constituents that as a whole different order of magnitude and what we spend on bike lanes would clear about one block of roadway.

[3:32:25] But, and I know my numbers might be wrong and Ms. Share can correct me on that. But I want to go back to Ms. Share through you, Madam Chair, just to reconfirm what she stated to us when P-53 was brought forward last week with regard to provincial standards and where a better opportunity to investigate this in the future maybe. Thank you. And while I go to Ms. Share, I’ll just clarify to you that P-53, yes, it was discussed in last last week. It was just the improvements to the on road pavement marking maintenance process.

[3:33:00] That was last week. This is this one, Ms. Share. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Deputy Mayor is correct that there are currently no minimum maintenance standards for in Boulevard bike lanes unlike in road bike lanes. We are expecting a draft revision of the minimum maintenance standards about this time next year when that may become legislation. And if it would include a standard for in Boulevard, we don’t know at this time. We would know more about a year from now, hopefully. Deputy Mayor. Thank you, I’ll reserve any further comments. I’m fine for now.

[3:33:34] Thank you, Councillor Hawkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I know we dealt with this. We had the conversation. It did not sit well with me in the, this was put in our business case. I’m really pleased to hear that we will be expecting something within the next year or in a year’s time when it comes to the policy. So if we have the money there, I hear loud and clear from residents who bike from the West End to downtown to their jobs, the challenges and the difficulty that they experience when it comes to the dangers along these pathways.

[3:34:16] To me, it is a safety issue. I do applaud the Councillor’s creative way. I know we’re not reducing the tax levy here, but we are shifting money from one area, one business case to another business case. I am hoping that my colleagues would be open if we have the money and the opportunities to take care of the safety on our roads going forward. Why wouldn’t we support this case? Thank you.

[3:34:56] I’m not sure there’s a potential amendment to this. Okay, Councillor Robin. Sorry, I didn’t see Councillor Trousa. I had you and I hadn’t seen him. I’m happy to add him into the list after you and then anyone else. She can go. Okay, thank you and through you. Like Councillor Frank, I have received a few emails about this. I have shared with constituents that I’m supportive when a provincial standard is brought in place to move forward with meeting that, obviously, when there is a standard.

[3:35:34] But my concern is to agree to a service level before there’s a standard. I feel like even on the issue of clearing sidewalks, we’ve gotten into this back and forth about the provincial standard and what the community would like to see us clear to in order to provide better service. And we know the difficulties and challenges that that can put in place. So at the time when there’s more clarity from the province, I’m pleased to support it, but not now. Thank you, Councillor Trousa. I believe through the chair, I believe my ward is probably more like Councillor Frank’s in that case because boy, I get a lot of concern about cycling safety.

[3:36:19] Sidewalk safety too, for that matter. But if we really seriously went to get people out of their automobiles, and I may sound like a broken record from the transit discussion, we need to be creating better options for people to be able to have reliable, safe, active transportation, public transit, and part of this is having some level of safety and some level of service in terms of these bike trails.

[3:36:54] I hear some people saying, well, people aren’t using the bike trails and maybe we should just not be worried about cycling so much and we should put things into roads. But if people don’t feel that they can use their cycles, their bicycles safely, we’re not going to grow, the demand for the cycling network and for active transportation. Which, by the way, has many benefits, not just in terms of reducing automobile trips, but also in terms of exercise and health.

[3:37:34] It’s not just a question of people running to go to school or go to work, there’s a lot of recreational cycling. We’ve invested so much in the new bridge. In my area and the trails. It would be a shame to have these resources go unused because they’re just not being taken care of. And just because the province hasn’t come down with definitive standards, which, by the way, are standards, not mandates, even if the province does come down with standards, it doesn’t mean that we can’t alter them.

[3:38:13] But just because they haven’t come down with these standards doesn’t mean we can’t have some level of service made in London approach on our own. And I would think I would want, as a member of the Civic Works Committee, to have some discussion with staff about what this is going to look like. But I really want to applaud the Councillors who have put this on the table for their creative thinking. This is definitely, it’s an appreciable service concern in my area and I get a lot of, I do get a lot of calls and complaints about this.

[3:38:54] And I want to see people cycling more. Not just in my neighbourhood and to the university, but throughout the entire city. So I am in full support of this measure and I hope my colleagues will help me with this. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Lehman. Thank you and I’m glad safety is being raised here. Because that’s the aspect, I’m going to go speak to this. My concern here is that it’s being tied to a reduction in police services.

[3:39:29] As been said before, when a similar type of motion came before us, the police chief has made it quite clear that city is unsafe. He’s also made it clear. He’s produced a comprehensive plan to address this and he’s explained this in multiple town calls. He’s explained it in the media to one-on-one conversations with those of us around the horn. He’s been very clear. This is a comprehensive plan that he’s putting forward and he believes that every section or every part of it is important because it all ties together.

[3:40:12] So I will not be supporting this because I will not compromise public safety. I’ve heard from my constituents about what are their priorities, public safety, better policing along with housing and homelessness aren’t there. So for those reasons, I cannot support this motion. Thank you. I have Councillor Ferra and then Councillor McAllister and I do recognize Councillor Hopkins.

[3:40:45] We’ll light back on the list. Thank you. So I really do appreciate the Councillors bringing this forward. It’s quite creative and it’s obviously trying to address obviously a need that we try to bring through. The thing for me that I’m really interested is the creative thinking that I’m seeing from the Councillors. We have this upper limit, 7.4 that nobody wants to breach and then we have a big elephant on the budget and that doesn’t leave us with too much to work with. And I feel like we can’t debate the math.

[3:41:21] We can’t beat the math here. So creative ways like this, to be able to move some of the things that the city needs so we can be measured in our approach and measured in our allocation of our resources is exactly what we’re gonna have to end up doing. I see what everyone is saying and I fully support the police and I fully support all of our other initiatives that I see as needs. But if we don’t have any ability to move around and that upper limit is no will to break that, we’re gonna have to start getting creative here.

[3:41:58] So remember, if we’re gonna start pushing ourselves in these areas, we’re gonna start getting things a little bit more messy. So something’s got to give on either end. It’s either the upper increase or the big portion of the budget right now. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. Appreciate this one coming back in terms of, I’d looked at this one as well. I believe Councillor Robin had looked at this too. And I go back to what I said last week on this one in terms of, I still think the second initiative.

[3:42:43] I stand by what we were able to put in. I appreciate Ms. Shear identifying a source that we could utilize on a temporary basis for the two years. But what I said before was that when that funding is exhausted and I do believe 2025 is the year to examine it, there are a number of other roadside safety issues that I wanted to look at as well. But I do think in our annual budget updates that that is a place that’s better suited for something like this. When we do have the provincial standards in place, that will give us the ability. And I believe this is a question to staff, but when those guidelines do come forward, that’s something that would be brought to committee anyways in terms of if we wanted to act or do something that could be the opportunity then.

[3:43:28] I do appreciate what the councilors have put forward. I just at this moment in time, I don’t think that this is what we need to do. I still think what we have put in place for P-53 is okay for the time being. And I do think in 2025 we’ll have a better opportunity. But yeah, I did have a question through the chair to staff about in 2025 or whatever those standards come forward that that would be brought to committee. Ms. Shear. Thank you, Madam Chair. We would expect to see a draft next, but this time next year, generally we would bring any requirements to change to our programs or budgets as part of the annual budget amendment process because it’s a legislative responsibility under the minimum maintenance standards.

[3:44:09] We don’t generally don’t bring those to committee to debate as it’s imposed upon us as a municipality in Ontario, but we would bring forward an amendment to our operating budgets in the next budget cycle in order to implement them in accordance with the provincial timelines. Councillor. Okay, Councillor Hopkins is next on my list and then looking further speakers, then I will revert to Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you, and through you to staff, I was gonna ask the question that my colleague asked so we can always have an opportunity to review this in our updates to the budget.

[3:44:44] We know we’re gonna have to put the money in, obviously. We know that’s coming. If you look at the business plan that was proposed, this amendment is less. So I’m hoping my colleagues can support it right now. It is a concern in the community. I appreciate the conversation around how we move money and how we shift money is allowed. It is, we’re able to do that.

[3:45:18] We can have that conversation here. That’s what we’re doing. This amendment is less than the original request. It is important to a number of residents in the ward. So I am hoping you can support it. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much. I will absolutely not be supporting this. I’ve heard loud and clear from Londoners, their concerns about public safety. We have a police chief who’s presented a plan and is willing to be held accountable to results. And to be asked to take money from that and put it towards the sweeping and plowing of bike lanes is absolutely not something that I’m gonna support.

[3:46:00] Thank you, further speakers. Councillor Troso, you have two minutes left. Back to the fund subject of tort liability. Absent provisional, provincial standards. Does that, through the chair? Does that mean that we have absolutely no obligation to do maintenance on the bike path? So does it mean we still have a reasonable standard of care that we have to figure out what that is for the time being? Ms. Palette?

[3:46:35] Yeah, it typically comes down to what’s reasonable in the circumstances when there is no minimum maintenance provided. It currently, it typically comes down to what’s reasonable in the circumstances when there are no minimum maintenance standards. Fair, is it fair to say that doing absolutely nothing is not reasonable under the circumstances? And if somebody gets injured, there could be a liability issue? Thank you, obviously caution with that is legal and we could always want to close session if need be. Ms. Palette, I want to be cautious about opining on potential risk, legal risk.

[3:47:23] So I’d have to go into closed session to comment. Okay, I guess two things. One, if you can move your microphone closer to you and reply, you’re just really faint. And two, is there any general response you can give to the counselor in open session? There is historic case law from the time when the minimum maintenance standards were first starting.

[3:47:58] For example, there was no standards on icing. And so there is a case that went to the Supreme Court called Giuliani that dealt with that and found liability on a municipality for not having a standard with respect to icing, even though there were minimum maintenance standards on other aspects. Councillor Troz, thank you. I do very much appreciate that. And I do think that just pointing to something that’s out there in the public domain, like a case is always fine.

[3:48:37] So I do have concerns about this. I mean, we do get liability reports and I just think this is something we need to look at as a risk management issue, as well as a public safety issue, and as well as a cycling promotion issue. So I’m still gonna be supporting this and I really want to urge my colleagues to do it, but I’ve already said that, so that’s it. Thank you, further speakers on this item. I’ve seen that online.

[3:49:10] I’m seeing that in chambers, calling the question. Seeing the vote and the motion fails, four to 11. Thank you.

[3:49:43] Numerically, next on our list would be business case P62, which is the environmental east and event areas management. This would be a Councillor Frank and Councillor Hopkins mover and seconder looking to see if you’re willing to move that now. Yes, Councillor Frank is and Councillor Hopkins, you remain the seconder of the CSA one. Perfect. Councillor, once again, if you just read it out. I know the numbers get different in this one, but it is on the screen as you provide an advance to us, so thank you. And then I will not start your speaker’s time until you’ve concluded.

[3:50:17] Thank you. The motion is that the mayor’s 2024/2027 multi-year budget be amended to fund 50% of business case P62, environmentally significant areas management, as set out in the civic administration, draft 2024/2027 multi-year budget, referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12th, 2023 with annual funding as follows, 2024 operating 70,000, tax levy 70,000, 2025 operating 73,000, tax levy 73,000, 2026 operating 144,500, tax levy 144,500, and 2027 operating 148,000, tax levy 148,000.

[3:50:56] Just one second, please. We’re good. I will start your timing when you’re ready. Thank you. Yeah, so this one has kind of been in the hopper for a little while. As I’m sure many colleagues have received emails from, our environmentally significant areas are some of our most precious and well protected and biodiverse areas in the city. Right now they are managed through a contract with Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, and they did receive cuts in 2014 to their staffing and the ability for their staff to maintain these ESAs.

[3:51:34] And since 2014 that funding has not been restored, and including upon that we had COVID as we all remember, and everyone seemed to want to go outside and enjoy nature even more. So our ESAs across the city have been well used and well loved, but with that comes also incredibly, incredible pressure on the ESAs. So more foot traffic, people are letting their dogs run around off leash, they’re not supposed to, that spreads invasives, people bring garbage to the ESAs and throw it around and they don’t necessarily take it home with them, and there’s encroachment issues, there is encampment issues, so the work is cut out for Upper Thames because they’ve had to do all of the increased additional work to maintain and protect our ESAs while not having the proper staffing complement.

[3:52:26] That being said, recognizing the incredible tax pressure we’re under, Councillor Hopkins and I looked to fund 50% of this, which would allow them to hire one additional staff person and be able to try and address some of these chronic issues that we have in our ESAs. And staff, I can see are here as well, people have questions regarding what exactly staff are doing in the ESAs or how the 50% would impact, but I do hope to see some support because like I said, the ESAs are essentially the crown jewels, in my opinion, of the City of London and I think it behooves us to properly maintain and protect them.

[3:53:06] Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I really would have liked to see the full business case here. We did reduce the staff hours in 2014. Now we’ve reduced the business case by half, allowing for one staff person. This is an agreement that the City of London has with Upper Thames to take care of the 12 ESAs in our city. I know I have a number of them in my ward and I know when Londoners come to our city, they admire our city for the ESAs that we have, the natural environments of anything COVID has taught us the importance of these areas.

[3:53:59] I really, really hope and I feel like I’m speaking to something that I don’t fully support. I want to see the full compliment because they need to be taken care of. They are used encampments, usually are in these areas. So I am really hoping that my colleagues will at least support half the business case. Thank you, Councillor McAllister.

[3:54:32] Thank you and through the chair. I do appreciate the Councillors bringing this forward. I would agree in terms of, I really do think there are crown jewels. For me, metal lily is such a special place. I hear it all the time from my constituents, although the south side does fall in Councillor Hilliard’s ward. I do have the north side. A lot of my residents cross over that bridge and go to metal lily. And it really is such a focal point for that community. And obviously there have been some encroachments in terms of development, but the residents have made it quite clear to me in terms of like, this is an area that they really do care about.

[3:55:07] It means a lot to the east. I know we all have our respective ESAs, but it is an area, especially these outside spaces that we really do need to protect. So I agree. I would have liked to have seen more as well, but I’m willing to support this because I do think we need to do something to protect these, especially with the developments we’re seeing around our ESAs. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Troso. Thank you very much to the chair. I’m going to be supporting this. I’ve gotten a lot of email about this from residents.

[3:55:42] In my ward, mostly people who enjoy the midway area, which is really, really showing signs of deterioration. And at some point, these ESAs, they’re taking environmental stress because we’re not enforcing the rules that we have there. We’re not doing the kinds of ongoing maintenance that we need to be doing there. And we’re letting them slowly deteriorate. And as we allow these to slowly deteriorate, I think people enjoy using them less.

[3:56:21] And again, it’s this downward spiral that I keep talking about. We have to stop this downward spiral in a lot of areas. But I think the ESAs are particularly, well, they’re particularly sensitive, of course. You don’t become an ESA unless you meet quite a few criteria. This is not just open space. This is not just parkland. This is not just a wood lot. You have to meet some very, very specific criteria to get designated as an ESA.

[3:56:59] So I am very unhappy that this was not included in the full budget. I think this is something we have to have. This is important to us as a city. If the environment is important to us as a city, if recreational opportunities is important to us as a city, we need to be properly maintaining our ESAs. And we are failing to do that. And I’m going to spare the solicitor another question about our obligations to the other agency.

[3:57:34] But it’s something I’m concerned about. Please vote yes on this. This is not enough money. This is not enough money to do what we need to do to protect these areas. So let’s at least do this. And we can take this question up again in the future. But don’t vote no on this. Thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Ferre and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. And that would conclude my speaker’s list as it currently stands. Thank you.

[3:58:07] I’ll be very, very brief. Everything that was articulated here by the previous Councillors. Very well said, full support. Thank you. I’m Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councillor ramen. Thank you. I’ll be slightly less brief than Councillor Ferre but not too much longer. I won’t be supporting this. First of all, as I’ve expressed on other matters, I have serious concerns about how things are running or not running at the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in comparison to some of the other conservation authorities.

[3:58:42] And so I’m not confident that this funding will make a significant difference. I may have been more amenable to supporting this had the funding been as creative as the last business case have potentially suggested in terms of reducing the contributions to the annual climate change reserve fund to fund these ESA asks, but since it’s not, I will not be supporting this business case. Thank you, Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

[3:59:13] So I’m just wondering if there’s someone that can speak to what the change in the amount actually will amount to in terms of what was in the business case summary from page 727 or 728? Through the chair. Absolutely, I could provide that information. Okay, please proceed. Yeah, Mr. Mathers, if you got this, go ahead. Absolutely, through the chair.

[3:59:46] So if we’re looking at half that funding being allocated, the business case spoke to an 1,800 hour increase for 24 and 2025 and then an additional 1,800 hour increase for 2026 and 2027. So rather than having 1,800, 2 increases, it would be 900 to increase as well. Okay, thank you. And we’ve confirmed that doing that will be something that the upper Thames will be able to move forward with and that they’re satisfied that that will meet a need. ‘Cause in the business case, it kind of articulates it as one person as an increase in staffing.

[4:00:24] And if we’re only funding half of it, then does that now just mean, I just wanna make sure that it’s actually meaningful in terms of the request. Just a second. I’ll confirm that there is no staff from upper Thames who’s currently with us. It doesn’t mean we can’t get them. There are several board members from upper Thames.

[4:00:58] So happy if you wanna go to Mr. Mathers. As always, a counselor doesn’t have to, but do you wanna go to any expert? I’m happy to go to anybody that can provide does this end up giving us other than the additional hours? What does it mean? Okay, Councillor Frank, please. Sure, thanks. I have been in discussions with staff at upper Thames about what this would mean, and if they’d be able to fulfill the contract with the reduced funding. And I was returned with, if they delayed the start of the FTE in 2024 until July 1st, slightly adjusted overall operational hours in 2025 and shift one of the current or future LMA’s for 2026 to a contract, the 50% reduction in the overall business case could work.

[4:01:40] Thank you for coming with that information, Councillor. Yes, thank you. That was very helpful. I’m supportive of the request. Similarly, I would have liked to have seen this funded completely in the mayor’s budget, but I understand the pressures that we’re under, and so at 50%, I’ll take what I can get. Definitely, this is something I hear from residents, the importance of the Medway Valley, the importance of the rest of our EASAs as well. In this particular case, the way I look at it is there are trade-offs and that there are things that we have that we’re going to be discussing as well that can help to lessen the burden on increasing here.

[4:02:28] And I think that those are some of the trade-offs that we are all considering. So that’s my rationale for supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. I’ll note that a representative from the Upper Thames has joined us. I will just let them know that there’s no question currently on the floor to them, but it is the motion on the floor providing 50% funding for the EASA management as you had had Councillor Frank correspondence earlier that they’ve shared, so we are good at the moment, but you are a resource and welcome.

[4:03:00] Next on my speaker’s list, I did have Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for recognizing me again. I do want to speak to a comment about UTRCA, and I just want to make sure my colleagues understand that this contract with the city is not part of the UTRCA ask. I think that’s really important to understand that. It’s administered through the city of London for managing our EASAs and trails owned by the city of London. So I just think it’s important to understand that.

[4:03:37] Thank you for that clarification. Looking for other speakers online or in chambers, online I do see none, in chambers I see none, calling the question. Calling the vote in the motion carries eight to seven.

[4:04:20] Hey, and thank you, Tracy, for joining us. That was just to observe. The next business case numerically before us is key 65, which is the administrative assistant case. I have a mover on this one of Councillor Raman and a second of Councillor Van Merbergen. So Councillor Raman, are you okay to move this one at this time? She is. Councillor Van Merbergen, as you were the seconder, but you’re virtual, just looking for you to indicate that you are the seconder. Okay, a thumbs up from Councillor Van Merbergen.

[4:04:54] So that’s loaded into E-Scribe. Once again, Councillor I can just ask you to read out the motion. And then if you want to be the first to speak to it, I’ll start your time then. Thank you. That the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by removing funding for the two additional administrative assistant positions related to business case P65 legislative and council services. Do you want me to go through the 2024 operating expenditures, 170,000, 2024 tax levy, minus 170,000, sorry, it’s just in minus before two.

[4:05:29] And then so on and so forth to 2027. Yeah, all years are numerically the same after that. If you’d like to be the first speaker, please proceed. Okay, thank you. I am trying to use my time wisely. I do have some questions within, had provided a reason to go in camera and would like to put that forward at this time. Sure, if you wouldn’t mind reading it at the reason.

[4:06:13] Yeah, so thank you. The clerk was made aware of verbiage in advance. They do have it. It will be read out at this time. That the committee rise and go into close session for the purpose of considering the following personnel matter identifiable individual, personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees and communications necessary for that purpose. Okay, this one’s just a vote to go, oh, I need a seconder.

[4:06:50] I wouldn’t need a seconder to put this on the floor. I have a secondary counselor Hopkins. That’s coming into E-Scribe now. If you refresh, there’s no questions or comments on this. So feel free to vote in E-Scribe. Voting the vote motion carries 11 to four. Thank you once again, the media and unrequired staff will need to leave chambers.

[4:07:26] Councillors will stay put and we will start live streaming once we come back. Thank you. All right, chambers are open.

[4:11:18] The stream is now live again. Everyone’s joined us back in chambers. I will continue with my, oh, Councillor Lehman, can you just announce out that progress has been made for what we went on camera for? Or Councillor Hopkins? Yes, progress was made for the matter that we went in camera for. Thank you so much. I will resume with my speakers list. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

[4:11:51] I brought this forward because today and the days that we’ve been in budget committee as well as the days as we continue, we are faced with a number of decisions in front of us where we’re asked to make choices. And we’re asked to make choices that are to the benefit of residents or to help offset the cost burden with this tax levy to residents. And when I looked at our business cases, even larger small, I was looking at what is going to create value for the community, where are there going to be opportunities for savings?

[4:12:32] I can tell you at this time, I can’t support increasing the compliment the Councillor’s office. As the Councillor with the largest ward, I can tell you I do not feel that increasing the compliment right now, especially where there are, it won’t reduce my workload at this point. And so I have to think of what’s beneficial to residents and where there’s opportunities for good use and good value.

[4:13:06] Last week, we removed or we didn’t support a security guard that the Joint Health and Safety Committee here at City Hall was asking for. And that was a really challenging discussion for us. So when I’m weighing whether or not those needs are being met versus getting additional support for myself as a Councillor, those are some of the trade-offs I’m considering. And so it’s for this reason that I put this amendment forward.

[4:13:39] And I hope my colleagues will consider it and consider the possible situation that we’re in right now. I think that we have an opportunity to set an example. We’re asking a lot of agencies, boards and commissions to make changes in sacrifices. I know there will be many more asks. And so because of that, I think it’s important that we also take a look at where we have provided direction and asked for these things to come forward.

[4:14:14] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, I wanna thank the Councillor to for bringing this forward, I will not be supporting it though, but I think it is worth a conversation. And I really want to, and I understand where the Council’s coming from, trying to way decreasing the tax levy, figuring out those benefits and where we can maybe give up some of those.

[4:14:47] And one of the things I tried way off too is around how we do better communication, better engagement. I know during my time, past nine years, you know, huge increase in emails alone. And many, many other major significant policies, the homeless conversation even.

[4:15:21] That crisis created, plus the amount of workload in the Councillor’s office. I really think by having the stability for us as Councillors, when it comes to providing better service to constituents is something that I think is needed. And I will not be supporting the request. Councillor Ferrer. Thanks. So as the Councillor with the most throughput of communications in the ward, I have noticed a very big change in my work life balance right off of that.

[4:15:58] I am able to consistently maintain going to bed before 12 o’clock at night, which I really appreciate. This budget time is a little bit different, but this is a weird consideration. But I do appreciate the help that I’ve been getting. I’ve been noticing it right away. And it is about the service that we provide. It is about the level of service and being effective. So I will not be supporting this amendment. Thank you. Looking for speakers online or in chambers, seeing none online, seeing none in chambers, calling the question.

[4:16:55] Closing the vote motion fails three to 12. Thank you. Numerically up would be into a base budget amendment. It was the capital project PD-1218 for London’s downtown plan. I have a mover of Councillor ramen and a seconder of Councillor Hillyer. Looking to see if you’re ready to proceed with that. Yes, have a nod from Councillor Hillyer or Councillor ramen. And I believe I blinked, but was there a thumbs up for Councillor Hillyer of still being the seconder? Perfect. So that’s just loading into eScribe.

[4:17:28] Once again, I would ask the Councillor just to read it out for all those joining us, for our viewers, and then I will start your time. If you’d like to be the first speaker. Thank you and through you, I will read out the motion that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove capital project PD-1218 London’s downtown plan. Small scale projects as set out in the base capital budget in the civic administration draft 2024 to 27 multi-year budget referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12, 2023 and it’s 2024 operating expenditure minus $100,000 and subsequently to the capital expenditure minus $100,000 and continues till 2027.

[4:18:15] Perfect. And thank you for separating this in advance. It is, it’s in eScribe. So anyone who wants to refresh and look at it, please do. And if you’d like to be the first speaker, Councillor, please start. Thank you and through you, so I’ll be brief on this, but when I looked at what we approved in the core area plan or sorry in the core area business case and that we were looking for the opportunity to move forward with the plan and I’ve heard that there’s a need for us to really rethink and look at what we’re going to do moving forward in the downtown, it made sense to me that the funding subsequently follows when there’s a plan.

[4:18:58] So with that in mind, I was looking at these expenditures and my understanding is that the expenditure is for a project to intend to replace and add items to Dundas Place as a utilization of space grows and events evolve like the purchase of a permanent movie television screen and safety closure barriers and such. This will also fund lifecycle repairs and renewals that need as time goes on. So with that in mind, I was thinking that it made more sense for us after we’ve had our plan in place to then move forward with funding in these areas and that way we’ll be able to properly allocate where we think we need additional funds.

[4:19:43] Thanks. Thank you. I have Councillor Troso next and then Deputy Mayor Lewis. Just a quick question through the chair. Are any of these items, things that could conceivably come from the turf? Was there a specific staff person for that or just whichever staff? Okay. Yeah, just one second as there’s a small conversation having. To the chair, no, these aren’t tourism related.

[4:20:21] Just to add some clarity as well. I think the description that was provided was for the subsequent amendment, not for the actual one that’s on the agenda currently. So this one is related to small projects that came out of the initial 2015 downtown master plan to be able to support work in the core. I’m happy to provide any other comments or concerns or questions on that. Councillor Troso. What would the, I don’t know who can answer this, but what would the effect through the chair?

[4:20:57] What would the effect on our programming in that area of the city be if this amendment were approved? Yes. Through the chair, currently there isn’t any further funding that’s been approved through the, through any of the other business cases to support any type of events or activations in the core. So that would leave it that there would be no funding to provide for that. So workly we had some funding, one time funding through the core reaction plan that is now concluded.

[4:21:33] So if this item is removed and there wouldn’t be no further funding to provide any kind of activation in the core or provide funding for events in the core. Councillor Troso, is Dask microphone still on? With these types of activations, I guess is the word we use, be things that either the arts council or the public library be able to provide because both the arts council and the public library have been very active in terms of programming in that area.

[4:22:14] Mr. Mathers. Through the chair, I can’t speak specifically for what they’re willing or what they’re able to provide. In the past, this has been a mixture of the funding’s been used for both providing to downtown London, for example, to be able to have some of their festivities for Canada Day or the arts festival that’s downtown. So it’s our contribution towards it. It’s also for like small capital projects as well. For example, under the Wellington Railway, the underway pass upgrades, the lighting, painting, planting, those types of things. So it’s not just activation funding, it also provides some funding for some small initiatives that have capital components to them as well.

[4:22:52] Councilor? Yes, I’m still confused. If it’s capital funding, why can’t we take it from the tourism fund? The tourism reserve fund from the, yep. Okay, yeah, our half for the municipal accommodation tax that we, okay, to staff. Through the chair, so these types of costs have not typically come from that fund. They came out of the downtown master plan that was previously completed.

[4:23:29] There may be opportunities to look for that fund for funding in the future. That just hasn’t historically been done. And that would require working very closely with tourism London, which we’d be happy to do. But historically, these types of costs have never been brought forward for that reserve fund. Am I correct in my assumption that the parameters for this fund is not something that’s imposed on us by the province, but it’s something that this council determines? Through the chair, absolutely. It’s completely discretionary up to council. And once again, I’ve been going through the SPPC reports, which ultimately led to this bylaw back in 2018.

[4:24:13] And I just see all sorts of things on there that just seem we’re not using. And I just don’t understand why we can’t be drawing on that fund. And by the way, if we can do it, what would it take for us to be able to do it? ‘Cause there’s money in that account. Ms. Berbone? Thank you through the chair. So that bylaw, when I was initially put forward, excuse me, was modified in later years because there was such a draw on the use of that reserve fund. So the bylaw was put in place for that reserve fund.

[4:24:50] You’ll note that there have been several projects that have maxed out a lot of the use of the fund. There is still some funds left, but it was intended for a very, very different purpose than this initial capital project was put in place based on how Mr. Mathers had identified that. So the correlation on the tourism, it was intended for a lot bigger things that are part of the capital plan, noting that certainly if there are tourism-related items, they could go towards that, but the case has not been made for these small projects that are specifically tourism-related with respect to the capital components that have not been funded there.

[4:25:27] That absolutely is within Council’s purview to modify the bylaw on the reserve fund if they so choose. Do that, this is my last question. Could we do that in conjunction with this budget exercise? I’m not sure of this more here versus committee as its process, Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the chairs. The modifying of bylaw would not have a budgetary impact at this time. So I wouldn’t suggest that that would be a budget discussion. That would be brought through committee for a potential amendment to how that fund is utilized, noting what the future payments are coming out of that fund that we could provide a false and report.

[4:26:12] Councillor, okay. Councillor Trautto says to us right at the moment. Deputy Mayor Lewis. And then I have, I do note Councillor ramen. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I agree with Councillor ramen’s logic to this. I think that a new downtown master plan being put in place before we make some additional investments there makes a lot of sense planned before spend. The fact that these are items left over from the 2015 downtown master plan, quite frankly, I’m not confident that that’s a great guiding document for us anymore.

[4:26:50] Obviously our downtown has changed radically since 2015. And I also think that by delaying this and getting the master plan in place first, the other advantage to that is it actually allows for some of the benefits of the other investments we are making, particularly in community safety and health and homelessness to start to have their positive impact on the downtown before we start putting an over emphasis on trying to draw people downtown for the great things that can be offered there. But right now I think we have some other social issue barriers that are in the way.

[4:27:28] And I’m not confident that these capital investments alone overcome those. So I’m prepared to support this and say, these might be appropriate after the new downtown master plan is completed. I’m not gonna pre-determine that one way or the other, but I’d like us to not advance anything further from the 2015 plan, get the new plan in place and then move ahead with our investments from there. Thank you, Councilor Raman and that Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, through you, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I did read the description. So thank you to staff for explaining that.

[4:28:01] So yes, this is for the annual funding to implement a roster of small and medium scale projects that were attached to the previous plan. And I do, again, support the idea that we follow the plan with the correct expenditures. And I just wanna echo what the deputy mayor said as well. I do think that other investments are important. I also see that we have been funding other one time investments in the downtown, through the BIA, for the Christmas market, et cetera, outside of these funds.

[4:28:39] And so I’m confident that if there’s a request that’s needed, that will come forward and that will be looked at on a case-by-case basis if needed going forward. So I think that that makes sense as we progress and as we work forward towards a plan, thanks. Thank you, Councilor Ferrer. Thank you. So I’m obviously not gonna be supporting this. You know, I would, let’s talk about the first part, the downtown master plan that’s being developed. You know, that’s still being developed.

[4:29:13] And there’s some time that we need to hold us over for that. And also, just pointing out, I have not seen an identifiable source of funding for that new downtown master plan. So there’s gonna be an issue there when we get there. So we are always talking about attracting people downtown, bringing people downtown, activating downtown. One of the, this is exactly for that. This is exactly for that. We’ve already taken away some of the biggest attractions that bring people downtown. We didn’t give funding to Museum London.

[4:29:46] We didn’t give funding to the grant. So now we’re gonna take this away too, come on. Are we not gonna have people come downtown? Is that the intent right here? Like, I am definitely not for that. There’s businesses who need people here now. They’re struggling now, you all know. So what are we doing? Thank you, Councillor Pribble next, and Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, and I will not be supporting this motion either.

[4:30:24] In terms of, yeah, really honestly last summer was a great summer for downtown. And if I look at honestly June, July, August, middle of September, there were a lot of events, live events, and it was very vibrant. And all the day in those times, when I was talking to our city staff, when they were setting it up here and down, we didn’t have enough of equipment, enough furniture, enough of kind of almost everything, because it was really honestly so successful. People were celebrating dancing on Dandas Place on the intersection of Taobat Dandas. Absolutely amazing atmosphere.

[4:30:58] I wish everyone from London, every London would come downtown because they would never believe what’s out there about downtown London, if they were to come almost every summer during the afternoon, still early evening, amazing, amazing atmosphere, truly. So I will not support it because we do need this. Yes, do we have issues? And yes, to be honest, sometimes, when the event was finished, 10, 11 o’clock, some of the people, homeless, they came back on Dandas Place. But when we had these events, so it proves the point, if we bring people downtown, if we have events, we will have less homelessness, we will have probably even less crime, even though I don’t have any stats.

[4:31:41] But the bottom line is already last year, we were short of the equipment for the events that we were hosting. So I will not be supporting this one. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you to Council people and the word councilor downtown for your comments. I, you reminded me how important it is to have people downtown. And we need to continue doing that. We are UNESCO city, many of the events that I attended. When I was downtown, even on errands, but hearing the music and hearing people downtown, that is something that we have to do.

[4:32:26] I appreciate that we are going to have a safety plan for our city, making it safer, but we need to continue to not only support the small and medium-sized events that bring people down, it makes us feel good. When we see people out there celebrating, we have a very diverse culture in our city now. And that, you can see that when you go downtown and see those events that are all, they just pop up all over the place. And it’s, it makes me feel sort of, it just makes me feel good that we as a city are supporting our community.

[4:33:07] So I appreciate trying to find money, how we can reduce the tax levy, but I don’t think this is where we should do it. Thank you. Looking for further speakers online or in chambers, saying none, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries eight to seven.

[4:34:04] Thank you for that. Here’s where we’re at. It’s our this year, mid-afternoon chair update. So we have one item that’s been circulated in advance that we’re ready to discuss. It’s also our break time. I had also had hoped when the day started to have an efficient meeting and adjourn, but we’ve heard from colleagues that things are in the works. Sorry. Sorry, just a point of order on the last vote.

[4:34:38] I got the double negative in my head and voted incorrectly on that matter. And I’m gonna just ask council’s leave for a reconsider motion to reconsider. Everyone’s good with a motion to reconsider without an official vote on reconsider. Okay, so that vote’s gonna reopen as a councilor misvoted. And thank you for catching that right away as it procedurally, it’s easier to deal with now. Yeah, we’re just copying and pasting to open that vote again. So just one moment please. The same item is ready and open and ascribe.

[4:35:24] Please cast your vote. Deputy Mayor Lewis, your microphone please. Closing the vote, motion carries 10 to five.

[4:36:00] Thank you. I wasn’t quite what we expected, but everyone’s good with what they cast but we don’t need other motion to reconsider. Reason with your mid-afternoon update is the committee chair. Traditionally, it would have already been break time. I have one item already that notice of motion, or the amendment’s been already circulated. At the beginning of the day, I said my ideals to situation would have been to conclude our business today in adjourn.

[4:36:38] We’ve heard clearly from colleagues that there’s more things coming, that notice of motions to take leave at council is gonna get messy and potentially long and that there seems to be an appetite for doing committee of business at committee and not at council. So my advice would be that we finish in good faith. Normally I said I didn’t wanna finish the day with nothing on the docket, but in order to use our time wisely today, my best advice would be to finish the item that someone’s already circulated in advance for us and that we recess.

[4:37:14] I’ve been told that people will be ready on the 15th as there’s several councils working on things to come back then. My indication as chair would be to release tomorrow as a budget day, I would release the 16th of next Friday as a budget day going into the long weekend and ideally we’d finish everything on the 15th. So it is with good faith that that’s my recommendation as councilor said they would be able to come on the 15th prepared for those conversations.

[4:37:49] So ‘cause I just know someone could procedurally move recess today with an item still on the docket and carry it forward so that would also be okay. But I would ideally like to deal with it today in good faith giving colleagues an opportunity to deal with things at committee vetted by staff for we could have a wholesome informed decision. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. In general terms I am supportive of the direction you’re trying to go. And I do prefer to do committee work at committee.

[4:38:22] I appreciate that some members have suggested that they will bring things and have things ready for the 15th. In addition to the dates you have suggested I would also suggest that we release Friday the 23rd. That gives us the full day on the 15th to debate anything that’s brought forward. It also leaves the 22nd so that if we do not finish our business on the 15th we still have one more budget day that we may or may not use. I would hope that we don’t need it but it will save one day in advance so that we don’t have to call any other special meetings.

[4:38:57] But I would suggest that we release all the Fridays in the calendar and use the next two Thursdays to get our business finished. Okay, I’ve heard that. I’m in favor of it. Just for colleagues, no, like I said last Friday you did 18. Today you’ve made great progress as well. And it really is to allow those colleagues time to bring something that we can have advanced circulation and wording out. So that official email will go out later as it is my purview of chair to release those dates. I would really hope that at the beginning of the day I anticipated to be done today.

[4:39:32] So I really do anticipate being done on Friday and respecting that we each come to the table with the 15th this Thursday. Did I call the Thursday? Whatever, the 15th. Days of the week mean nothing when you’re a budget chair. So that is my intention. So I’m going to, there seems to be consensus does anyone have a major problem with anything I just said? Okay, so I’m gonna ask that we do not take break now that we proceed with the final item that’s been given advanced circulation and then we’ll recess until the 15th.

[4:40:07] That is, I have a thumbs up. I don’t need a movers for any of that, a question. Sorry, Madam Chair, but I do have a question in terms of dealing with the item that’s been circulated. But I also just wanted to check in with you. I’ve not seen anything circulated. So as far as I’m aware, nobody’s proposing any changes to the water waste, water budget. So anything that people wanted to change for that, they would also need to have ready for the 15th if there is any changes at all. I suspect that there may not be on that one, but I don’t know.

[4:40:41] Maybe people aren’t as keen on clean water as some of us are, but I don’t anticipate any changes to that one, but I just wanted to ask you that question to make clear that that would include any amendments to that portion of the budget, which on day one, we indicated we deal with it at the very end. Yep, so that’s correct. We have not discussed water waste water yet. There was no additional changes outside of what was already tabled in the mayor’s budget. So my intention is on the 15th, it is respectfully last call for anything. That’s legislative administrative, like to prioritize other budget cases.

[4:41:18] It is last call if we can wrap it up and then the public can have ample time for the public participation meeting coming up to fully understand what we’ve done and give meaningful feedback and being respectful of them. So any other other questions on procedure? Okay, so the next item of the day and the final item that I’ve been made aware of, someone’s always welcome to bring someone else forward today. We still have some time if they want, but it’s capital project RC 1036 Dundas Place Equipment. This is a mover of Councillor ramen and a seconder of Councillor Hillyer.

[4:41:55] Councillor ramen, you’re ready to move it at this time. I think an indication of yes, Councillor Hillyer’s a thumbs up for being the seconder. So that is in eScribe, if you just refresh, it’ll be there and Councillor, once again, you can just read it out before you start your speaking time. Thank you that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to remove capital project RC 1036 Dundas Place Equipment as set out the base capital budget of the Civic Administration draft 2024 to 2027, multi-year budget referred by the strategic priorities and policy committee on December 12, 2023. And it includes 2024 operating expenditures minus 100,000 and 2024 tax levy minus 100,000, 2024 capital expenditure minus 100,000 and replicates to 2027.

[4:42:41] Excellent, please proceed with your speaking time if you wanna go first. Thank you. And this is very similar to the last item in terms of the rationale. Again, we’re looking at what we’re doing, what we’re going to do in the core area initiatives, which is around the planning for what our plans are for the downtown. And I do believe that the funding should follow the plan. In this case, this identified items and replacement of items as the utilization of the space grows and events evolve like the purchase of a permanent movie television screen and safety closure barriers and funding of lifecycle repair replacement needed as time goes on in the Dundas Place equipment funds.

[4:43:29] So I saw this as funding events needs, but I did see where we could be using this through other means of funding. So that’s why I thought this was an opportunity. And as I mentioned, I do see often where we’re activating spaces where we are coming back to council to talk about those activations. And so I do feel like if there’s a need, it will come forward and we will hear about it and know that that’s something that we need to fund in the future.

[4:44:05] But I thought this was an opportunity for us to discuss this at this time. Thanks. Thank you. Looking for my speakers list on Council approval. Very similar to the previous one. And I will just add maybe a couple of things which I could have mentioned last time as well. There are plans. I just want to let you know that, for example, the Rotary Club of London is going to do investment together with the library reading garden, plans for additional stages in front on the side and down to Dundas Place.

[4:44:40] So again, I will not be supporting it because there are initiatives in place already and our infrastructure or equipment is not even keeping up with our demands now. Yes, it’s true that out of 365 days, maybe 200 days, this equipment will be stored but the other 100 plus days, that’s when we need them, that’s when everyone comes down. So that’s the reason why I will not be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Any further speakers online or in chambers? Councilor Troso.

[4:45:14] I’m sorry, it’s capital and it’s related to tourism, right? Through the chair. To our finance team. Through the chair, just maybe to add a little bit more clarity to this item. So it does highlight the TV screen and what’s kind of underwhelming as part of the explanation is that this is the fund that we use for, really the nuts and bolts of any kind of life cycle renewal in that area.

[4:45:54] So when we have to replace the garbage bins, when we have to replace bricks, things like that, that’s what this funding is used for primarily. The aesthetic for the Dundas Place is different from anywhere else in the city. So that’s why that we have an additional fund to be able to use, to be able to replace light poles, those types of things that are different from what we see throughout the city. So as much as there’s opportunities to use this funding for different initiatives, the primarily it’s used to fund that just very practical items within the area. Councillor.

[4:46:31] I’m not sure how I can respond to that. I’m just gonna keep asking that question. Because I don’t, I’ll leave it there. Councillor Ferra. Thank you. Obviously, you know, I’m gonna go with this one too. And a lot of the same things from the last one that we came through. And I thought the TV screens was for the last one and not this one. And this one is primarily for life cycle renewals and what I understand. So it’s needed, you know, I remind you, we do not have the new downtown master plan yet. So we have the old one that may be out of dated, but at least it has some funding.

[4:47:08] But let’s strip that funding and leave us with nothing. Good reminder of where we’ve been. Let’s not go there again. So please. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. I too will not be supporting this. And I think it’s important that we pause a little bit from where we were at one time investing in downtown, Dundas Plus. We invested heavily. This is life cycle renewal program to keep it basically the needs.

[4:47:46] Small needs, it’s just not the TV set. But we do need to, when we put investments into our city, we do need to take care of them. So I think it’s, again, very important that we do that. So I won’t be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Councillor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I just want to take this opportunity. I mean, on the last vote, I didn’t say anything on this one. I will still be supporting the removal of this. And I just, this is not meant to, you know, we’re not putting a target on the downtown’s back, but I think to Councillor Robbins’ point, in terms of having that master plan in place, I just think that there’s a lot of things that feed into the vibrancy of the core.

[4:48:36] These are small drops in the bucket, but I just feel like in terms of what we’re putting into it, without that clear plan in place. And I have to just be respectful in terms of like the area, in terms of that I represent as well. Like these are additional resources that aren’t granted to other places. I recognize the uniqueness of downtown, the fact that we’re trying to bring people to the core, but it is hard when I can’t speak to, you know, the overall end goal in terms of just putting money into the core.

[4:49:09] It’s something that I’ve struggled with all the time. Every time a plan comes to us out the core, I do support a healthy core, but I want to have that long-term plan in place to understand what our actual objective is. So for the time being, I’m supportive of these removals, but when the time comes for us to actually put the money back into the core, to have those clear objectives in terms of what we want it to look like, I would be supportive of that time. Thank you. Thank you. Looking for their speakers on liner and chambers. Seeing none, calling the question.

[4:49:57] Seeing the vote, motion carries. Nine to six. Thank you, that concludes the amendments we’ve been given notice of for today. At this time, I have sent a letter to the clerk based on our prior conversation as committee, releasing the remaining Fridays in February, being the 9/16th and 23rd as budget days. I’m looking for a motion to recess until the, okay, one thing procedurally first, just cleans up administration stuff behind the scenes.

[4:50:48] We’ve had some items for direction of letters and correspondence from our committee sent here, just looking for a motion to receive those correspondence as laid out in our original agenda, what was three days ago? Three committee days ago, moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. That’s just come up in e-scribe, because it’s just simply receipt of all the business materials that have been sent that were under items 4.1 through to others. Madam Chair.

[4:51:30] Just the wording’s coming in e-scribe, so a comment on recent of those items. Sorry, just because you were indicating we wanna receive these, and then you’re looking for a motion to recess. Respectfully, I’d like to request that you, before we look for any motion to recess, that we ask Mr. Murray if he can place the current modeling of where we are in the tax rates up for everyone’s information before we look for a motion to recess. Mr. Murray, we’ll get that, but just ready to be opened is the receipt of just those correspondence that were items for direction.

[4:52:04] So that’s opening first, yet you’re approving receipt information. How I secretly get everything I wanted in the budget.

[4:52:41] Councillor Per beau and Trossa. Councillor Trossa. I’m voting yes. Posing the vote, motion carries, 15 to zero. Perfect, thank you.

[4:53:13] Mr. Murray, is your team ready with the update? Okay, it’s just going up on the screen now is where we’re currently sitting. Thank you through the chair. So with the amendments that were approved today, I actually don’t have very much to report at all, actually. We haven’t on a routed basis moved any of the years tax, let the increases, or the four year average. So the 2024 increase remains at 8.6%, 2025 is at 8.7%, 2026 is still at 5.6%, 2027 is at 6.5% for a four year average increase of 7.4%.

[4:54:12] Okay, so any questions for Mr. Murray’s team on the chart? Seeing none, I believe Councillor Hopkins had their hand up for a motion to recess. And it will be recessing until the 15th at 9.30 a.m. as we’ve always been starting. The clerk’s gonna ask that as soon as you have your amendment ready to please send it so they can do clerking of it, help you with wording of it, the finance team remains available. I am asking once again that ideally you can do as you will, but to help with the process 10 a.m. the day before so they can come in, the clerk’s as a courtesy to colleagues that we can then put them all into one master list and circulate it so you’d have time to read what’s coming, contemplate it, ask questions, and then come to committee prepared to dig into those items just to help us procedurally move things along.

[4:55:11] That’s what we’re looking for. So we have a mover in the recess until the 15th at 9.30 a.m. and Councillor Hopkins. I’m looking for a seconder and Councillor Stevenson. Okay, a hand votes okay, so all in favor of that recess. And that motion carries. Thank you and your snack is waiting in the side room.