Open Council

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

Open Council

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

February 15, 2024, at 9:30 AM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

3.   Scheduled Items

3.29   Amendment - Business Case P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18

Moved by S. Franke

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-15 – Hoarding/Extreme Clean Program; Business Case P-16 – Housing Stability Bank Expansion; Business Case P-17 – Housing Stability Table; and Business Case P-18 – Housing Support Programs Case Management 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: P-15: $400,000; P-16: $700,000; P-17: $400,000; P-18: $188,000; London Police Service: -$1,688,000   2024 Tax Levy:  $0

2025 Operating Expenditures: P-15: $400,000; P-16: $700,000; P-17: $400,000; P-18: $375,000; London Police Service: -$1,875,000   2025 Tax Levy:  $0

2026 Operating Expenditures: P-15: $400,000; P-16: $700,000; P-17: $400,000; P-18: $563,000; London Police Service: -$2,063,000   2026 Tax Levy:  $0

2027 Operating Expenditures: P-15: $400,000; P-16: $700,000; P-17: $400,000; P-18: $750,000; London Police Service: -$2,250,000   2027 Tax Levy:  $0

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Trosow

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

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

3.30   Amendment - Business Case P-15

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-15 – Hoarding/Extreme Clean Program; as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $400,000             2024 Tax Levy: $400,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $400,000             2025 Tax Levy: $400,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $400,000             2026 Tax Levy: $400,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $400,000             2027 Tax Levy: $400,000

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

3.31   Amendment - Business Case P-16

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-16 – Housing Stability Bank Expansion, as set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget received by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $700,000             2024 Tax Levy: $700,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $700,000             2025 Tax Levy: $700,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $700,000             2026 Tax Levy: $700,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $700,000             2027 Tax Levy: $700,000

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

3.32   Amendment - Business Case P-36

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing funding for Business Case P-36 – Safe London and Anti Racism/Anti Oppression Action Plan to $125,000 annually:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$58,000     2024 Tax Levy:  -$58,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$58,000     2025 Tax Levy:  -$58,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$58,000     2026 Tax Levy:  -$58,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$58,000     2027 Tax Levy   -$58,000

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

3.33   Amendment - Business Case P-51

Moved by J. Pribil

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include the revised conventional service hours for Business Case P-51 – Transit Service Conventional Growth Hours, as approved by the London Transit Commission on January 31st, 2024 to provide for 18,000 hours of growth in each year, by increasing funding as follows:

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

2025 Operating Expenditures: $3,495,400          2025 Tax Levy: $3,495,400

2026 Operating Expenditures: $5,563,400          2026 Tax Levy: $5,563,400

2027 Operating Expenditures: $7,913,600          2027 Tax Levy: $7,913,600

Motion Passed (8 to 7)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That the Committee recess at this time.

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 12:24 PM and reconvenes at 1:02 PM.

3.34   Amendment - London Public Library Base Budget

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to increase London Public Library’s Base Budget to the following annual percentage increases in support of maintaining the essential infrastructure the Library offers Londoners:

2024:  7%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.4%)

2024 Operating Expenditure:  $331,931             2024 Tax Levy:  $331,931

2025:  8%      (Mayor’s Budget: 6.0%)

2025 Operating Expenditure:  $833,824             2025 Tax Levy:  $833,824

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to increase London Public Library’s Base Budget to the following annual percentage increases in support of maintaining the essential infrastructure the Library offers Londoners:

2024:  7%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.4%)

2025:  8%      (Mayor’s Budget: 6.0%)

2026:  9%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.1%)

2027:  9%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.2%)

2024 Operating Expenditure:  $331,931             2024 Tax Levy:  $331,931

2025 Operating Expenditure:  $833,824             2025 Tax Levy:  $833,824

2026 Operating Expenditure:  $1,876,707          2026 Tax Levy:  $1,876,707

2027 Operating Expenditure:  $3,039,325          2027 Tax Levy:  $3,039,325

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part a), related to 2024:

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to increase London Public Library’s Base Budget in support of maintaining the essential infrastructure the Library offers Londoners:

a) 2024:  7%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.4%)

2024 Operating Expenditure:  $331,931          2024 Tax Levy:  $331,931

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part b), related to 2025:

b) 2025:  8%      (Mayor’s Budget: 6.0%)

2025 Operating Expenditure:  $833,824         2025 Tax Levy:  $833,824

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part c), related to 2026:

c) 2026:  9%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.1%)

2026 Operating Expenditure:  $1,876,707      2026 Tax Levy:  $1,876,707

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part d), related to 2027:

d) 2027:  9%      (Mayor’s Budget: 5.2%)

2027 Operating Expenditure:  $3,039,325       2027 Tax Levy:  $3,039,325

Motion Failed (5 to 10)

3.35   Amendment - Business Case P-30

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-30 – Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services – London Public Library, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund as follows:

a) to support investment of $31,000 for expansion of the services delivered by the Central Library’s 2nd Floor Creativity Lab

2024 Capital Expenditures: $31,000                   2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2027 Tax Levy: $0

b) an investment of $100,000 to expand the suite of children’s digital literacy discovery programs

2024 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                   2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                   2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2027 Tax Levy: $0

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-30 – Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services – London Public Library in the revised amount of $131,000 to support investment of $31,000 for expansion of the services delivered by the Central Library’s 2nd Floor Creativity Lab and investment of $100,000 to expand the suite of children’s digital literacy discovery programs, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund:

2024 Capital Expenditures: $31,000                 2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                 2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                 2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Capital Expenditures: $0                          2027 Tax Levy: $0

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-30 – Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services – London Public Library, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund as follows:

a) to support investment of $31,000 for expansion of the services delivered by the Central Library’s 2nd Floor Creativity Lab

2024 Capital Expenditures: $31,000                   2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2027 Tax Levy: $0

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

b) an investment of $100,000 to expand the suite of children’s digital literacy discovery programs

2024 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                   2025 Tax Levy: $0

2026 Capital Expenditures: $50,000                   2026 Tax Levy: $0

2027 Capital Expenditures: $0                            2027 Tax Levy: $0

Motion Passed (10 to 5)

Moved by J. Morgan

Seconded by A. Hopkins

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

Motion Passed

The Committee recesses at 2:21 PM and reconvenes at 2:37 PM.

3.36   Amendment - Business Case P-69

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-69 – Expanded Support for Library Collections, in the revised total 2024-2027:

one-time funding of $100,000 in 2024, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, to ensure that the London Public Library can replace high-demand children’s and teen print materials to keep pace with increasing use of these collections post-COVID:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $100,000     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

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-69 – Expanded Support for Library Collections, in the revised total 2024-2027 amount of $234,000:

Annual funding totaling $134,000 (2024: $30,000; 2025: $32,000; 2026: $35,000; 2027: $37,000) to ensure that London Public Library can continue to purchase broadly and widely in the burgeoning publishing market amplifying underrepresented viewpoints and diverse experiences, to reflect more inclusive and authentic representation of these communities;

One-time funding of $100,000 in 2024, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, to ensure that the London Public Library can replace high-demand children’s and teen print materials to keep pace with increasing use of these collections post-COVID.

2024 Operating Expenditures: $130,000           2024 Tax Levy: $30,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $32,000             2025 Tax Levy: $32,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $35,000             2026 Tax Levy: $35,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $37,000             2027 Tax Levy: $37,000

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to include Business Case P-69 – Expanded Support for Library Collections, in the revised total 2024-2027:

a)    annual funding totaling $134,000 (2024: $30,000; 2025: $32,000; 2026: $35,000; 2027: $37,000) to ensure that London Public Library can continue to purchase broadly and widely in the burgeoning publishing market amplifying underrepresented viewpoints and diverse experiences, to reflect more inclusive and authentic representation of these communities:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $30,000            2024 Tax Levy: $30,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: $32,000            2025 Tax Levy: $32,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: $35,000            2026 Tax Levy: $35,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: $37,000            2027 Tax Levy: $37,000

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Moved by S. Trosow

Seconded by C. Rahman

Motion to approve part b):

b)    one-time funding of $100,000 in 2024, to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, to ensure that the London Public Library can replace high-demand children’s and teen print materials to keep pace with increasing use of these collections post-COVID:

2024 Operating Expenditures: $100,000      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 Passed (8 to 7)

3.37   Amendment - Business Case P-56

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Lehman

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing the funding to Initiative 3.b – Climate Change Invest (CCI) Fund of Business Case # P-56 – Climate Emergency Action Plan (CEAP) Implementation Support to an annual contribution of $1 million;

it being noted that this reduction offsets the cost of P-51 Transit Services Hours Growth.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

3.38   Amendment - Business Case P-46

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing Business Case P-46 – Economic and Partnership Initiatives – Action Number 12 by $450,000 from 2025 to 2027:

2024 Operating Expenditures:  $0                       2024 Tax Levy: $0

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$450,000           2025 Tax Levy: -$450,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$450,000           2026 Tax Levy: -$450,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$450,000           2027 Tax Levy: -$450,000

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

3.39   Amendment - Business Case P-L3

Moved by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing the funding for Business Case P-L3 – More Homes Built Faster Act, Bill 23 – Statutory Exemptions:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000     2024 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000     2025 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000     2026 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000     2027 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

Motion Failed (3 to 12)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by H. McAlister

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the motion be amended to reflect the funding below:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000    2024 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$1,800,000    2025 Tax Levy:  -$1,800,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$800,000       2026 Tax Levy:  -$800,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$800,000       2027 Tax Levy:  -$800,000

In accordance with section 33.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, the motion to amend Business Case PL-3 BE WITHDRAWN, with the general consent of the committee, with no objection being raised, and at the joint request of the mover and seconder.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by S. Lewis

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed (11 to 4)

The meeting adjourned at 4:18 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (6 hours, 26 minutes)

[1:48] testing audio from chambers, testing audio. So just a couple minutes and we’ll have a chance to settle in and grab a drink and log into the E-Scribe, please.

[15:57] Good morning, everyone. The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Dontanashvak, Haudenosaunee, Lenawak, and Adawandran. We represent as the people of the city of London. We’re grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory and respect the history, language, and culture, the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. This is a continuation of the second budget meeting. This is day four, and the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request to make a request specific to this meeting.

[16:32] Please contact 519-661-2489, extension 2425, or… So I’m going to look to committee for disclosures of community interest, and I will note that we have Councilor Layman, Hillier, and Van Merbergen joining us remotely, and they’ve all put their screens on so that we see they’re here, and everyone else is with me in person in chambers, so we do have full committee. So looking to everyone for disclosures of pecuniary interest. Okay, still seeing none. So we’re gonna continue on with our potential amendments.

[17:08] Some have been provided in advance, so thank you for that. The first one I’m going to start with, I will turn to Councilor Frank and Councilor Hopkins, realizing we have a community partner in the gallery who’s joined us if there’s any questions from the Center of Hope. So I will ask you to, it’s just coming up in E-Scribe. Okay, so we’re still putting the wording up, but if you would, this is a longer one, if you’ll read out your motion, and then it can go on the screen for everyone can see it, and just confirming that Councilor Frank is the mover and Councilor Hopkins is the seconder.

[17:44] Yep, so that’s going properly into E-Scribe, and please proceed. Thank you. The motion is that the Mayor’s 2024-2027 multi-year budget be amended to include Businesscase P-15, hoarding/extreme clean program, Businesscase P-16, housing/stability bank expansion, Businesscase P-17, housing/stability table, and Businesscase P-18, housing/support programs, case management enhancements. As set out in the Civic Administration draft 2024-2027 multi-year budget, referred by the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee in December 12, 2023, offset by an equal reduction to the police operating budget.

[18:21] 2024 operating expenditures, P-15, 400,000, P-16, 700,000, P-17, 400,000, P-18, 188,000, one police service negative 1.68, 8 million, 2024 tax levy, $0.25, operating expenditures, P-15, 400,000, P-16, 700,000, P-17, 400,000, P-18, 375,000, one police service, negative 1.875 million, 2025 tax levy, zero. 2026 operating expenditures, P-15, 400,000, P-16, 700,000, P-17, 400,000, P-18, 563,000, one police service, negative 2.063 million, 2026 tax levy, zero.

[19:06] 2027 operating expenditures, P-15, 400,000, P-16, 700,000, P-17, 400,000, P-18, 750,000, one police service, negative 2.25 million, 2027 tax levy, zero dollars. Thank you. If you want to be the first speaker, I’ll start your speaking time then, and as a reminder, ideally it’s five minutes, and you can speak multiple times as we’re at committee, just remind us as it’s been a week. Councillor Flank, please proceed. Thank you. So, I brought this motion forward, given the feedback I’ve been receiving from the community.

[19:41] In my ward, there’s a strong appetite for some movement within the London Police Services Board budget request, and given the small dollar amount relative to the overall ask, but the potential for huge community impact by being able to fund the four programs that we’ve selected, which these four programs help keep over 3,500 people housed every year, and they’re currently not included in our budget. So, P-15, the hoarding one supports approximately 150 people a year, keeping them housed, because they are assisting them with hoarding issues as well as mental health issues. P-16, the housing stability bank. Overall, the program assists approximately 3,200 households per year, with loans and grants, with the money, the additional money in this budget case, over 500 additional households next year for families that are struggling would be able to find support through the housing stability bank.

[20:28] Again, namely with making assistance with rental arrears and first and last month payments. The P-17 case housing stability table supports approximately 200,000 households, or sorry, 2000, oof, that’d be a lot, 200 households per year, and P-18, the case management one, supports 240 individuals a year, keeping them housed. So overall, when you add that all up, that’s 3,790 people, or households, being supported through these programs every year. And so, I think if we keep talking about the importance of public safety, personally, I think the number one thing we can do to keep people safe is to keep them housed.

[21:05] And I’m gonna share what I’ve been hearing for the last few weeks from my residents. They don’t necessarily wanna pay for a new training center, electric vehicles, a lab, drones, tasers, and many other items that are included in the police budget. And I’ve heard over and over and over again that people want us to spend money solving things like homelessness, they want us to invest in transit, they want us to invest in our library system, and they don’t want us to allocate the bulk of our budget, their taxpayer dollars to the police budget. They believe, like I do, that the better bang for the buck would be to address root cause issues instead of costly emergency responses. And the main justification I’ve heard from the incredible financial ask from the police budget is that our city isn’t safe.

[21:44] And I think that is a very compelling narrative. It’s fear-based, and I think this rhetoric is that trying to encourage people to contact their city councilors ‘cause they don’t feel safe. I had a phone call this morning at 9 a.m. before this call from one of my residents who’s an 85-year-old woman who lives on Rideout, and she said that she feels safe in the city. I know not everyone does. But I think that, overwhelmingly, I’ve never heard that people don’t feel safe. I hear it occasionally, maybe one, two emails a month. The emails that I’m getting are that people want us to solve homelessness. So based on this fear-based justification, I don’t think necessarily the bulk of this budget needs to be allocated to the police services.

[22:25] My biggest worry is that we spend 672 million and four years, not much materially changes. People, or the police will still be swamped with mental health calls and homelessness calls. And so they won’t be able to be spending time putting officers on traffic enforcement, and their response rate will not materially improve because we’re not addressing the issues. To summarize, I personally will always want to choose to spend money on preventative solutions, which I think are infinitely cheaper than reactive solutions and actually address the root cause of these issues. With this amendment, we have the potential to keep thousands of Londoners safe by keeping them housed.

[23:00] And I’ve heard over and over again from people in my ward. That’s how they want me to spend their money. So, and I also believe I know that there’ll be some discussion about how if we touch a police budget, they can take us to OCPC. I don’t think that they would take us to OCPC for $2 million, but that is also a gamble, I suppose I’m willing to take. But $2 million out of $672 million, well, it’s $8 million over four years. So $8 million out of $672 million to me is not a material change to their budget, but it is a material change to these programs. So, I hope there are other counselors who would support seeing people housed and supporting keeping them safe with this motion.

[23:35] Thank you. Thank you. That used up three minutes and 40 seconds, just for your aware, and the wording is on the screen for our viewers and it isn’t neat scrub if you hit refresh and current item, everything’s there for you. Okay, looking for further speakers on this item, I don’t see any online, looking in chambers. Councilor Ferreira. Thank you and through you. So, I’m happy that the council brought this forward and most of everything that she said is kind of how I’m feeling.

[24:11] So, I did have to cut out half of my remarks, but I will say that all these business cases are soundly within the housing first model, and they consist of programs that play a vital role on the front line of being housed or not being housed. For me, just like as Councilor Frank alluded to, community safety and security has multiple channels that all have to be plugged in for the greatest level of effectiveness. The police consist of several plugs in this array when it comes to community safety and security, and the physical boundaries usually largely fall outside of the home.

[24:44] One of the other channels for community safety and security has all to do with housing. Our most basic needs just beyond the physiological needs include shelter and security of the person. The security of the person starts with shelter. No one can deny it’s safer living inside than it is living outside on the street, and a big component to maintaining and increasing the level of community safety and security for me includes preventing those who are at risk of losing their housing. All of the business cases are within the housing first, the first lines of defense.

[25:17] When ensuring that a community is safe and secure, I believe that this is also one of the plugs that we need to start looking at. So we have basically in the city, there’s habs and there’s have-nots, both in the city and on the budget. And because we have been unable to break through that upper limit that we keep on talking about, for the property tax rate increase, we’re left with no other choice to find that balance for what we see before us. So considering everything, I am currently, after hearing from my community, just with the tides and how they’ve been changing, I’d be in favor of moving these resources to the hab-nots.

[25:56] I’ll be voting for this amendment to find that balance. Thank you, Councillor Ferrell, that was two minutes. So you’re speaking time. Next to my speaker’s list, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And through you, first, I have to say personally, in my view, it’s a false narrative to pit policing against housing. Budgets build on the work of the past. And in the past, multi-year budget cycle, the previous council invested over $96 million in new housing initiatives on top of the money that was already being spent.

[26:32] That money continues to be invested into our community today. That includes a whole number of things, including the work that’s being done on the road map to 3,000, the work that’s happening at the Vision SoHo revitalization of the So Street Hospital. What we did not fund in the last budget was policing. And it is time to recognize that we need both community safety and housing initiatives. And we have invested strategically and significantly, and none of that housing money considers any of the money that we’ve invested in the hubs.

[27:05] It doesn’t take into account the 74 million housing accelerator funding we receive from the federal government. It doesn’t include the rapid housing initiative funding that we receive from the federal government that has already resulted in three buildings being built, opened and occupied in our city with over 136 units just in those three buildings. So to say that we are not investing enough in housing, frankly, I reject that, especially when in this budget, we see another 10 million just in the road map to 3,000 affordable units alone, another 5 million into London housing, plus the capital into London housing for the reimagined Southdale project phase two.

[27:44] We are putting a tremendous amount of money into housing and homelessness programs in this city, but we cannot ignore community safety needs too. And I hear from my constituents all the time that community safety is an issue. It was not that long ago when we were debating a security grant for the Argyle and Hamilton Road BIA’s because security is an issue for our businesses too. And we approved two years funding there as a stop gap, a stop gap until we could get police on the road. And when I hear that we need to focus on things like mental health, there’s $400,000 a year average almost in the police budget for mental health crisis workers.

[28:24] So that police are spending less time on mental health calls and having mental health crisis workers dedicated to helping them with those calls. We can’t ignore that that is in the police budget. We can’t ignore that the training center is actually going to be a code bill that’s gonna benefit London Fire as well. And their training center has already been decommissioned. They need a training center too. This will be a regional training center. This will not just be for London police. When we talk about the hoarding program, I go back to the principles of core municipal budgeting that we heard at the start of this budget process, the importance of not being ready to jump in and backfill provincial and federal funding.

[29:04] And it’s right in the business case that this was funded from one time federal and provincial funding that has not been renewed. We should not be back stopping the federal and provincial government every time they under fund something. That’s not our role. And it’s not sustainable on property taxes. And as for the OCPC, in the city of Toronto, much bigger than us, the police budget was cut by 20 million. And 13 days later, the mayor had to restore it. The police chief in Toronto made it very clear they were going to OCPC over that cut. And I think it is really gambling to think that our police aren’t going to go to OCPC over 8 million, about half of what was cut in Toronto, a city much, much larger than us more than twice our size.

[29:48] So the orders of magnitude are substantially different. So I absolutely will not be supporting this. I will not be supporting taking any money from the police budget. We need to balance our spending. And we spent on housing in the previous budget. This budget, it is time to help catch up on community safety. Thank you, that’s four minutes. Councillor Hopkins, and then Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I’d just like to make a few comments just following up on what I’ve heard about the previous budget. It was a housing budget.

[30:21] I was really pleased to be part of that council. Homeless housing, that was what that budget was about. We needed to do that because we have not been investing for years in housing and homelessness. In fact, there was a time when we took money out of housing homelessness to put it in other areas. So it takes us a long time to catch up. And we need to catch up. I also do think that policing was supported in the last budget as well.

[30:55] So I just want to make a few comments about what I’m hearing from my community. And what I’m hearing is that housing and homelessness is a priority. Sure, we need to provide a safe city. But that is not the priority that I hear. It is really, really important that we, as a government, as a city, support a vulnerable population. Councillor Frank gave you the numbers with this amendment.

[31:31] I am hoping that my colleagues please look at then thousands of people that we can be supporting here with this amendment. I do think, I’m a little disappointed, that we did have to take it out of the police services. But I am 100% convinced that we need to take it from somewhere. Police business cases have not been touched at all. It seems like there is the elephant in the room that we don’t even talk about the business cases that the police have provided us.

[32:12] In the past, we had the police here doing presentations explaining to us the need and the reasons why these business cases need to be supported. So as disappointed as I am that we’re not touching the tax levy, and that’s what I’m hearing from my residents as well, that the increase is not sustainable. So how do we find ways to do it? I want to get back to housing and homelessness.

[32:47] One of the things I learned on a workshop that I did, there was a presentation from Finland, and they were able to really make a dent in their homeless and housing, and the importance of supports in the community, and the importance of governments and stakeholders, and the community, all working together. It takes money, and it takes time. But I think as a city, we can do it. And I would like your support for this amendment.

[33:22] Thank you. I had Councillor Stevenson next. Thank you. To say that we haven’t had the opportunity to have our questions answered regarding those business cases, I just— I don’t know what to say to that. There’s been so many opportunities, and so many times they have explained the need for these business cases. Quite frankly, there’s not a single one of us here that is qualified to say whether the reduction of the police budget would have an impact or not.

[33:56] And I’d like to know, I believe we have somebody from London Police Services available. There are all kinds— this notion, too, that the police are getting everything that they want. This police budget was passed unanimously by the police board, because it’s required. This isn’t a wish list. This isn’t like their dream list. This is what is needed to create a safer city now. And that is something that we are required to provide to Londoners, is that level of safety. And so, like I said, to think that this budget has a lot of fat in it, or there’s opportunity to cut, I’m wondering if there is somebody from London Police Service available to maybe explain some of the financial pressures that have already become apparent in the last little while.

[34:47] Hey, I’m going to pause your time there at one minute. There will be, they just need a chance to log on, since they didn’t know when we’re getting to what cases when. So it would be the finance team and deputy chief, like we had last time, so they are coming. So as they log on, we give them a few minutes to get here. I could either continue with my speakers list, and then we can go back around with anyone who had specific questions for their finance team. Did you want to pause your time now? OK, just give me one second. Councillor ramen, did you want to wait, or did you want to proceed?

[35:22] OK, yeah, please. Thank you, and through you. So I’m very appreciative of the opportunity to have a conversation today about the London Police Budget, but also about these business cases. And I wanted to, if possible, take advantage of the fact that we have a representative from the Center of Hope with us today to talk about business case P-16 and the Housing Stability Bank expansion. I think that this is a very compelling case.

[35:56] Not only is it a compelling case, but it is one where we’ve seen the value of the work, and we’ve supported CAHPS additional funding to be able to address shortfalls in this program. So I’m wondering if it’s possible to hear from our friends from the Center of Hope what this program means, what the expansion can mean, because I’d really like to center around some of the business cases that are here and have a discussion about that. Yes, I had heard the clerks beforehand.

[36:32] As this is a different process with a strong mayor’s budget, and as Councilor Hoppins already said in the past, we had people come to us and present, which this process doesn’t allow for. They’re not an agency-border commission nor official delegate, but they are hearing a resource. So as chair, I would allow these questions today as we have that resource available and questions on the floor. So Mr. Deactis, welcome. I’m going to ask technology to allow the top microphone in the gallery to go live. Welcome, whatever questions you get, I just ask that you keep your answers concise as possible to the question at hand.

[37:08] Councillor Ramen, please proceed. Thank you. I’m just wondering if you might be able to walk us through P16, the expansion of the funding, what that— Sorry, I’m going to call one time out, not because you did anything wrong, but London Police has logged on. So just for I can queue them up that welcome, we’re just hearing from another community partner from the floor. And can I have the motion sent to London Police to Ms. McInan for the deputy chief, just for the note we’re talking about? Essentially, it’s looking to fund a variety of programs that focus around housing and care of the community with a potential decrease to the police operating budget.

[37:48] So there’s questions from the floor coming about what those programs would entail for the community and members. And then there’ll be questions that’s on hold for you until you got here about what that impact would look like on the police operating budget. So just welcome. That’s where you’re starting from. And we’re just starting the conversation. You haven’t missed anything. And Councillor Ramen’s about to ask a question to a delegate in the gallery. Thank you. So just to go back to my question, I just I’m just wondering if you could walk us through business case P16, and specifically what that increase means and how it would support the work you’re doing.

[38:25] Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. So just one second. Can you just move the microphone up? Just want to make sure that we can catch your vocals. One more time. Is that better? I can move closer. Is that better? Technology, just turn up the volume for them. Is that better? That’s wonderful. Thank you. Thanks. So this $700,000 is fully goes to taking care of the clients. None of that is administrative costs. That’s covered in our budget.

[38:59] This fully will take care of helping and support anywhere between 500 and 800 people, depending whether it’s loans or grants. So that’s additional too. And we’ve seen the numbers increase every year of what’s needed to help support. Last year, you remember that we came back to council to ask for an extra $400,000 to continue on what we were doing because at that point, we were going to run out of money at about six or eight months, depending on what was dependent on what we did. And that was able to get us through, but recognizing we still had to turn people away.

[39:31] We actually had to stop applications last year. So this funding just goes directly to supporting more clients, more folks that we anticipate. We’re going to have— and I anticipate— those numbers will continue to go up. So this is really the prevention piece of the health and homelessness part that I’m hoping this prevents the need for more housing because we can keep people who are already housed. Councilor? Thank you. I appreciate that explanation. And yes, recall that vote and the conversation that happened at that time as well.

[40:08] I appreciate that you’re here to provide us with information. And that was my only question for you. I do have some questions for the London Police as well. OK. I will hold your questions for the police and go back to the first speaker who was on hold. So Councillor Stevenson, I’ll recognize you first as you’ve been waiting. And then I’ll go back to Councillor Ramen. OK, thank you. Before I go to the London Police Service, I wondered if City staff could comment on, would this 700,000 for this program actually meet the need? Are we confident that it’s not an escalating need that we’re unable to meet?

[40:45] I’m not sure if staff could, I guess, pass projections, Mr. Dickens? Through you, Madam Chair. That is why the business cases before you is through the consultation and the collaboration with the Salvation Army Center of Hope and identifying, as Mr. Deacris had just explained, there is a demand on this program. This $700,000 absolutely goes to meeting that demand. In all reality, you need a small shift in someone’s social determinants of health or in the economics of our local community to far outpace that demand.

[41:20] But the demand is absolutely there for this 700,000. And as Mr. Deacris indicated, it goes directly to the people they’re trying to support. Thank you, Councillor Stevenson. Yeah, thank you. So my only comment, if we were talking about housing, it’s one thing, as the deputy mayor said, we’re pitting one thing against another and it’s making it very challenging. But my question for London Police Services, this notion that somehow $8 million from this police budget isn’t gonna have a big impact. I’m wondering if you have anything to provide there.

[41:55] Yeah, so thank you, yes, good morning. When we speak to specifically $8 million, I’ll just preface by just one comment and then I’ll navigate this question for you. So the police budget, as you know, is a little bit odd. Like the Police Services Act weighs in here legislatively on what this means. And so the board’s responsibility, and I know I’m repeating information then, you know, but the board’s responsibility is to table a budget to ensure adequate and affecting policing services can be delivered in the city.

[42:28] There’s that legislative piece, adequacy. And then on top of this, it was the mandate of make the city safer now. We’re done with the current state. We have to drive this forward. Status quo cannot be accepted and we need the change and we need the community to feel the impact of the change as soon as we can. But then adequacy, just as an umbrella comment, isn’t always about safety. Adequacy is driven out of legislation that says the police must have certain tools, certain meets, certain threshold, have certain training and all of those things.

[43:03] That is, you know, really is separate in essence from the safety of the community. So it’s a little bit complicated to say the least and that we’re in a bit of a perfect storm. One, our staffing levels are nowhere near what they need to be. The four-year budget before you has, you’ll see 97 sworn positions tabled in it. But at the end of the four years, we’re still well below the staffing for sworn members that we need to be both below provincial and national averages. I don’t say that to be alarmist, but I just say that we understood it was the perfect storm and our board strongly understood that this was the perfect storm, yet we had to move the needle.

[43:43] So we didn’t ask for things that were superfluous. It was literally, how do we make the city safer now and how do we bring in the resources that we need to do that? Balancing, there’s other priorities in the city. So when you kind of work off of the framework that the board has tabled a budget that they believe is what is required to produce adequate and affecting places in the city, I can speak then just to the impact operationally of what that looks like and educate from a policing and an operational lens. So understanding that 96 roughly percent of our operating budget is personnel.

[44:20] So right away, 8 million is people very clearly stated. We did not table again superfluous things. So any cut to the budget would compromise our ability to ensure adequate and affecting policing services in the city. So we know that legislatively, one of our business cases was the active attacker. That came to us. That was not something we decided to embark on. We were told that this is what now the new rules were. And so we put 98,000 roughly in a business case for that. We know now that as the legislation is completed and the regulations are being drafted, that that business case alone is understated probably by about $400,000.

[45:03] We did not seek an amendment for those things but we’ll absorb that in our ask and shift things around if we can to make that happen because we’re told we need to do that. We know overtime costs in our service are skyrocketing. So our budget was based understanding that one would assume, okay, a hypothesis would be that as you add people, you would hope to see your overtime costs go down, no problem. We budgeted that in, anticipating our overtime demand would drop over the four years. So when you speak to cushion, we struggle with trying to wiggle, find that room.

[45:38] Eight million is significant and there is no ability to absorb that in our budget. Councilor Stevenson. Thank you, appreciate that context. Each one of the counselors received this week an email from our chief of police stating that London is now the third most dangerous city among the largest 12 cities in Ontario. We have one of the lowest officer to resident ratios in the province with only about one officer per 679 residents.

[46:13] At the same time, London has seen significant increases in 911 response times, shootings, fatal vehicle motor collisions and property theft. Public safety is a fundamental human right. Without safety, our community cannot thrive. Without safety, we cannot build the city Londoners expect and deserve. And that includes addressing important priorities like housing and transit. Public safety is foundational to those important goals. This budget is not a question of investing in one priority area over others.

[46:50] It is a comprehensive plan to create a safer city now. Informed by months of consultation with Londoners, it reflects what we have heard matters most to Londoners and what our own officers on the ground have told us that they need to do their jobs safely and efficiently. It ends with counselors, the comprehensive set of initiatives will not be possible without your support. The cost of doing nothing is too high. If our city is not safe, businesses will close, jobs will leave and people will lose hope.

[47:26] As we prepare for the final budget discussions, he wished to make clear that the London Police Service is calling for backup from this council. Our police service needs new talent, tools and technologies to get the job done and keep Londoners safe. They hope that they can count on our support. And Londoners are counting on this council to do what it is required to do to make London a safer city now. I will not be supporting this motion. Thank you.

[48:01] That brought you to three minutes and 30 seconds of total time. I have Councilor Ramannex and then Councilor Troso. And Councilor Raman, you’re currently at one minute and 40 seconds. Thank you much appreciated. Thank you for being here, Deputy Chief McIntyre, as well as your finance team. I appreciate the ongoing dialogue. I really do appreciate the level of transparency that the LPS has undertaken in this process to ensure that counselors have the information and that the public have the information that is needed. However, I will say that one of the things I’ve been trying to understand better is where there are potentially some opportunities.

[48:42] And I think that there is a desire for us to have a conversation of any potential opportunities. Now, you did mention that there are some cushions that need to be in this budget, that anything that’s there will be used. But, you know, I look at things like the EV strategy that’s in the police budget. And I look at the fact that here at the City of London, where we have a climate emergency action plan, where we cannot fund these things right now because of where we’re at with the numbers, we haven’t included that as a priority as of right now.

[49:18] Yet, we’re going to fund EVs in the police budget. And what I asked for was, could we get the comparator? Can we see what the difference is between funding regular vehicles versus EVs and that strategy? Just so that we have some line items to compare and look at some of those choices. This is not taking away from public safety. This is not taking away from officer count. So, what I asked last Friday in my meeting with the chief and with the board chair, was is there any opportunity to find any savings at all? When the police budget was first introduced, it was introduced and approved by the board.

[49:57] It was done before the mayor’s budget was tabled. When the mayor’s budget was tabled, now the community is having a conversation and the conversation they are having is, what is that increase within the mayor’s budget? And I think that there’s an opportunity for organizations across the city, our ABCs to go back and have those conversations with each other. Now that we’ve seen the mayor’s budget, where can we all look? How do we work collaboratively to make sure that we can fund the priorities in the city right now? So, I’m asking you just based on the EV strategy, if you can comment on that and give us the exact difference between an EV vehicle and a regular fleet vehicle, the costing difference, if there’s any room there, that that can be applied elsewhere.

[50:42] And then I have some other questions, thank you. No, no, thank you for that. And it’s a great, it’s a great question. You know, like the question being, you know, like how does electric vehicles, you know, understanding that the city didn’t approve that in their own fleet? How does that make the city safer now? So, thank you for, thank you for the question and I’ll try to provide some context. So, your first question in EV vehicle in our budget lines is roughly $77,000 in 2024. I just referred to my notes here, 85,000 in 2027 per vehicle. If I compare that to a patrol vehicle year over year, we’re about 50,000 in 2024, 55,000 per vehicle in 2027.

[51:20] Our vehicles, we retrofit them into propane to of course try to lower our carbon footprint there. But I’ll address your question in a couple of ways. Police vehicles for the police are essential. They’re an essential tool. If we don’t have cars to respond and do what we need to do, we can’t do our job. When I look at this, you know, this budget item and try to defend kind of our position and our intention of putting this in the budget in this multi-year, it was really too prompt. The first was, of course, the city’s very strong approach in their strategic plan on climate action.

[51:55] So, I don’t have to educate council on that ‘cause I know you’re passionate about that piece. I will say on that point that we have an incredible carbon footprint that should just be understood by council just as I touched down on that real quickly. So, we put out roughly 50 cruisers in the morning in the day shift and we put out another 50 in the evening. So, 100 cruisers drive around the city of London 24/7, 365 days a year. You know, our car is idle.

[52:27] I recognize there is an idling bylaw, but when there’s prisoners in the back, and it’s hot and cold, that’s kind of the office space, you know, for our members and they have to be able to work in that space and so their cars unfortunately do idle. When you compare that and do the math on the carbon footprint, it is significant per vehicle. If I were, you know, in our business case references, it’s 17 and a half tons per vehicle. If I even just reduced that to 60 vehicles, let’s just drop a rate down and give you, you know, to really be a conservative estimate. It’s like, you know, over like a thousand tons per year.

[53:03] You know, so I just highlight that for you because of the nature of our work, because the cars are driving or they’re idling, which I know is not good. We will shut our cars off when the climate allows for that, but it’s a significant footprint. So, okay, so I leave that climate action city strategic plan that was the first prong. The second prong, it goes back to the need for equipment. This marketplace for vehicles is aggressively changing. We have to be in the marketplace to be able to understand the needs. Electric vehicles are unique.

[53:34] Will gas cars be around for a bit? Yes, they will. But there are efficiencies to be realized by moving in this direction and piloting and exploring what this looks like. Why it’s tricky for policing vehicles is that there’s so much one and silery draw on our batteries. With that light bar on the roof with computers in the car, with radio systems in the car, it’s not like a normal electric vehicle in normal use. So, we have to be able to be in this space to understand the pros and the cons. Can we retrofit? Can we put a cage in the back?

[54:06] Are the cars big enough for our officers on the sworn side to be able to use them as a patrol vehicle? What is the chart? Can we turn around the charging of the vehicle? We have to be in this space. When the marketplace is changing aggressively to sit on the sidelines and only learn from trade shows, et cetera, about what the technology is doing is a limiting factor. For us, that goes into our budget in this multi-year because of business continuity. It is about making sure we are up to speed. Information we need to do to inform a decision. It is fiscal responsibility on understanding that, you know, if we’re not, you know, doing oil, lube filters on cars, what is the savings there?

[54:46] We retrofit all of our police vehicles to propane. That takes an enormous amount of time to do that. So what are the savings? What can really be realized? Can we know we can move this in our CID vehicles without much concern? But what does this look like for patrol? And so in summary, you know, you see that line items go in. I don’t have my chart in front of me, I should. It’s $867,000 roughly, something like that. Over four years, our EV strategy, you know, could you cut that? My answer to you is no. And it’s one, it’s the carbon footprint piece, but the second is we need to be in this space.

[55:22] That’s changing at like exponential rates to understand our needs and to be able to plan for the future. If we wait, we’re going to be behind the eight ball. Our service is famous, and I call it the parts car analogy, excuse my pun, of making one out of two. We are always cobbling up things to try to limp us through and to get us by. We have to stop that. We have, we have seen year over year how that has hurt the service. COVID happens, we have any major event happen. We have zero cushion. We are completely running at a compressed level with everything we do.

[55:56] So this goes in to be ahead, to be in the place to understand the decision-making, to try to realize efficiencies and then realize what the limitations first will be in that marketplace moving forward. So I hope that helps answer some of that. Thank you, Councilor, you had four minutes and 10 seconds. Thank you. I appreciate the answer. I appreciate the thought that’s been given to this. My concern is that there is NRC funding that is available for this. There is a funding mechanism federally. What I heard in Toronto’s reversal on what they did in terms of the police budget was that they now are aware of federal and provincial money, that they are going to have available to them to make up for some of those budget pressures that the police budget was putting on them.

[56:46] I think this is an opportunity for us to look at regular vehicles and look at the opportunity to go back for that funding and still meet your targets and still meet the needs of the police service in terms of being on the cutting edge of understanding that technology. So that was one of the things that I brought forward. The other one is around— Sorry, it’s just you’re out here five minutes. I would need a request for an extension or, okay, and how long would you need? I’ll say five just to be safe.

[57:21] Okay, and I’ll also say I also have a speaker’s list. We could always loop back to you. Do you want to loop back? Do you want to keep going now or loop back? I could ask one. Okay, so there’s a motion on the floor, moved and seconded for an extension of five minutes. Okay, it’s just being loaded and e-scribed. It was moved by Councillor Roman, seconded by Councillor Trevesau. I have an extension of up to five minutes. Hey, that vote is now, Councillor Hopkins?

[58:33] I vote yes. Closing the vote, motion carries 12 to three, okay? Thank you. And as I said, you got your five minutes, so use it as you will. Thank you. Yes, appreciate the ongoing discussion. Again, I think that we’re in a place where we have to make hard choices. And so where we can find opportunities to have some of those discussions collaboratively about how we move forward and funding that is available federally, I think is an opportunity to look at that.

[59:10] This would in no way take vehicles off the streets for officers. This is about using a different type of vehicle. The other request I had was to find out more about the extensions for all frontline officers, which was listed as a potential item. And I’m just wondering again, if you might be able to comment on that. Absolutely. Thanks very much. It is kind of confusing reading it in the business case alone. So X, one of our plans is to issue smartphones to the frontline.

[59:44] That has a couple different functions. So one mainly is digital evidence. We can use phones to transfer evidence. It really speeds up our ability to collect evidence in the field and transfer it in-house. It allows interpretation modules to be embedded on the phone. It allows our engagement with community and times when we’re struggling to say, there’s a communication barrier, et cetera. It allows really the modernization of looking something up, streamlining the processes of what our officers are doing. We know right now our officers are using their own phones. That produces or creates rather several complexities as it relates to data disclosure and court disclosure and personal information going through.

[1:00:26] So we know the best way forward there is to have issued phones for the frontline. That is very distinct and separate from the extensions in-house. So the extensions in-house, where it was really a driver of customer service. So if a member of the public needed to reach one of our officers, what they would do is they’d call into headquarters and they would leave a message. Our staff at headquarters would then email the individual officer and say, “Hey, so-and-so from the community is looking to speak “with you about X, Y, Z.” But that whole process fails. One, we don’t have staffing there. If I’m sure you have tried to ever call our non-emergency line and I don’t mean to laugh, but you can’t get through on that line.

[1:01:05] It is a bit dysfunctional that we have members, there’s humans answering the phone and being able to do that when an option exists in technology to just allow the community member to reach an officer directly. The other thing was the decision tree of the new internal phone system. It was really clunky and it only gave really minimal options for people to reach different divisions or branches within the service. So that modernization has been implemented. It’s nothing I can really claw back. It is, and it has, we’re just tweaking the final pieces of that. It was a project and this money here allows us to continue in that work that’s largely been started.

[1:01:41] So it was, they’re very distinct purposes. In landline system was about customer service. It was about trying to free up FTEs and our building to do more important work and just modernizing the service we’re able to provide. The cell phones to the frontline mobile phones being rolled out was very much evidence collection and database. It’s allowing our officers one piece of the puzzle here is to keep our officers on the road longer and not bog them down with administrative tasks. So that functionality allows them to do that. So again, very just separate and distinct purposes. Councillor?

[1:02:16] Yeah, thank you, I appreciate that. And I will say, I completely agree that that would be an ideal solution and that has value from a customer service perspective. However, I think that value was also more when they didn’t have cell phones. So I do think that there’s an opportunity there as well. And again, this is about those choices. Are we able to pull some of those funds to support another business case? And I know we cannot direct the police as to where funds are removed from.

[1:02:51] I was really hopeful that the conversation with the police would have them coming back with some changes and some realizations of some savings. I understand that that isn’t there. Again, I’ll ask that conversation continue to happen, realizing that Londoners are under significant budget pressures here, realizing that a number of things can’t be funded. I’ll continue to ask London Police to continue to take a look at their budget and find some savings and opportunities and where provincial or federal dollars are available. And I know there’s about 10 million in the budget right now that’s provincial or federal, where there is the opportunity to continue to look for offsets.

[1:03:31] I’m supportive of P16. Some of the other business cases mentioned here. I do believe that they are duplications or us funding something that should be provincial or federally funded and should be going back to that source funding. So I’m not supportive of the entirety of this, but if it was amended, I would be supportive. I think that is two and a half minutes of your additional time. I have Councilor Troso next. Through the Chair, first of all, thank you.

[1:04:08] I’m turning around so I could say. Thank you for coming and answering those questions. I think these are good questions that we need to have a discussion on, but I do not want the Council’s support for these items in the police budget to take away from the importance of 15, 16, 17, and 18. I wanna have a discussion on 15, 16, 17, and 18, and I wanna do that right now. And I think the best way to do that, and I hope the makers of this motion will go along with this is I’d like to, first of all, separate this motion with the language offset by an equal reduction to the London Police Services operating budget.

[1:04:55] Be dealt with separately, but I do think that 15 deserves a discussion on its merits, and I would like to see that discussion happen. And I think 16 deserves a discussion on its merits, and I would like to see that discussion happen, and I could say the same thing for 17 and 18. Now, looking to the chair and the clerk, would this be an appropriate time to try to make an amendment to separate this out? I’ll note that the mover and seconder chose this method, specifically to bunch these together when they brought it forward, they were asked ahead of time, and this is their choice of funding source and the grouping.

[1:05:44] You can try and do certain amendments. Okay, I’m gonna ask the clerk to speak to it ‘cause you did mention budget cases doing them each separate and a different source of financing, which really is potentially a bunch of different motions themselves, so I’ll ask the clerk for their best advice of a way to move forward for your consideration.

[1:06:36] Thank you, through the chair. There are a few ways forward via amendments. One method would be, and I believe it was mentioned to separate out the police operating budget part of the motion. The other approach would be to divide it by business case and then deal with each of those business cases on an individual basis via amendments. Again, that could be to identify a different amount. That could be to separate out the police operating budget component, so there are two general directions and the mover or the suggestion of this approach should clarify for the chair’s benefit, which direction would be preferred?

[1:07:21] My preference would be to do both because I want a clean discussion. I want a clean discussion on business case 15, and I want a clean discussion on business case 16, and I think they both deserve to have that sort of separate discussion on their own merits. Now, we’ve already heard from somebody speak to piece 16. I’m going to ask somebody from staff if I have the time. Sorry, just one second. I’m still trying to figure out how to do your amendment thing before we move forward.

[1:07:52] Just the conversation has to pause till we know what we’re discussing. Madam Chair, can I call a point of order?

[1:08:46] I think I may have a comment that may assist. Nope, not right now. Well, yes, just one minute. We’re in the middle of one moment. Okay, it was a point of order, Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then we’ll make comments from the— Thank you, Chair. And through you, I would suggest, if colleagues want to discuss these individual business cases without them being tied to the police budget as a source of funding, then we should move to defeat this motion, and separate motions with those business cases can be put forward without the police budget tied to them so we can dispense with this, and then deal with the other, it would not be contrary to that.

[1:09:35] I think that’s what we were doing, but you called a point of order so I couldn’t say where we were at. So I’ll deem that heard. So the clerk’s information was, yes, that the person would need to procedurally Councilor Troso in case you want to make an amendment. This is for you, that it would be to dispose of this, and then deal with each one separate, but the material difference would having been identifying or just leaving empty a different funding source. That’s what would make it material different, that we could defeat this and bring them through separate versus just talking about them separate and still having the same identified funding source.

[1:10:13] That would be your key to doing this separate. Yes, I would prefer to do it that way. Okay, so procedurally, we will need to dispose of what’s on the floor, we can continue with debate, or we could just call debate like done and defeat it, and then bring them through separate. So I’ll leave that, I’m in your hands, ‘cause I have no motion on the floor besides the original motion. And I do have a speaker’s list, so.

[1:10:57] Okay, just I see the seconder of this one indicating, so I do have a speaker’s list, I haven’t forgotten. Councilor Hopkins, just on procedurally how you would prefer to go? Okay, I’m procedurally questioning through you, Madam Chair, to the clerk, could we just take each business case and speak to it individually as we proceed forward, we have to defeat this amendment, and then just wanna know the procedure going forward in what options we have.

[1:11:39] Through the Chair, the difficulty is separating it out to have a discussion. So if it’s simply discussed, the difficulty is voting on a combined motion like this. There are resulting challenges if there is to be a reconsideration, if there is to be further amendments, when it’s divided out, it becomes very complicated with a combined motion like this. So I would refer back to the comments of the Chair earlier as to how to proceed most cleanly and efficiently according to our procedures.

[1:12:13] And I see Councillor Frank as the mover, procedurally on questions only versus my speakers. Yeah, I was just gonna say I agree with the Deputy Mayor, I’d like to vote on this, and then people can put whatever amendments I’d like on the floor. Okay, so there’s another option forward that you can try to withdraw it, and then we can put it on individually as long as there’s a motion. And as long as community consents. Okay, so mover says no, it stays on the floor, so if you would like an opportunity to, if you’re ready to vote on it now, realizing the intention is to defeat it as long as someone makes a motion to bring them forward individually, we can proceed that way.

[1:13:10] Do you have a speaker’s list? Councillor Roman, is this just a procedural question? Realizing I do have a speaker’s list normal. Was that a procedure? No, okay. So I do have it seems to be a desire to continue with the speaker’s list. So I have nothing else than procedurally. So Councillor McAllister was next. Thank you, and through the chair. Yeah, the way the conversation is going is how I kind of envisioned it going.

[1:13:43] ‘Cause I’m supportive of AF, of these business cases, P15, P16, I want to see debated on their own merits. I’m fine to defeat this. I agree with all the comments that are made. Like I don’t like pitting these two against each other. I believe in the Mayor said that, these were two of your top priorities when you presented this, public safety and housing. And so I do think that these are integral. I don’t like pitting them against each other because they’re both vitally important. I hear it all the time from my constituents. These are two top priorities, absolutely.

[1:14:16] I’m perfectly fine with both P15 and 16, if that hits the tax levy, so be it. And I already have them spooled up in my email, ready to go, I kind of anticipated this might be the way it would go, but I agree with what was said earlier in terms of, you know, these are vitally important. I don’t want people to be put on the street, like if we can do everything in our power to prevent that, I’m absolutely in favor of it. But to what the police said and what people have said in terms of supporting the police budget, it is also something of vital importance, right? So for me, I have these spooled up.

[1:14:52] And so I’m happy to just dispense with this one and then debate this on the merits of the tax levy. So that’s the direction I’ll be going with that. Hey, Mayor Morgan. Thank you. I’m gonna make a few comments about some comments that were made during the debate. First, the idea that the police budget hasn’t been touched. I think we have to understand the legislative responsibility of where and how the police budget is discussed, debated and built up. So yes, Council has the ability to set a global amount and the deputy chief outlined kind of clearly some of the provisions of the act.

[1:15:31] The board actually is the one who digs into the budget. So I think for the board members here, this probably sounds very repetitive ‘cause we’ve heard these answers before as we asked questions about the police budget as we were building it up, getting those details. And I think it’s really easy just to lob a bunch of listed items out from the police budget that you may or may not like without having any sort of context or information on the background of them. And I know it can be frustrating. I have a point of personal privilege. Sure. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you.

[1:16:05] I did my homework. Yeah, I know what then I had asked questions about all these items and had asked questions in public as well. So it’s not just a random list of things. It’s a list that I have looked into. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sure, I’ll be clear. I’m not speaking to any specific individual Councillor, but I’ll say during the debate, there was just a list made even in the presentation of the motion saying, “These are things.” And I want to give an example of what I’m talking about to be clear. The idea that police training center is or isn’t needed. It’s not a police training center.

[1:16:40] It’s an emergency services campus. It is a partnership with London Fire. And it doesn’t seem like anybody wants to actually talk about the fire component of this. People want to say, “Hey, Almer’s nearby. “People can be trained there.” They’re ignoring that in 2001, the province announced the closure of the fire college. And if the business case details are actually examined, there’s a substantive piece here, but the partnership and the need for modernization of the training of our fire services and the opportunity for revenue generation potentially as being a new regional training center. I think there are lots of conversations that can be had about these things.

[1:17:14] And I will say, I think, and I agree, I think some Councillors hopefully all have done their due diligence on all these items. And I’m not, I’m not refuting that, so I appreciate the point of personal privilege. But I will say, I want you to know that the board has had multiple discussions about this. In fact, and I have permission to share this today, the board continues to try to drive tax avoidance for the citizens of London. The police finished their fiscal year in a deficit position last year of about 3.8 million.

[1:17:49] The original motion was gonna come forward to say, okay, we’ll go to the city in the surplus process and ask for 3.8 million from London taxpayers. The board had a discussion instead of doing that, they decided to draw on the police services reserve fund, bringing that reserve fund down to a balance of about 1.5 million of unallocated balance. The target balance in that is 6.5 million, so we will operate throughout the course of this year well under the target balance for stabilization of police services costs in a very tight budget circumstance. And we will work through the year to try to drive any efficiencies we can to rebuild that without going to London taxpayers for it.

[1:18:31] That’s just one example of another 3.8 million that is, you know, the board has decided we’re going to try to find a way to do this. So as colleagues want to dig into specific parts of the budget and as the deputy chief said, they’re running very tight, the board is also squeezing the budget on their end to say we cannot go to taxpayers for more money when we have to try to find a way. Will we find a way? I don’t know, but the board’s gonna work very hard this year to try to find ways to replenish those reserves, to get us back up closer to the target balance without coming to taxpayers and take a year to try to do that. So that’s just one example of the way that we’re trying to build it in.

[1:19:07] I wanna say generally, budgets are about balance. And so like there’s lots of business cases that I didn’t put in the budget that I like. Like I quite like, I think there’s value in them. I think part of the comments about the program that Mr. Deactis talked about, you know, that you could probably spend 1.5 million on that program and help a bunch of people, maybe two. There is a huge need here. It ignores the conversation about the need to raise social assistance rates in this community and try to take the pressure off of people who are in the margins or the way that interest rates or groceries are impacting them.

[1:19:39] There are a lot of places in this budget where we could spend a lot more for enhancing or expanding services and programs. But it’s about balance. And so yes, there’s money for public safety, but yes, there’s also significant money for housing. And it may not be everything that you liked, but there are significant dollars there. There’s also significant dollars in the transportation. And again, I know some colleagues not happy with exactly everything that was funded, but there are significant new dollars for in that space as well. 30 seconds. - 30 seconds. So what I wanna say is this is the point that we have to get to.

[1:20:20] You can find many merits and many of the things that we didn’t fund. And there are other places that council can make choices. So, you know, we have a couple of reserve funds that we could look at. I think that they should stay, but the climate emergency reserve fund that we’re establishing has an unallocated balance. I put more money into the economic development reserve fund as well to try to make sure that we have the capacity to fund the economic plan when we have it. Colleagues can make shifts here, but let’s do it with money we have. Let’s not do it with a source of financing that we know there’s appeal and mechanism that we may just create a whole in our budget for.

[1:20:53] So I am all for having discussions about these cases. I am not for the way that they’re currently funded, because I think it’s not the way that we should be, we should be trying to balance our finances with great risk to having to pay it anyways down the road through a different process. Thank you, Councillor ramen. You’re at two and a half minutes of your additional five minutes. Thank you and through you. I appreciate Mayor Morgan’s comments and the work that the police board has done to continue to look at their budget.

[1:21:26] Based on what was discussed here, I would be very interested in amending what’s on the floor. Actually, I’d be very interested in defeating this motion and then amending to be able to adjust the amount from the police service budget to take some of the items that I mentioned around the EV strategy and also others from that as a reduction. I do think again, it shows a willingness from us and a willingness hopefully from the police service board by not trying to take us to OPC over such a small amount to work collaboratively to find some savings where they could be found.

[1:22:15] I do believe that the messaging is important. I do believe that that continued collaborative effort between us is important. And so I’m hoping that the police board and our deputy chief that’s on the phone can provide those figures and then we can amend to back those figures out. The deputy chief, McIntyre? My apologies, I was looking up other things.

[1:22:50] Just the, you would like me to do a cost calculation on a certain list of items to know what that would total. So that would be your position to amend our police budget by that amount. Is that the question? Sorry. Thank you, through you. So I’m looking to back of the EV strategy and the addition of the phone lines, for instance. I’m not sure if other counselors have other items. I know that we can’t again specify items, but I think that where we can see that those are accosted, it would help.

[1:23:29] Okay, Deputy Chief. Well, thank you, Chair, for you. We’re more than happy if you provide me with the list. I can pull those numbers from our budget and do a cost calc. I will say the phone system is tricky because our internal phone system is half implemented. So there’s an inability to pull back from some of those moves. But anyways, the EV strategy, like I said, if we pulled that out, it would be $867,000. I can do that math fairly quickly for you. But if there’s something else you want me just to be able to do a total, our finance team can run the numbers here.

[1:24:05] So that’s no problem. Just be, let me know specifically what you’re looking for. Thank you, yeah, if it’s just EV to regular vehicles right now, that would be great. Just that cost difference. Not true to the number now where you needed to come back to us. Nope, just one 30 seconds here. Absolutely. I rounded up through you, Chair. It’s eight, eight 67 would be the cost of that. Over four years.

[1:24:39] I can give you the dollar breakdown per year, if you like, just for the EV strategy. Councillor ramen. Excuse me, thank you. I think, do you think that would be helpful? And I just wanna confirm that this would be replaced by regular vehicles for you. So you would not be short any vehicles. This is just a difference in the strategy. Yes, that’s correct, true you, Chair. So that in 2024, the amount is 158,000. I’m just, I’m rounding, I’m rounding here for you. In the second year, 307, in the third year, 203.

[1:25:18] And then the final year, 199, roughly 867 over four years. Thank you, Councillor, a follow up to that. Thank you, yes, appreciate that, as I heard from Mayor Morgan just now, the only opportunities for us to potentially find money are through the reserves. And that one climate reserve would be one of those places to find some savings. So I think that this is comparable if we’re looking at that. I’ll hold.

[1:25:57] Hey, the Councillor had 20 seconds remaining. Councillor Layman, you were next on my speaker’s list. Thank you. I just want to address a couple of things. One, the comments were made that the council cannot direct where the police allocate their resources and their operations. It kind of sounds like we’re doing that or want to do that. If the police budget is cut based on kind of these areas, there’s no guarantee that the police will change your vehicle strategy or change your telecommunication strategy.

[1:26:41] It will just be a cut to their overall budget. So I just wanted to make that point. The other area I want to address was questions were raised regarding accessing funding through grants and federal or provincial government programs. So I’d like to ask Deputy Chief McIntyre, what do the police do? What’s our current strategy on accessing those funds? What have we done to date? How much, are we missing anything that we’re not accessing currently?

[1:27:16] And what about the future? Deputy Chief. Thank you, Chair, through you. Whenever there’s a grant opportunity, we paper that back. To date, I can say that for every grant we’ve received written to recently, we have received full funding in. Whenever there’s an opportunity to explore that, minus the EV one, that was the only one we didn’t get. Whenever there’s an opportunity to explore grant funding, of course, we prioritize that and seek full funding for those grants. So it’s not that we wait and let those opportunities pass us by.

[1:27:54] We’ve aggressively relied on grant funding to assist us because we’ve run so lean forever. And again, I speak back to that compressed state. If we didn’t leverage those opportunities, I’m not quite sure where we would be. They, in a budget sense, they do produce a liability for us though. So there is just a bit of a buffered era ying yang to them because they’re not absolute and they’re not guaranteed. I know that the council had suggested a EV, for example, well, let’s just remove this and let the police explore that through different funding opportunities.

[1:28:27] And I would say, we’re all in there, except for that’s not guaranteed. And we did apply for a grant specific to electric vehicles and were denied that application. So it puts us in a tricky spot to be able to maintain business continuity in that regard. Sorry, Councillor Lehman. Thank you. Yeah, just on that, there’s a danger of pinning your hopes on future funding. A lot point out, Toronto is doing exactly that. Not only have they had to retrace their steps with police funding, but they’re relying on the hope of considerable federal funding coming to them.

[1:29:09] And if they don’t get it or they don’t get what they’re expecting, it will require another property tax reluff further on in the year. So there’s a very dangerous ground if you go, well, we’re not gonna provide suitable funding because of potential grants and federal funding coming forward. I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Thank you, sorry, I’m throwing pens. Looking for their speakers on this, also note behind the scenes, there’s some motions in the works that would separate this out.

[1:29:50] And some Councillor’s already working on that, just for, you know. Councillor Stevenson, you’re at three and a half minutes. Please proceed. Yeah, I just wanna quickly say and reemphasize that none of us here is qualified to make these decisions on what is needed by the London Police Service. And I know it keeps being said, Council can’t make directions specifically, but it sounds very close to this here. It sounds like we’re right in the weeds and micromanaging something that we are not qualified to do. So I just encourage colleagues, you know, we heard the mayor say, there’s already a deficit to manage.

[1:30:32] We’ve heard the deputy chief say that some of the legislated business cases are now truly legislated, where they’re mandatory. The costs are already coming in way, way, way higher than what we’re seeing here. I’m asking colleagues to trust that the police service board has done their due diligence and their work and to answer the call of the board and the police service to provide Londoners with a safer city now and leave the police budget intact. Thank you.

[1:31:09] I have no further speakers online looking in chambers, seeing none, calling the question, closing the vote and the motion fails three to 12.

[1:31:52] Councilor Troso? Yes, I would like to make a motion to put business case 15 and only business case 15 on the table for a consideration to restore the money as otherwise stated, $400,000 and P15 hoarding extreme clean program. Okay, Councilor McAllister. Did already forward motions for P15 and P16 to the clerk?

[1:32:33] Okay, so you’re seconding it? Or you could just use the motion, I said, if, yeah. Yeah, so essentially this is what’s happening. I recognize whoever has their hand up on the floor, they’ve moved something. I know people on the scenes have other stuff going on and some of it really hasn’t been circulated to council. So do you want him to circulate what he has and he has a seconder? So Councilor McAllister, I’ll let you put yours on the floor and I know you have a seconder and the clerks have the wording.

[1:33:10] Yes, thank you. So I was just going back and forth with the clerk as we were having discussion. So I do have P15 in there for an amendment and then there was also P16 as well, but I would like to deal with those individually. Okay, so I have it. Councilor Ferrer, you’re the seconder. Councilor Ferrer has asked yes. Just for clarification, you are not tying this to the police funding. Okay, that’s a no. Deputy Chief, thank you for joining us this morning. The motions coming before us deal with the business cases, not tied to the police operating budget.

[1:33:45] So I thank you for your time and should something else come up today, we will certainly reach out before we proceed with the conversation. So thank you for your time and at this time, enjoy your time back. So Madam Chair, point of order. Deputy Mayor Lewis, a point of order. Thank you. So the motion that we started with was circulated in advance. A number of other motions have been circulated in advance. I understand the councilors want to have these business cases considered as well, but in terms of process, should we not be dealing with the cases that were circulated in advance before adding new items to the agenda?

[1:34:32] I appreciate that. As chair, I was going to proceed with the ones that we’d already partly discussed before the afternoon comes and then we start potentially all over again. I’ll also note that Mr. Deacos is in chambers today. Then he has some commitments and then he will be available later again the day by phone. So it was just trying to coordinate guests that were trying to come along. Just one second. Okay, so I’ll note two things.

[1:35:32] During this morning’s conversation, a master list of budget committee votes that had already happened has been circulated to councilors for that you know wording a prior ones as East Cribb does not tell you the current vote split of who voted for what, should anyone want reconsideration later? It’s a procedural issue. The other M that was sent out was the master amendment list as of this morning for things to be considered, which Deputy Mayor Lewis would have been referring to. And at any point, it doesn’t mean someone’s gonna move that or exactly that, but that was people’s intentions when the day started.

[1:36:10] At this point, Councillor McAllister, absolutely. My intention was to continue on since we were already in the proverbial weeds on this one. And for the clerks in order to get anything prepared, I would need you to read it out to make sure that you’re wording as you’re intending to move now is in alignment with the wording you had sent. Yes, and I’m happy to read these out. So just one at a time, so if you’re just doing 15, don’t talk about two at once, please. Okay, I’m just gonna do the first one. But the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to include case P-15 hoarding, extreme clean program.

[1:36:48] The 2024 operating expenditure would be 400,000 and that would hit the tax level at 400,000 and that would repeat from 2024 through to 2027. Councillor Ferre, verify that you’re the seconder, a thumbs up from the Councillor. And I will pause for a moment as this gets into ease, as I described before, I commence a speakers list, which I will commence with the mover free as a chance to speak on it, and then I’ll start my speakers list. Thank you and through the chair.

[1:37:21] I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this one, noting with the previous ones in terms of there were the four, but these were the two actually that I had originally supported. This one in particular, I have heard from a number of residents in my ward in terms of the value lacing in this program. I’m sure the deputy mayor is gonna speak to the fact that it is previously a program that was funded through other sources, but I am just recognizing in terms of the impact that my residents have expressed to me. So this is a program I do see value in, and I would like to continue. Thank you, and I always appreciate precise comments.

[1:37:54] I have Deputy Mayor Lewis, and then Councillor Trausa. Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you, and I’ll preface this by saying to staff, get ready to do this every time, because every time somebody adds something to the budget today, I’m gonna be asking for the modeling to be put up on the screen, because this will impact our tax rate, every dollar of it, so I’d like to start by asking staff to put up the modeling to show the impact of this for the next four years on our tax rates. Mr. Murray, how long would your team need for that? Okay, so you’re welcome to recap where we started with, and then as you’ve heard each decision going forward, someone’s gonna be requesting that, so thank you.

[1:38:39] Thank you through the chair. So our starting point for today was tax levy increases of 8.6% in 2024, 8.7% in 2025, 5.6% in 2026, 6.5% in 2027, for a four-year average annual increase of 7.4%. This amendment specifically does not have enough of an impact to change the rounded figures for any of the years tax levy increases. So for 2024, we would remain at 8.6% rounded, and the same case for the subsequent years and the four-year average as well.

[1:39:23] Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, this shows no impact on the rounding at the moment. There are a number of other cases people are attempting to add, and eventually, this is gonna start changing the number of folks. This is a very clear backfill of a program that was funded by senior levels of government that have chosen not to continue to fund this program. And so I will absolutely not be supporting it, and I will be consistent on that with all of the provincial or federal program funding eliminations.

[1:39:58] I will not be backfilling them on property tax dollars that is not sustainable. Thank you. I had Councillor Travsau next, and then Councillor Stevenson. Thank you very much. And I’m thrilled to be at the point in the meeting where we can talk about the merits of this program. And I do have some questions for staff. Could you help me understand a little bit about how you arrived at the figure of 400 per year, and what will we be losing if we don’t have this program funded?

[1:40:38] Mr. Dickens. Thank you, and through you, Chair. The current operating costs for this program are roughly $370,000, so we are using that figure to look at the cost of operating the program, including working with the service provider on that number. So that is where the 400,000 comes from. We anticipate with this program receiving ongoing permanent funding, it is anticipated they would support up to about 150 people per year. What this program does is it works with individuals that are currently housed, but when notified of significant hoarding or squalor issues, the experts as part of this service go in and work with those tenants on a number of issues, including safety, cleanliness, but also some of the mental health impacts that come with the hoarding tendencies.

[1:41:25] Hoarding and squalor can often lead to issues with pest management throughout the building. It also leads to some significant safety concerns as our first responders to the London Fire Department often encounter, and where our involvement comes in is that it most often leads to evictions, if not remedied and corrected, and that’s where this is a preventative upstream program. Councilor. Thank you, and for me this really speaks to a very important part of our housing strategy, and that is not just helping people who are homeless find housing, but to keep lower income tenants, many of whom are living in precarious situations who might be at risk of becoming evicted, or having to leave because the conditions are so bad, or having to, well, I’m really worried about the eviction prevention aspect here.

[1:42:23] The other problem with taking away this program is it is gonna have somewhat of a downside effect on neighbors who would not be getting the benefits of the services that this provides. Now, in terms of whether or not this was previously supported by some other level of government, I don’t think that the tracks from the ability of this municipality to independently support this program under the authority that we have under section 10, subdivision two of the Municipal Act, which very broadly includes as a head health and safety.

[1:43:04] So I think this is an appropriate subject matter for the city to be undertaking. I think there will be deleterious downsides if we lose this program, and I think this program adds something to our overall housing stability and tenant protection regime. So I’m going to be supporting this, and I’d really like to, now that we’ve cleared up all the other issues, I’d really like to encourage other people on this council to support the Hoarding Extreme Clean program. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor, Councillor Stevenson.

[1:43:39] Thank you, I just wanna say that, again, it is not the merits of these business cases. There are so many incredible and needed business cases here. My issue is the funding needs to come from another source. We are asking all taxpayers to pay for things that some cannot afford. We hear from some Londoners who are saying, I have no problem giving money for these great causes, and we have others that are saying, please, I am barely hanging on to my house right now. Don’t make me homeless trying to help others.

[1:44:16] And that is why we need organizations to find other sources of funding to tap into those generous Londoners who want to help and who are able to help. And so I will be consistently saying no to amazing business cases here to respect those Londoners who cannot afford this. And we’re asking them to bear a cost that is not theirs to bear. Thank you, Councillor Ferra. Thank you.

[1:44:48] So I’m quite happy to be seconding this motion. As originally, I guess, spoken to, it’s part of the Housing First Initiative, and it is literally helping people on the frontline facing who are at risk of evictions. And I would also say the business case goes into the details pretty well. Like the London Fire Report, so over 700 people are at risk due to hoarding in the city. And that’s a fire risk. So there’s the safety and security part, which is why we saw it tied into the other part, the other motion. Our sources of funding are very limited.

[1:45:21] So this is why you see us trying to look and navigate to find new ways to fund these initiatives, these very important initiatives. So it’s either one way or the other, breaking through, I did hear that Mr. Murray said that there would be no impact on the tax levy with this particular business case, but with the other ones, I’m sure that will change. But this is what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to get these initiatives in here so we can have some balance so we can provide the services that our strategic plan has, the services that we all campaigned on. We need to do this.

[1:45:54] So I’m totally in support of this. I’m in support of this for all those reasons. I’m in support of this because the business case says that the current program frequently is the last lifeline for people about to lose their housing. This is what it’s all about, right here. So I’m for this 100%. I’m for this because it is that last lifeline. I’m for this because it is there and it has shown to prevent fire and safety concerns and it has prevented the potential loss of life. So I’m in full support and I would ask you to do the same.

[1:46:28] Thank you. I would like to have me on the speakers list, but Councillor Hopkins is also on my speakers list. Would you time me and then I time you? Okay, perfect. So I’ll hand the chair over to Councillor Hopkins. I have the chair and I have you on my list. Thank you, Ms. Presiding Officer. This was one of the business cases I was on the fence about. I don’t like backfilling and I don’t like the thought of raising taxes for those who are in need.

[1:47:02] But a story from my ward is an elderly woman alone hoarding neighbors complaining. ‘Cause it’s an eyesore and it wasn’t just their home. It was their vehicle, obviously mental health issues and a wonderful resident. And then as we deal with bylaw and property standard issues and potential fines for someone who really can’t afford it and some mental health issue and then staff trying to be compassionate and how they deal with these situations.

[1:47:39] And then talking to our fire department and the crew saying what a danger it is to them when they know there’s homes like this and treasures are stacked to the walls that when they go in as officers should something or as firefighters when something occurs that those pals can file on them. Residents can’t get out. That’s where I’m coming from of those people who are potentially already on the margins themselves who need this program. I spoke to Mr. Dickens ahead of time in realizing that I obviously recognize it should be somebody else’s bill to pay.

[1:48:21] But on this one, if we don’t fill it, there’s no one else in the community doing this work and there’s nobody else in this region doing this work. That’s where I come with a concern already having dealt with some residents who have struggles and that it brings those concerns to the neighborhood as well in sometimes a very visible manner as a community and then residents ask well can’t somebody do something to help them? We could.

[1:48:54] So for me, reluctantly I’m a yes on this one just realizing currently there’s nowhere else to step up to do this program. I would ask staff as always to continue looking for those findings and as we advocate and community partners that could fill this space as nonprofits, I’m seeing head nods from Mr. Dickens that this one I am willing to step on just ‘cause I know the impact that it’s had in some residents trying to stay housed within my ward as well. Madam Presenting Officer. I return the chair back to you.

[1:49:30] I am on the list and I have no one else. Okay, I’m gonna recognize Councillor Hopkins and then I believe I saw an indication from Councillor Frank. Thank you, Madam Chair and just to follow up on your words, I appreciate the comments around other levels of government being responsible and stepping up to the plate. Unfortunately, they do have the power and the money but as a city we have the problem and we do have to deal with it. This is an opportunity.

[1:50:04] This demand is growing but it’s also an opportunity to support tenants, to remain in their affordable housing and not be homeless. So this is something that I really would encourage all of us to support. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you, I’ll be supporting this amendment although I would have preferred a different source of funding but I will be supporting this for all the reasons that I’ve already echoed and to me this is actually probably cheap when you look at it’s gonna prevent people from being displaced who are then gonna become homeless who are then are gonna potentially be using our services like police, like ambulance, like bylaw.

[1:50:47] We pay for all those things anyway. So I see this actually, you know, what is it, the pound of prevention? It’s worth, no, now it’s a prevention. So we’re at the pound of the cure. I’m terrible at those, sorry, everyone. But I see this as being a cost savings. It’s an investment. It’s gonna keep 100 to 150 people housed every year. That is much cheaper than trying to find housing after somebody has already become, you know, homeless or is trying to seek another affordable unit. So I’ll be supportive of this.

[1:51:21] Thank you. Looking online to see if there’s any Councillors wishing to speak, looking in chambers, seeing none in both locations, calling the question. Building the vote, motion fails, seven to eight.

[1:51:57] Thank you, Councillor McAllister, you mentioned business case P16. Are you looking to move that at this time? I see a nod, Councillor Ferri, you’re going to be the second. I’d be happy to second it, but I think there might be some other Councillors who would also wanna second it. Okay, so I just, it’s nice that we share. I will second it, thank you. Okay, so Councillor McAllister, just as we get the item ready, I will need you to read it out to make sure we have the correct writing in the system. Thank you and through the chair. I did actually have Councillor Frank as the seconder on the vote. Anyways, I will read out the motion that the mayor’s 2024, 2027 multi-year budget be amended to include business case P16, the housing stability bank expansion.

[1:52:41] For 2024 operating expenditures, 700,000. I would also have the tax levy impact of 700,000 and that would go for the full four years with those numbers repeating. So that’s still being updated in the system. Mr. Murray is your team ready to model that financially on the chart as requested by Deputy Mayor Lewis, I see a nod, so we will do that. And then I’ll let you know when he grabs updated. Thank you and through the chair. The impact of this proposed amendment is in fact enough to increase the 2024 tax levy from 8.6 to 8.7%.

[1:53:24] The remaining years remain unchanged and the four year average on a round of basis remains at 7.4%. Thank you. If you obtain eScribe, it is available as it is on the screen. I’ll note that Mr. Giacas is still with us. Councillor McAllister, I will let you introduce your motion and I will commence my speaker’s list after that. Thank you and through the chair. Again, appreciate the opportunity to put this forward separately from before. This is another program where I’ve seen great success and as being indicated with our previous amendment with P15 and Councillor Faraz said this very eloquently.

[1:54:05] This is another one of those things which really is the last line of defense for a lot of people. It’s something that keeps people housed and honestly like we need these programs in this place. It really is a last resort for a lot of people. Without programs like this, we are just heading to the homelessness and we’re trying desperately to do everything in our power to prevent more people on the street. So I would really encourage my colleagues to support this one. The previous one didn’t make it through. I know this does have an impact in terms of the tax levy but I would say again, this is another one.

[1:54:39] This is a vital importance that we need to fund and keep in our budget. So thank you. Thank you. I believe I saw Deputy Mayor Lewis as my next speaker and then my speaker’s list from there. Thank you, Madam Chair. So again, I think it’s worth pointing out this program isn’t going away. This is an expansion request and I think Councillor Stevenson spoke to this on the last item but I’m going to reiterate it particularly on this one. Each time, and in this case, we do push the rate up. Each time we push that property tax rate up, we are actually pushing some Londoners to go and get in line for the Housing Stability Bank.

[1:55:20] We are creating an infinite feedback loop here where every dollar we’re increasing is putting someone else in a precarious housing situation and we can’t avoid not investing in things. That it’s always a balance at council and nobody has the magic formula as to where the tipping point is for an individual resident. But as we continue to see this budget number sitting at over 8%, each time we push it up, we are pushing another London resident to get in line for the Housing Stability Bank.

[1:55:53] We will never be able to provide enough funding for this program to completely subscribe for all the needs because as the Mayor said, what this really is is a symptom of a lack of appropriate social assistant rates from the Government of Ontario. It is a lack of proper shelter allowance from ODSP. It is a lack of proper shelter allowance from Ontario Works. And we cannot, in our wildest dreams, backfill social assistance rates on the property taxes. If folks really believe that this program is of incredible value, then where I would really love to see colleagues focus their efforts is lobbying our provincial representatives to increase social assistance rates.

[1:56:38] It’s been something I’ve been doing for four years and it’s falling on deaf ears, I’ll admit that. It’s something Councillor Cudi and I included in a letter that we sent to the province around the renovations on Webster Street. Increase these social assistance rates. That is where the responsibility lays for this. If people had a higher shelter allowance, they would not need to rely as heavily on the Housing Stability Bank. So again, we’re just creating a feedback loop here. Each time we increase the funding to this program, we are putting someone else in line to receive benefits from it. So I cannot support this. Thank you, further speakers to this item.

[1:57:14] I’ve seen none online. Okay, I have Councillor Ferrer and then Councillor Hawkins. Thank you. So in addition and in light of everything that’s been said, I would want to make reference that the business case does point out that 70% of the beneficiaries of the Housing Stability Bank are on a fixed income. And it also notes that the program has seen an increase of the cost of housing, as we all know. And it has also seen a reduction in loan repayments. And I think both of those speak to the fact that costs are rising, people on fixed incomes aren’t able to afford that. So I understand that there’s a source of revenue that this program did have that is no longer there.

[1:57:52] But again, and I’ve said this before, I would not be willing to gamble because of that statement, that fact with people’s housing. So this is why I’d 100% be supporting this. And I hope that the colleagues here will do the same. Thank you, Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And I will encourage my colleagues here to support this program. We heard from Deputy Police Chief McIntyre about the skyrocketing costs that the police services are experiencing. I think all our agencies, boards, commissions, Londoners in particular, we’re all experiencing the costs of inflation.

[1:58:32] And we know this program has increased. And yes, it is an expansion request because of the needs that are great in the community. I really think it’s really important to understand that the working poor even rely on this program. It’s just not the homeless. And we’re starting to see more and more of the need for these programs.

[1:59:04] I’m really pleased to hear that my colleagues are advocating other levels of the government. That’s what we need to do for sure. But again, we do have the problem in the city and we do have to set up, set up. Sorry, I set at the dentist and I am having a problem talking. But I really do think we as a municipality have to set up and assist residents in London. Thank you, Councillor Arman.

[1:59:42] Thank you. I agree with a lot of the points that have been made already. So I won’t reiterate those, but I just wanna speak to the peace around funding on this. I absolutely agree that we need to do everything we can to support Londoners right now, to find savings, to find efficiencies where we need them. And I have to commend the center of hope as well ‘cause I know that’s what they do all the time. And this business case is purely money that will go out to support the community.

[2:00:17] There’s no overhead here that they’re covering within this business case. It is extremely lean. What I’m willing to do is I’m willing to support this and look for more savings to be able to offset this. So I think that we can dig deep and do both in an effort to provide Londoners that are struggling. One of the other things I wanted to note is that we received communication from Mr. Pollack about the funding that he believes will be necessary to assist seniors with a very challenging budget and these additional costs.

[2:00:59] And there’s no program right now to do that in our city. And this is the only program that I can point residents to be able to find some dollars to help them stay in their homes and be able to cover those additional expenses. So I’m supportive and I will work to try to find other savings elsewhere so that we can offset this increase. Thank you. Thank you. Looking to see if there’s any further speakers. Mayor Morgan.

[2:01:33] Yes, so this is probably one of the more difficult ones when I put the budget together to assess. And one of the challenges I have with this is like this is like this is for sure something that the province should be doing better on. Like the way that we funded this in the past when we moved to some granting programs through the COVID pandemic was through social services, relief funding that the province put forward. And this to me seems like our path to actually subsidizing what should be better social assistance rates in the province.

[2:02:12] And it’s really easy for this program to expand and expand and expand if costs continue to climb, if social assistance rates stay the same and people continue to struggle. And you can see what’s happening over time, a program that was meant to be interest-free loans starts to shift towards grants ‘cause people aren’t able to pay. It’s essentially becoming the social assistance program for the province Ontario plus this. And for me this is like a tricky one, like should we be advocating on this sort of stuff? Like absolutely, do we put 1.3 million annually into this?

[2:02:46] Like yes, we do, that’s a significant amount for us to be stepping into this space and saying this is important. But I just see the expansion of this program despite the fact that it will help very specific individuals in our community as us just continuing to take a bigger piece of a pie that is the province’s problem to fix. And so this one I left out because it’s a difficult, it’s a difficult space on where to draw the line. Should it be 1.3 million? Should we raise it to two? Next year should we raise it to 2.5 or three? Because until things get better from a cost perspective or until the province actually gives people enough money to live and sustain themselves, this could be like an endless place where we continue to drive money until we become part of the general social assistance program in our city with province plus city of London benefits.

[2:03:41] And so for me, I think every council will wanna draw the line a different place in this. For me, I drew it at, we spend 1.3 million now. Yes, there’s a need. Yes, there’ll probably be another growing need and another growing need. And so for me, I drew the line here. So I don’t think I’m gonna support the amendment, but I certainly, certainly understand why councilor would bring this one forward and say, we need to step in and we need to step in and we need to step in because this is definitely a clear need, but I think the clear need here is that continued advocacy piece. And to demonstrate that programs like this show that absolutely people are on the margins and absolutely the rates that are provided to get people by for basic housing and sustenance is insufficient in the province.

[2:04:27] And it’s a problem that is not gonna go away until it’s solved by the province. It will just continue to grow. Unless there’s some magical thing that will happen where food, fuel and cost of living will all go down in the future and we know that that is not, tends to be the case unless there’s a significant recession or something like that. So for me, again, I respect that colleagues will draw the line in different spaces on this. I think this debate is one that I kind of expected us to have, but I don’t think I’m gonna support the amendment. I think 1.3 million is something we should continue to do, but we should not in any way let this stop our advocacy on expressing the dire situation that continues to grow for people on the margins of being able to keep housing, being able to feed their families.

[2:05:14] And again, this treads right into our health and homelessness work about people who have fallen on the other side of that line and the work we’re doing there. So this is part of that larger whole of government approach, I think that we need to take. We’re doing a part here. We can’t do all of it, unfortunately. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, I would like to thank and heads off to John De Actis and his team for everything they are doing for our community because they are doing a great job, no doubt. And we need that. Having said that, this fund and I agree with some of my colleagues, I do truly believe that this is part of our lobbying efforts and our success with higher levels of government.

[2:05:54] I will not be supporting this and I just want to also add, I did receive quite a few calls regarding this case from citizens. And a lot of them, they thought that the 1.3 was, we took it down to zero and this is the 700 ask and we are not even approving that. So I just want to clear that, no, that’s not the case. This was in addition to the individuals that potentially thought that we were taking it down to zero. Thank you, thank you. Thank you. Looking online for further and then in chambers. Hey, currently my speakers list would conclude with Councillor ramen.

[2:06:32] Thank you and through you. I’m just wondering if the Center for Hope were to be in this similar situation, they would face this past year where they ran out of funding at a certain point. What would be the mechanism for them to make us aware that they are out of funding? And is there an opportunity like there was in the past for them to come to CAHPS to provide us with that information? And I guess a question operationally for them, would that mean that they would again have to put on pause for a number of weeks programming in order to be able to find resources again?

[2:07:21] Mr. Dickens or Mr. Cooper? Thank you, Chair. So the Housing Stability Services team meets on a monthly basis with the service providers or with the Housing Stability Bank. So as part of those monthly check-ins, we would start to get our notification of where the pressures were coming from and the demand and the uptake. There’s a lot of monitoring that goes into this. So we would be notified as service manager through the service provider where there were issues. And then we, as we always do, we ask for continued forecasting throughout the year.

[2:07:58] So we were able to project where that demand will surpass the resources and then work with the service provider and what that looks like. In previous years, they have met this financial pressure as well, they’ve faced it. We had some residual COVID funding available to be able to step in to support in different ways in that one-time funding. And as we always do, should provincial funding be made available, we always look to expense it first and hold back on the municipal contributions in all of our programs. Going to the province on this particular case, rent stability banks are an eligible cost under the homeless prevention program.

[2:08:35] So that we would likely see that reverted back to the municipal service manager to fund. We would just have to look at service reductions elsewhere if it were to be accommodated under HPP. Councilor. Thank you, I appreciate that. And so just to be clear, we were able to fund it previously because we had those additional dollars, but we don’t now. And if that shortfall did come about and we were made aware and forecasting show that that would be ongoing, we would be notified of the pressure, but we wouldn’t have any residual funds.

[2:09:18] It would be directed back to our current funding to be able to find, to be able to help. Mr. Dickens? Through the chair, so that is correct. We have the base funding, the 1.3 million is base funding through our budget. In previous years, when the demand had outpaced the resources, be it due to the pandemic, we had one time dollars to draw on to assist in meeting that demand. As the demand will surpass the resources this go around, we would not have a source of funding.

[2:09:52] This program would not be able to meet the demands. And as Mr. Deactis indicated earlier, you would see their program have to cease accepting applications, probably mid-year. Councilor? Thank you. Being that that’s potentially mid-year, I think that that also is a really important thing to consider. I will continue to support this and look for savings elsewhere. Thank you. Looking for further speakers, none online, none in chambers, all in the question.

[2:10:43] Closing the vote, the motion fails, six to nine. Thank you, that concludes that item. It is my intention to go back to the circulated amendments, which would be P36. This was a Councilor Raman, seconded by Councilor Frank, safe London and anti-racim related one. Councilor Raman, would you be really ready to proceed with that one? Okay, I have a nod from Councilor Raman. Councilor Frank has nodded and indicated their second, that it’s already an e-scribe.

[2:11:18] So if you refresh, and it’s up on the screen already. So Council, if you want to introduce it, and then I will go to you as the first speaker if you wish. Thank you. The motion reads that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by reducing funding for business case number P36, safe London, and anti-racism, anti-oppression action plan to 125,000 annually. This would be a reduction in 2024 through 2027 of 58,000 operating expenditure and on the tax levy. Thank you.

[2:11:51] Thank you. I’ll start my speaker’s list with you. Thank you and through you. So first I want to start by saying, I believe that there’s some excellent work that’s being done through city staff in our ARAO division. This is, in my opinion, a way for us to look at doing this work differently. And what prompted me to look into this a little bit further, was conversations with a number of groups in the community that said that they felt that there was a good relationship amongst organizations to work wholly and collectively to find ways forward on the action plans that are proposed specifically, and I had initially wrote this amendment to read, that ARAO staff will be directed to work with community partners to ensure the community safety and wellbeing plan, declaration of intimate partner violence and UN Safe Cities initiatives achieve action oriented and impactful outcomes by co-creating programming and initiatives together using funding through a permanent operating fund.

[2:13:07] So the goal here is to use this money differently and to use the 125,000 to be able to co-create how they work together to create that impact so that it is action oriented and it meets the objectives of the plan. And I think when you have willing partners that are saying we are in this space, we do this work, it’s a way to move forward without having permanent staff associated with the potential role and to still achieve those outcomes.

[2:13:44] So I appreciate the conversation with partners and the letter of support that was provided for the amendment from ANOVA London Abuse Women’s Center changing ways, Muslim Resource Center for Social Support and Integration and Women’s Rural Resource Center. These organizations do incredible work in our community and I thought about it from the perspective of who would be doing this work. If this was internal to the city and it was staff and it was somebody hired, we may be taking somebody from one of these organizations that’s committed to this work and having them as a staff person here in house that’s overseeing the plan.

[2:14:23] And here we have a committee that’s already doing this fantastic work is very embedded in this plan and they’re willing to move forward with it with some additional opportunities to co-create what that looks like. So that’s what’s in front of us to consider and I hope my colleagues will support it. Hey, building my speakers list for this one. Okay, as chair then, I’m going to ask and the counselor did read out their intention versus the motion that’s on the floor.

[2:15:06] Just to staff operationally, how would you operationalize or prioritize items with this potential reduction that’s before us? I think it’s Ms. Livingston. Through you, Madam Chair, dealing with the reduction is one thing that we can manage. If the direction is that we actually not have a staff person allocated to this work, then that has other implications. So that’s not how I read the amendment. I read the amendment as it was a reduction to the allocation to support the work, but I’m hearing something different on the floor.

[2:15:41] To be clear, staff currently through unfunded positions play the backbone role to the safe city’s work. They do the coordinating work in the community around the development of agenda, equity and inclusion plans. So it is a staff function. They also do the work around implementing bystander training for city staff, which is done with a community partner. So managing the reduction is one thing, but if the direction is to not have a city staff person doing this work, that would mean we would cease to do those functions.

[2:16:21] We would work with community agencies, and if I understand the direction correctly, they would then take on those functions. I just wanna be clear that there is no city staff resource to do that. I’ll just go to the mover if they would like to make any comment. Thank you and through you. I think that where we, again, the motion is written as it’s written, but I think where there’s opportunity and where I think it would have been helpful to have more dialogue is with the organizations that are in this space that are interested in working in collaboration to come up with whatever that strategy looks like.

[2:17:04] So again, I know we can’t be operational on this, so it is a budget amendment so that we can look at different ways to do things, but how that then plays out with city staff and how they operationalize that, I know is in their hands. But again, I think it’s the willingness from the partner agencies that are in this space to work collectively. These are programs that they have, that they work with the city on, that they’ve been involved with, that they’ve been co-chairs of, and I think that there’s opportunity to continue that dialogue and move this forward.

[2:17:43] Thank you, further speakers to this item. Looking online, seeing none, looking in chambers, seeing none, calling the question. Closing the vote, the motion carries 11 to four. Thank you, my intention is to go to business case P-51.

[2:18:52] It was pre-circulated, this is a Councilor Pribble, Councilor Frank 1 dealing with transit surty, oh my goodness, transit service, commercial growth hours. Hey, they are not currently online with us, would people intend to have questions of Ms. Pulunchki, just for she could be here to start the conversation or someone from her team? I will also note procedurally, that business case P-51 was already discussed.

[2:19:33] The prior vote was for around $1.6 million, it failed on a vote of seven to eight. Both the mover and seconder of this motion were on the side that did not win that vote, but as a chair, since now the numbers are up to 7.9 million, I’m dealing it, I’m viewing it to be materially different enough that we can proceed on this item. So looking to the mover and seconder, are you prepared to put this on the floor?

[2:20:09] Okay, so that’s a yes from Councilor Pribble, Councilor Frank is nodding that she is indeed the seconder and willing to proceed at this time. Okay, it’s just being copied and pasted into eScrub at the moment. Councilor, I’m gonna ask you to read out your motion, and then I will start my speaker’s list and recognize you if you wish to be the first one. So Councilor, whenever you’re ready, you can read it out.

[2:20:54] I will also let committee know that after this item, it is my intention to break for lunch once we’re done this one. Okay, and Ms. Pelensky is into the meeting now. So welcome Ms. Pelensky, just let you know, Councilor Pribble and Councilor Frank have a motion. They’re just about to read it out. We have not started discussion yet. So you are here for the very commencement of this item. Councilor Pribble. Tom, I don’t have any scribe, but I hope it’s the same as I have on my laptop.

[2:21:31] Did the Mayors 2024, 27 multi-year budget be amended to include the revised conventional service hours for business case number P51, transit service conventional growth hours, as approved by the London Transit Commission on January 31st, 2024 to provide for 18,000 hours of growth in each year by increasing funding as follows. 2024 operating expenditures, 1,646,600, 2024 tax levy, the same amount, 1,646,600, 2025 operating expenditures and 2025 tax levy, the same 3,495,400, 2026 operating expenditures and tax levy, the same amount 5,563,400, 2027 operating expenditures and tax levy, 7,913,600.

[2:22:30] Okay, thank you. I’ll pause it there as there was the general request of Mr. Murray, is your team ready to model this one before I start my speakers list with Councilor Pribble? Okay, please proceed. Thank you and through the chair. So what you’re seeing on screen here is the impact if this amendment is approved.

[2:23:05] So it would increase our 2024 tax levy increase from 8.6% to 8.8%. It would increase 2025 from 8.7% rounded to 8.9% rounded. It would increase 2026 from 5.6% to 5.9% and increase 2027 from 6.5% to 6.8%. And we can show you by reverting back to what it looks like without this, we can show you what that looks like just to kind of give you a sense of how each year moves.

[2:23:40] So in terms of the four year average, it would increase the four year average annual increase from 7.4% to 7.6% on a rounded basis. Thank you for that, everyone saw it. Okay, we’re good. Councilor Pribble, you’re welcome to introduce this item. Thank you, so thank you colleagues as the amendment states. This was agreed that our, at the commission, which I’m a member of. If I look at the whole picture where we are situated, our situation in London, where we keep saying and stating we are the one of the fastest growing cities in Ontario, in Canada.

[2:24:21] And we are going the status quo. And just so you know the commission felt that the increase, proposed first increase 25,000 hours with again 25,000 hours compared to other municipalities, similar to our size is much, much hours was much smaller to 25,000. When we went back and revisited the situation that in terms of the tax rates, et cetera, we brought it back down to 18,000 and this is the result. The 18,000 to which I mentioned last week, it’s not that it will get us to the buses flying up and down all over London, no, but it’s the right direction.

[2:25:03] And I think that, you know, we are dealing right now with police service budget that was neglected for many years and now we are hit with such a large amount. And if you look at our growth, if you look at our, and I do understand that our infills, our planning applications that not all these buildings will be built within the next 12 months, I do understand it, but on the other hand, we are telling Londoners, we are approving these infills, we are approving them with 0.5, 0.6 parking spots, per apartment, per condom, per condo, the reason why, because they’re on the bus line and we are gonna deliver better public transit.

[2:25:43] And I think there’s the way and I don’t wanna take more time because I would like to potentially come back to it and save my time for later after I hear the other comments. Thank you. Thank you, that’s two minutes, just for you know, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next and then collecting my speaker’s list with Councillor, Kate, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m gonna try not to be repetitive to what I said on the previous vote on this. This is absolutely no. And yes, other municipalities have increased their hours of greater because other municipalities, transit commissions have gotten funding through assessment growth.

[2:26:20] I’m not putting this on the tax base. You’ve seen what the impact is. There are options for LTC to put together a business case for assessment growth for new hours in next year’s assessment growth cycle. LTC is getting a significant, in fact, I’d call it a historic investment in paratransit service to improve service for the most vulnerable and most hard pressed to find mobility option members of our community. And they’re getting over a 49% base increase. The Mayor had to correct my number last time and I didn’t make notes as to which one he corrected.

[2:26:57] But over a 49% increase to their base budget. Affairs have increased 18% for regular riders, but only 5% for post-secondary students. There are other better ways to be looking to fund our transit. And I am simply not going to continue to dig into the wallets of homeowners of renters because make no mistake, renters pay property taxes too. I think it’s really important. That hasn’t come up in this budget. Renters pay property taxes too. And when property taxes increase on buildings, that impacts people’s rental rates too.

[2:27:32] So when we think about property taxes in terms of housing and homelessness, we got to think about how that impacts renters as well. So I will not be supporting this. The previous motion that was a slightly lower number and only one addition, I still opposed, although I was close to being maybe willing to consider something there from an alternate source of funding, but that didn’t come up. So here we are with the full aspect on the floor. And this is an absolute no.

[2:28:08] Thank you. I like your precision with perhaps considering maybe. And yes, absolutely. I point that hasn’t come up for owners watching that, whereas if you own a rent, you do play property tax. Even if you are a student in housing, there’s still property tax built into your rent. So it does affect everyone who is currently housed. I have Councillor Ferre and then Councillor Frank. Thank you, and I’ll be very, very brief. I’m very happy to see the two Councillors bring this to the floor.

[2:28:41] I’ve said my piece again and again on this, but I would just point out that, Londoners have definitely been standing up and speaking up on this one, this particular item. And I know that we’ve all heard it. So we should give Londoners what they want on this one. So I would really urge everyone here to support this. This is a big need for the city. And I’d be very appreciative if you did support that. For bringing other ways for funding, I would invite that at any chance that I can get if the Councillor has an idea of how to support transit without dipping into the property tax base, please bring that to the table.

[2:29:22] I would love to collaborate and work with you on that. So as it stands now, because we don’t have any other alternatives, I do believe that this is an essential need that we need right now. And as I said, Londoners have stood up and spoken on it. So we should give them this. Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you. I want to start off with a question through the chair to staff. I’m just hoping maybe staff could outline how much they think will be in the assessment growth bucket for this year and next year. And if we think the LTC will be able to access that funding given that likely the police services and ambulance will also be dipping into that bucket.

[2:29:59] And if we think that there’s going to be money available for LTC. Okay, just one moment, Ms. Barbone or Mr. Murray. Yeah, they just need a moment. Thank you through the chair. So in terms of this year’s assessment growth number, we have approximately $12 or $7 million of new assessment growth revenues for this year, plus a little bit of carry forward that was not utilized on a permanent basis last year.

[2:30:38] So I believe the total amount is in the neighborhood of $15 million or so. In terms of next year, I can’t really speculate on what next year is going to look like. There’s obviously been a lot of changes in the economy in recent months that still remains to be seen, what impact that translates into on next year’s assessment growth. In terms of LTC’s ability to access that, as I had indicated last week, the challenge that LTC has had historically is that a lot of their growth asks have read and sounded more like general service improvements or service enhancements, rather than being specifically tied to growth.

[2:31:23] And that has been discussed at length with staff at LTC and they recognize and appreciate that. We have, over the course of the last week, had further conversations and email exchanges with LTC. Outlining how perhaps going forward they could look at accessing assessment growth funding in terms of being more specific and direct on how their growth pressures relate specifically to growth and qualify under the parameters of the assessment growth policy.

[2:31:57] So I know that LTC staff are actively looking at how they could potentially put forward future assessment growth requests within the parameters of the policy, but I can’t speculate on how much that would be or when that would come forward at this point. Councillor Frank. Thank you, I really appreciate that explanation. Or I will actually just follow up with a quick question. Are staff able to guarantee that for the next four years the LTC will be able to get their assessment growth case funded? I think that’s all contingent upon the filing one.

[2:32:30] Good staff respond. Thank you through the chair. So in short, there are no guarantees with assessment growth. There are no guarantees in terms of the amount of assessment growth funding that will be available in any given year. There will be, there are no guarantees in terms of who will be submitting cases and in what amount for any given year. And there are no guarantees in terms of prioritization of the cases that are submitted. So in short, no, there are no guarantees at all as it relates to assessment growth. Councillor Frank.

[2:33:04] Thank you. So I will be supporting this motion as I have seconded it. Part of the motion that did not make it onto the written motion on the screen is an it being noted that if LTC is able to access assessment growth, they will rescind whatever increase that they are wanting for that year if they’re able to get the assessment growth. So I think that’s a good backstop and I trust that the LTC would do that. So I think that despite there being some discussion that we should not be funding this because they can just go and get the money from assessment growth, we literally just heard that there are absolutely no guarantees that they will be able to access that funding.

[2:33:39] So I think that we need a healthy transit system for residents of London to be able to get to work, to be able to get to school. And right now with no service growth hours, I don’t think that that necessarily is going to meet the demand and meet the need of Londoners. We’ve heard time and time again that right now people are being left at the side of the road because the bus is too full and it passes by them. There are bus delays. We need to be investing in transit now if we want people to actually use it as a prioritized service. So I will be supporting this ask and recognizing that if LTC is able to access assessment growth money, then through update every year that we do, we can tweak some of these numbers.

[2:34:22] Thanks. Thank you, I have Councillor Trousseau, then Councillor Hopkins. Thank you, very briefly through the chair. I’m going to be supporting this amendment. And if the makers of the amendment want to put that is being noted amendment on there, I think that— - Sorry, Councillor, we can’t do it being noted. It’s more procedural stuff. It’s only the numbers we can do, but I appreciate the sentiment. Okay. In any event, this has a massive impact in my ward. And it’s one of the main things that I’ve been hearing over and over again from so many people in my ward.

[2:35:00] And I said this at the last meeting, so I’m going to sort of just play the short version for you. There are too many people who the buses is going by. Even if the bus stops and lets people on, the service level is not adequate in terms of people being able to get to where they’re going on on time, given the gaps in service. And if you go out and look places like Warringcliff or Wonderland and particularly Oxford, you can see that it’s just not difficult to understand how the capacity of the roads is inadequate.

[2:35:44] And we’re supposed to recognize that we’re in a climate emergency. And if we cannot allow this, in my view, very reasonable service upgrade, we are turning our backs once again on everything that we purport to be saying about our desire as a city to get people out of their cars. Now, I know that we are not done with the Mobility Master Plan. However, given the options that are still on the table for the Mobility Master Plan, there is going to be a need for increased and enhanced transit service under any one of them.

[2:36:31] So while we’re waiting for that process to be done, it’s this is something we’re going to need. Now, if we do not do this at this point, we’re going to be falling further behind. And if we continue to fall further behind, this is not just a question of people being inconvenienced. This is not just a question of people missing appointments or having to wait longer for a bus. It’s going to be a question of people saying, you know, this is not reliable. And when I go to work late, my employer is not interested in hearing about the bus or if I’m late for a class or if I’m late for a lab, the teacher or the instructor or my supervisor is not interested in hearing my excuses.

[2:37:20] I’m supposed to understand as an employee and as a student and as a patient going to the hospital that I need to take this into account when I plan my day, we need to make this system more reliable or it is going to continue to deteriorate and more people will be pushed into automobiles. And I hope that some of the people who give up on transit get pushed into walking or get pushed into cycling.

[2:37:55] But my worry is that that’s not what’s going to happen. So please, yes, I am speaking on behalf of my ward, but I’m also speaking on behalf of the entire city. I don’t think my ward is the only place in London where transit riders or former transit riders or potential transit riders are saying I just cannot risk. I can’t risk being late. So please, please, please vote in favor of these amendments and I certainly hope that we’re able to reduce this later.

[2:38:33] And that’s it, thank you. Thank you. I have Councillor Hopkins and then Mayor Morgan. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And I do have a couple of questions just following up on the assessment growth and we heard from staff that there are no guarantees for LTC to take advantage of the growth. Kind of curious who is able to use the assessment growth, just generally speaking to you, Mr. Murray? Thank you and through the chair.

[2:39:07] So any civic service areas or agencies, boards and commissions that can make a growth case and a suitable growth case in alignment with the parameters of the policy are eligible to submit an assessment growth asking any given year. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, and I know we had a conversation about the police services. I would assume they would be part of that. Mr. Murray. That is correct and police does annually submit assessment growth cases. Councillor Hopkins. Thank you for that.

[2:39:40] And I supported the amendment last time. I still think this amendment is quite reasonable. I represent Ward 9, it is all about growth and the challenges and opportunities that we need are great. We need other ways of moving around. I know through the pandemic, many, many new residents to London have moved into Ward 9 from the GTA area, Ontario, cross Canada, even internationally, and they cannot believe our transit and how inadequate it is to move around.

[2:40:21] So I am going to be supporting this again. I think it’s really, really important. If we don’t have the services that are needed, we will be going backwards as a city. Thank you. I have Mayor Morgan and then Councillor Vamehringen and then Councillor Roman. Yes, I have a question for our staff. Mr. Murray’s looking down, but he’s probably going to need to look up. I try to understand the numbers in this case. So when I look at the original conventional expansion case, which was getting 25,000 more hours per year, between 2024 and 2025, those hours got $27,600 more expensive than $42,000 more expensive, then $72,000 more expensive to add them.

[2:41:13] When I look at this, it looks like 18,000 hours gets $202,000 more expensive, $219,000 more expensive and $282,000 more expensive. So it seems to me like the numbers don’t line up with the originals. I don’t know if they scale differently, but this also, I don’t understand why the 18,000 hours when you add them in the second, third and fourth year are so much more to a magnitude of eight or nine times as much for 18,000 hours than for 25,000 hours when they went up year over year.

[2:41:53] I don’t know if you understand what I’m asking Mr. Murray, but I don’t know if you have any additional information or these just numbers from the transit commission. And just for reference, what page number of the original budget document are you reviewing? I’m looking at 649 in the original conventional case where each year you’re adding 25,000 hours and I’m looking at the conventional line. And then I just, I’m looking at the numbers on the screen here and I just did the differences between them, right? So the first year, 18,000 hours is 1.64 million, the second year it’s 1.84 million because you just do the math to subtract.

[2:42:25] So I don’t know, I’m just trying to figure out what the difference is between the original case and this case. Thank you, just a page number for reference for staff and those following along who have their copies. Mr. Murray or Ms. Berbo. Thank you through the chair. So I will just say that the figures on page 649, they’re referring to our incremental costs. So they’re not cumulative costs, just to be clear. In terms of the numbers that are specifically in this amendment, I would defer to perhaps Ms. Boletchney. Those numbers as I understand are direct from the transit commission.

[2:42:58] So they would probably be best able to comment on how they were derived. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Boletchney, you’re just coming on screen now. We can see you. If you want the question repeated, happy to do so. If you’re prepared to answer, please go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s the 18,000 hours that like the costs that we’ve provided in the amended motion are representative of what those incremental hours would be in each year, run through our model, consistent with the manner in which the 25,000 were. So there are things within that model that include some compliment changes that would have been consistent in the 25 and the 18.

[2:43:41] So that may be some explanation as to why there’s disparity, but that’s essentially that those numbers are provided in the same manner as the 25 were. It’s just at a reduced rate. Madam Morgan. Yeah, so let me say I appreciate the answer. I think the piece on the compliment piece, you’ve kind of, once you get to a certain point, you bump up to the next kind of compliment level. I think that explains the difference for me. I just was trying to reconcile the original numbers with these new numbers and the way that they escalated over time. So that’s the only questions I have for now.

[2:44:14] I might weigh into the debate later. So I appreciate the answer. Thank you and you’ve used a matter of your time. I have Councillor van Merberg and next on screen. We can see you if you want to proceed. Thank you, Chair. I voted against this last time. I’ll be voting against this again. I mean, we just have to stand back and look at the big picture here. The transit service in London, Ontario is a secondary transportation service. It will always be that it will never, ever be the primary service.

[2:44:49] We could pump millions upon millions upon millions and raise the property tax through the roof even more than we are now and still have it be a secondary service. I mean, that’s just the fact of the matter. Why? Because people want their individuality with their own vehicles, the vast majority. So here we are trying to cater to seven, perhaps 8% of transportation users to get around our city and we’re going to significantly raise their property tax in a city which cannot afford it.

[2:45:27] I love the notion that some people say that, oh, we’re one of the lower tax from a property tax perspective in Ontario or Canada. Well, the fact of the matter is we have to be. Why? Because our median family income in London, Ontario is in the bottom third for all of Canada. We are not, by Canadian standards, a wealthy city. So there’s an inability to pay. So if we truly want to be compassionate to the most number of Londoners as possible, we have to keep wherever we can the property tax down.

[2:46:09] Now, this has been truly difficult because we have had a big increase with the police but we need that, we can’t get around it. What we’re talking about here is a needless expenditure. Yes, you know, it might help a few but from the broad perspective of all of us, it won’t. It will hurt the majority of us because of the significant impact on the property tax that comes out of all of our wallets. And again, we’re in the bottom third of median family income, a fact that was released in a paper by the Fraser Institute not that long ago.

[2:46:48] It’s not a stat that we should be especially proud of but it’s a stat and a reality nonetheless. So thank you, Chair, appreciate it. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you and through you. That’s a difficult follow. Especially when we get into talking about the Fraser Institute, okay. So I would like to ask Ms. Fleschney a question about the business case that’s in front of us and some commentary I heard recently that Thames Valley District School Board is going to be coming forward with their request for funding related to the pilot for Clark Road Secondary School.

[2:47:32] And I’m just wondering whether or not LTC is contemplated, whether or not any of this additional growth money could be used towards that pilot. Ms. Fleschke. Through the chair, this question certainly hasn’t been posed formally to the commission. So speaking on behalf of the commission, they haven’t formally considered. I can tell you that the hours that we’re looking for are as has been a discussion all morning, the hours we’re looking for are to improve service levels on routes that are operating at excess capacity, specific to the ask that’s coming from the school board, which is with respect to a pilot program at Clark Road, I can tell you that the routes serving the Clark Road High School between 6 a.m.

[2:48:19] and essentially 7 p.m. are operating in most cases at between 100 and 200% capacity. So initiating a program of that nature, essentially adding additional riders to services that are already operating. And when we say 200% capacity, what we mean is in addition to the 37 people sitting on the bus, there’s another 40 that are standing. That’s a bus that can’t stop and pick up more people. So implementing a program to encourage more riders and put them on a service where we know there’s a very good chance that buses will drive by them and not be able to pick them up is not good for the pilot program.

[2:49:07] So that would certainly be the discussion that I would be sharing with the commission when they were debating this. But traditionally the commission does not underwrite fares for anyone as council is aware, there are a number of subsidy programs that are in place that the city provides subsidy for high school students is one right now that is a subsidized program and the city provides the offset for that. So it’s not something that traditionally the commission has got involved in in terms of offsetting fares, but again, I can’t speak formally on the commission’s position at this time.

[2:49:42] Councilor Raman. Thank you, I appreciate that. So my next question was with respect to, well, I will start by saying, I’m appreciative that this was approved by the LTC commission by the commission itself and that that’s what’s being put on the floor today by a councilor’s approval and councilor Frank. I do, I did hear that there is a desire to come to council later on at some point around assessment growth and there was some discussion as to whether or not the commission would then pull back on some of these numbers through an annual budget adjustment.

[2:50:20] I’m just wondering if you can confirm that that is truly, if the assessment growth was realized through those mechanisms later on, if that this would then be adjusted. So is that question directed to me? Yes, sorry, please just say sorry about that. So, I mean, again, I can’t speak formally on behalf of the commission with respect to future asks. What I can say is at the end of the day, I don’t think the commission is really concerned with how the needs of the transit system are funded.

[2:51:00] It’s just with respect to our ability to respond to the demand that we’re seeing on the road today. I can say in the last two multi-year budget cycles, all of the transit growth was funded through assessment growth. So the commission’s very familiar with that process as Mr. Murray has spoken about, the guidelines around the use of assessment growth have been tightened up. And as a result of that, it’s difficult for us to make a business case that meets all of that criteria, but that’s not to say that we’re certainly open to submitting business cases going forward.

[2:51:38] And if, you know, if dollars can be reallocated, I’m sure the commission would be on side with that. Thank you, Councillor Roman. Thank you, I appreciate that answer. You mentioned that the assessment growth process was tightened up and that perhaps too restrictive for applications earlier on. I’m just wondering, I know there’s been some back and forth and some discussion on that. So I hope that that will be the case going forward that LTC can apply for that.

[2:52:13] I generally want to support the growth of these of hours and I’m trying to find a path to do so that doesn’t increase tax levy as much as we possibly can. In the last amendment that we looked at on LTC hours, the amendment reflected 18,000 hours that then rolled into 25, 26, 27, but the amount stayed flat and I would be interested to know, and I know I’ve had these conversations with you through email offline about whether or not that was supported by LTC, by the commission itself, or was this the only business case amendment that they were interested in?

[2:53:04] Thank you, I’ll caution as chair, what’s on the floor versus past conversations to keep things clear, but as it’s a procedural question to the board, I’ll allow it, Ms. Balencike. So if I understand the question correctly, there’s some concern about the fact that when we go forward with growth dollars, there’s no inflationary factors built into future years. I can say again, as I spoke earlier, in the past, our growth has been funded through assessment growth, and in that process, we would submit the one year annualized cost.

[2:53:39] That cost gets allocated to our base, and that remains in the base without inflation for the remainder of the multi-year budget cycle. That’s the way we’ve operated for the last, the last two multi-year budget cycles, and there is no reduction in hours associated with that. Again, when we’re looking at 18,000 hours on about the 700,000 that we’ve got in place right now, it’s an incremental change, and the adjusted inflationary factors that would impact that would be dealt with as part of our annual budget process.

[2:54:15] And in the past, as the commission has demonstrated, when we re-cost our budget each year with respect to inflationary factors, we’ve always been able to find any, to be able to fund any shortfalls that would result from inflationary factors that aren’t incorporated in that base budget allocation within our own means, and not having a need to come back to council. Councilor, thank you, I appreciate the answer. Okay, the final speaker I currently have on my list is Deputy Mayor Lewis.

[2:54:51] Thank you, Madam Chair. Mindful of the fact that I’ve already spoken on this once. I have a question from Ms. Palagini, which relates to the capacity numbers that you’re citing to us, and I’d like to understand how you are counting those numbers, and whether this is a capacity, when you talk about the routes that serve Clark Road, for example, and talking between 100 and 200, where exactly is that measurement coming from? Is that an average over the course of the entire route? Is that a point in time measurement at, say, Argonne Mall, or where’s that number coming from? Because I honestly have to say at 7.30 a.m. this morning, as I was having my coffee, the number seven on Wavell was not even close to full, which would serve Clark Road secondary students on their way to class in the morning.

[2:55:39] There were seats available, there were not passengers standing, and one person was boarding the bus at 7.30 a.m. at the stop in front of my house, across from East Lions Community Center. So I’d like to know where these capacity measurements are coming from. If you could explain that a little better to me, please. Thank you. Also note that W. Merlous is at three of his fog minutes. Ms. Blancheke. So through the chair, each of our buses is equipped with automatic passenger counters, which essentially count people getting on the bus at the front door, and people getting off the bus at the back door.

[2:56:16] That gives us average loads. We average those out by the hour, so it’s not by, we have the data by stop, but when I was talking about is the average by hour. The other issue that we have, and when I talked about those numbers is we, at this time, don’t know where all the students attending Clark Road would go. So what we looked at is all of the routes going by. Certainly there are some that aren’t at capacity. I was trying to provide an overall reference of the capacity numbers that we’re looking at, and as I said, the majority of routes serving that school are in excess of capacity.

[2:56:56] Deputy Mayor, follow-up? Thank you. So obviously on the school project, and I know we’re not debating that today, more work has to be done, and more conversations have to be had before any direction is had there. But certainly I do have some concerns about average load versus point in time, actual specific stops and data, because there are capacity availabilities on some of these routes at certain points of the day, and I think we need to look, when that comes forward at catchment areas, and dismissal and arrival times.

[2:57:30] So for me, that’s not gonna be a factor. I’m gonna continue to be opposed to this growth case. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Pribble. You’ve used two minutes. So you have three remaining, please proceed. Thank you. I just want to make some comments on statements that were made. One thing is, which I also mentioned last year, when we are looking and there was a statement made that took the increase in the base budget for LTC for next four years. There’s a one big number that’s kind of changing the kind of outlook or if we are comparing apples to apples, and that’s the reserves of $9.7 million that LTC dipped into in last year.

[2:58:13] So we really have to, if we wanna really see the increase in their budget, we have to reflect that. Previous years, the LTC increased their capacity by 18,000 hours, and we did not have projection growth of the city as we do now. So why the previous council councils they agreed to it, and now we will be cutting it to zero. The increase, just so you know, and these amounts are increases and they’re not cumulative. So yes, if you wanna accumulate, if you would have to add them all up, I just wanna let you know that this increase in 2024 represents on average for London household $7, 25, $20, $20, $5, $9, $20, $6, $9, $20, $20, $7, $10.

[2:58:58] Yes, it is an increase and we are in very tough situation. And I’m gonna tell you, I’m not, I wish we had, or potentially, if we do come up with different source of funding, great, but on the other hand, I do wanna have a certain security that we provide these services to the Londoners. One thing is, and I know it’s not gonna happen for the first year, but I already shared this with some of my colleagues, these two books, they represent four to five percent of our budget, and we are spending on it weeks.

[2:59:33] And there is additional 95% that we are not looking into more detail whatsoever. And I think that this is a thing that, right after this is done, we should start working on the 95% and looking at certain things that were done status quo for last year’s, and really, truly revisit this. And I really certainly hope, I don’t think we are gonna do, we will be able to do that much for year one, but I certainly think that if we go into the detail of the 95% we can do.

[3:00:07] Okay, sorry, I’m just pausing it there. I have a kind of points of privilege. Yes, and this is on behalf of staff. The suggestion that the 95% of the rest of the budget is not looked into, it is very clear that staff are executing a very specific service review campaign directed by council, going through department by department by department, those savings have been articulated very clearly in Mr. Murray’s presentation. So like, I’m just on behalf of staff under the procedure bylaw saying, you cannot make the accusation that we are not, and have not directed nor staff, not digging into the budget each and every day.

[3:00:49] We have a multi-year budget, and they spend the rest of the time, while we are working on the capacity of the multi-year budget freeze up to dig into each of those base budgets with the service review program, which includes a multitude of factors. So I just think the councilor can say, could we take a look at that again, for sure? But saying that it has not happened is simply not true, and is not respectful of the incredible work that our staff have done to find over $10 million of permanent savings per year in this multi-year budget. Thank you. Completely agree with the mayor’s comment.

[3:01:23] The only thing is, I did say by us, my colleagues, and I addressed it to my colleagues, and no doubt that the staff just look into it, no doubt. Okay. And they presented it, they presented it even last year, but going back to it, yes, it was addressed to my colleagues, not to the staff, as I clearly stated. Okay, then a potential different point, personal privilege that I’ve raised of just, a lot of us have been digging into this as well, and look forward to the multi-year updates. I’ll leave it there and deemed it resolved, and you do have 40 seconds remaining of your speaking time. So just in the conclusion, I hope, I hope their colleagues, we can support this, as I said, previous council supported these numbers with no projection of growth, and I don’t wanna be in three, four years in the same situation that we are playing a catch-up game, and then instead of $7,999, $10, it’s gonna be much higher, which we are experiencing now with police budget.

[3:02:24] Why? Because it was neglected previous years. The reason why, and I did support, that I will be supporting, if anything else comes, with the police, and the reason for it is, because they were neglected, and we cannot let this happen again with LTC, because these amounts will be skyrocketing year on year, if we don’t address it sooner, rather than later. Thank you. Thank you, that was five minutes in the dot. I have no further speakers online looking in chambers. Hey, yeah, I do see Councillor Stevenson, and I do not have a note of you having spoken to this yet, so if you’re full five minutes, please proceed.

[3:03:06] Okay, thank you. I just wanna say and echo some of what my fellow Councillor said here. I will be supporting this as much as it is challenging for me to increase the tax rate. I do believe that transit is an essential service that we do need to provide. I am gonna be looking for reductions, other reductions to reduce the tax rate. I do wanna echo Councillor Pribble’s statement as well. I think with the tax rate as high as it is, I’ve already been thinking about how we can bring forward something where council can also be part of that service review, maybe on a monthly basis, take a look at something so that we can say to the public that we have done our part as well, not just put that responsibility on staff, but that we do that as well.

[3:03:56] So I’ll be looking forward to some kind of service review between now and next year’s budget. Thank you, further speakers before calling the question. Councillor McAllister. Thank you. I don’t have you having spoken yet. So perfect, you have your full five minutes. Thank you, and I’ll be very brief. I do support this. I view the transit as an essential service. I know in terms of expenditure, this is going to hit the tax base, but it is another one of those things that I hear a lot from my residents in terms of having the service and growing those hours.

[3:04:33] For a lot of folks, they don’t have an option. I know I heard earlier that this is a secondary option for folks. It really isn’t. I think a lot of Londoners is there’s primary mode of transit and we have to recognize that. And we have to also plan for that. Over the four years, the city is gonna see a lot of growth. We’ve already seen substantial growth, and I think our transit has to keep pace with that. So I will be supporting this. Thank you, last call for speakers. Seeing none, call on the question. Using the vote, the motion carries eight to seven.

[3:05:27] Madam Chair, point of personal privilege. It’s inappropriate for Councillors to be applauding votes. Yeah, thank you. You know the decorum that we hold council chambers to. I hold the same as chair. This is morning one. That concludes that item. Ms. Palench, if you’re still here, thank you for joining us. It’s the only item I’ve been given motion to or notice for today. If something else occurs, we will certainly get you back with us. To colleagues, there is other ones, and I was asked to do it as a group to recognize other staff that would need to come for this from external agencies.

[3:06:08] After lunch, my anticipation and direction would be to do the library cases. Councillor Chaucer, you’re ready to do those after lunch. Councillor ramen, you’re the seconder, you’re willing to keep second those. My, as advised by the finance team, it would be prudent to do the base one first, just for clerks can get in the system and ready for us when we come back, and then head into business case P30 and P69. I assume you would like Mr. Sconey to be available with us via Zoom or his means of, okay, so we’ll queue him up, just to make sure that partners can get the table.

[3:06:44] I did promise lunch. I would need a motion to recess for lunch in the duration in which you would like to recess for. Councillor Stevenson. Thank you all, motion, we take a 30-minute lunch. Okay, I would need a seconder for that. Seconded by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Okay, so let’s just call it one o’clock ‘cause we’re right on the cusp of numbers and stuff.

[3:07:17] So one o’clock, a hand vote of all in favor of motion carries. Okay, I will see you back in chambers for one o’clock. Thank you. Okay, good afternoon.

[3:11:22] If colleagues online could just turn their screens on if we can verify that you’re here, Councillor van Merbergen, are you with us as I see my Steves? I don’t see Councillor van Merberg at this time. We do have Mr. Sciconey from the London Public Library with us online, so he is here at the start of the conversation. As discussed before break, if you refresh, the wording is in eScribe. It’ll be prepped on the screen in a moment. This is a case for a potential amendment for the London Library’s base budget.

[3:11:59] I have a mover, Councillor Trouso, and Ramen. So I will turn it over to the Councillor to read the motion out for everyone’s information. And then I will start my speaker’s list. And if you would like to put the first one, just let me know. Amendment to the London Public Library base budget. I would like to put this on the floor. That the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to increase London Public Library’s base budget to the following annual percentage increases in support of maintaining the essential infrastructure the library offers Londoners.

[3:12:45] 2024, 7% from the mayor’s budget of 5.4%, 2025, 8% up from the mayor’s budget of 6%, 2026, 9% up from the mayor’s budget of 5.1%, and 2027, 9% up from the mayor’s budget of 5.2%, with the 2024 operating expenditures all on the tax levy being 331,931, 2025, 8— 833,824, 2026, 1,876, 707, and 2027, 30039, 325.

[3:13:34] I’m moving that. Councillor Ramen has indicated she would second that. And I’d like to put this on the floor. And if it would be OK, I’d like to recognize just one moment, the 2027 number, as you spoke, you said 3,000 just for correction. It’s 3 million, 39,325. Yes, that’s correct. And rather than start with my arguments, I’d like to ask our CEO, Michael Tukoni, who is here, to talk a little bit about how we arrived at these numbers.

[3:14:11] These numbers are in between what we had submitted for our base request and what was in the mayor’s budget. And I’d like for him to first explain how we arrived at those numbers, and number two, what the implications would be for us for not getting those. Keeping in mind that there were also a number of business plans, two of which will come up as separate items after this item is completed. Thank you. I’ll note that Councillor Ramen has now joined us virtually, so that’s our full complement of the Budget Committee present. And, Mr. Sconey, welcome.

[3:14:47] I just, ideally, I don’t time our guests. Just I ask that you keep your answers succinct to allow for ample time for dialogue and questions from committee. Thank you, and through the chair, I think what we tried to do in presenting the amendment is to take some pressure off the front end of the tax levy and push it towards the back and push our operating budget or the increase in our operating budget that we’d like to see in preparation for the 2831 budget cycle. I think that we can, with this budget, we can try to avoid some of the things that we’ve talked about in terms of branch closures, in terms of hours of reduction, in terms of the elimination of certain services, and relatively difficult situation those first few years, but as the cycle continues, that we would be in a pretty good position come the next 2831 budget cycle.

[3:15:47] Thank you. Councilor Troso? Could you directly address the question of potential closures or cutbacks in branch hours, which is something that is on the minds of a lot of people? Yes. Through the chair, obviously, there’s been some talk about some of the smaller branches, Lambeth, Carson, and Glamworth, they’ve been described to some extent as underperforming.

[3:16:19] I would disagree with that. I do think that there are some issues in terms of location and others, but if you want to put it in terms of service to the Londoners in those areas, it’s still a very important service to have in place, and we believe it would be very difficult to keep those branches open if we receive the mayor’s budget as is. In terms of hours, we would definitely have to really look at almost every branch in lowering hours. Some of that is just impossible for us to cover those hours within the current budget. That would mean if we were to eliminate hours, there’s a lot of ramifications to that.

[3:16:56] It affects almost everything, including literacy, programming, room rentals, computer and wireless access, cooling and heating during extreme weather. And another thing is the distribution of city of London materials to Londoners, which we do on a regular basis. Councillor? Yes, you’ve submitted these numbers to Mr. Murray in advance of today’s meeting. Yes, yes. Sorry, Councillor, your mic’s not on. I’m wondering if Mr. Murray could provide us with the chart for this, because I know people want to see that.

[3:17:36] Thank you, Mr. Murray, to you and your team. Thank you, through the chair. So in terms of the impact of this amendment to the library’s base budget, the impact would be not enough in 2024 to change the 8.8%, at least on a rounded basis. So when I say there’s no impact, just to clarify that, it’s not enough to move it on a rounded basis. So it remains at 8.8% to one decimal place. In 2025, the increase shifts from 8.9% up to 9%.

[3:18:12] In 2026, the tax levy increase goes from 5.9% to 6%. And in 2027, the tax levy increase goes from 6.8% to 6.9%. On a four-year average basis, it does increase the four-year average from 7.6% to 7.7%. Thank you. Councillor? The other question that I would have for the CEO is, could you briefly address the relationship between the base budget increase and what is going on with our capital expenditures?

[3:18:47] Because that previously was a business plan, which we did not resubmit. And there might be some clarity that you could provide us in terms of what is going to happen with our capital program. That’s just for me. Sorry. Through the chair, I’ll try to answer the question as best I can. Obviously, the difference between the two is well-known. Our capital budget, the city was generous in giving us the first year, and the next three years would be pending our asset management plan.

[3:19:26] But in terms of the facilities themselves and the maintenance of the facilities, and everything that goes into keeping the facilities looking good and clean and just presentable falls on our operating base, on our operating budget. And that is another area that we’re going to struggle with without the operating base being increased. Thank you. For now, unless you have something else you’d like to add, I’d like to yield to your comments and questions for my colleagues, and I’ll reserve the rest of my time.

[3:20:02] Thank you. I don’t generally recognize that if there’s something else you want to add, just a point of question. So as the Councillors ask their questions, if there’s something else that you feel is pertinent in the end, we can certainly come back to you as you did have ample time left. So this is moved and seconded. It’s on the floor. My speaker’s list is looking to see who would like to be next. OK, I see Councillor Ferra. Thank you, Chair. And through you, if you just allow me, I do want to issue an apology before I— Sorry, I can’t right now.

[3:20:35] No, OK. Well, I’ll hopefully be able to do that at some point. So my remarks for this one, obviously, I’m happy that the Councillors brought this to the table. I feel it’s a reasonable request considering the urgent needs of the public library faces. We’ve seen it in a lot of news reports, and we have heard rumors leading up to this. And the last two items that kind of popped up aren’t the only ones. But we’ve seen significant disruptions at our branches. We’ve seen the closure of the Beacock branch with the leaky roof having mold. We’ve seen similar issues with the central branch.

[3:21:07] More leaks, staff having to bring garbage bins to catch the water and move books. And I feel that voting for this amendment on the budget would translate into our material support as Council for the library institution. This is one of our most sacred institutions. And I bet the library has a story with everybody in this city. And I would also bet that I know that we all have stories with the public libraries ourselves. So basically, this highlights what our library system and the infrastructure that make it is what it is. They are locations of community gathering.

[3:21:42] And they provide equal access for all. So I believe that libraries and our support for it, we are supporting basically these institutions that will provide strong and sustainable communities. And they enhance economic and business development. And they provide cultural diversity and inclusivity. And that facilitates civic pride and local identity. So because of that, I do think that this ask is very reasonable. And I’m hoping that we get support for that. And I do see that this is a big reduction on the first year alone.

[3:22:14] I believe it was 19% for the base budget in 2024 over 2023. So this is coming in at a reasonable ask, just because we do need to get these financing for the library. So I hope that Council approves that. Thank you. Just pausing your time. Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I’m going to be brief here. We’ve seen the impact. Text rates hitting 9%, text rates overall going up. In three of the four years, we are seeing increases anywhere between 0.5% and 0.3%.

[3:22:54] So the answer for me is no. It’s just that simple. Just as neighborhoods change over time and school boards— and I know there’s a couple of counselors who have served on a school board. And they know what a tough decision it is when an arc recommends a school closure. Sometimes it has to happen. And the same is true with our London public libraries. Frankly, in my opinion, Glenworth should have been closed in 2010. It’s time we review and determine whether some of these. And everybody has a story about a place. The same is true of public schools that were closed.

[3:23:27] People had stories to those spaces. People create new stories and new spaces, too. Stony Brook didn’t exist at one time. Bostwick Library didn’t exist at one time. There are new libraries where new stories are being created. If that means some of the older branches have to close, then that is the tough decision that sometimes has to be made. We can’t preserve everything forever. Thank you. Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you. I’m of the opinion that starving funding isn’t the way to deal with or address issues around closures.

[3:24:04] I think if there is a policy decision that needs to be made, if there are closure considerations that need to be made, those are best had by the very capable people that we’ve put to serve on the library board. I just want to ask if it’s OK a question of Mr. Sconey. My question is, was this new proposal that’s in front of us? Was this vetted by the board? Did they review this proposal? And were they supportive of what’s in front of us today?

[3:24:40] Mr. Sconey? Sorry. Thank you for the question and through the chair. The answer to all of your questions are yes. For clarity, then, was it unanimous support or— Yes, it was. Hey, Councilor? To those that were at the meeting, I should say. Hey, and then, just could you let us know what percentage the board was at that meeting? For how many members? Eight of the board members were at that meeting. And how many board members do you have? Nine. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[3:25:12] We’ve heard a little bit about the potential challenges that this budget might put you into what decisions you may have to make around hours, around potential closures. And that, to me, is the most concerning part, because what we’re doing is basically handing back to the library a decision that they have to make some very difficult choices. And I understand that. That the board has already taken a look at this. They’ve said, this is what we can do based on the pressures that you are facing as well with the budget that’s in front of you.

[3:25:54] What I’ve heard consistently is that people find a safe place at the library. They feel valued. They are met with trusting library staff. Staff do incredible work in this community. I mean, they serve so many different roles in our community that, with just losses of hour of services, we are going to see impacts. And they’re going to be hidden impacts, because they’re not, perhaps, Londoners that we are able to capture enough data on to really understand that those hidden impacts.

[3:26:36] I know, in my ward, the impact around resettlement. And I’m wondering if you can just touch on that, because, you know, in other meetings of council, we’ve talked about the fact that we’re seeing increasing needs for support for the new Canadians, supports for refugees and asylum seekers. Libraries are a place that people receive those services. We know the good work that’s being done from case management to social service support to directing people to resources.

[3:27:12] That’s work that our libraries do. I was insured the other day just looking at the community boards, which are filled with just information about resources. People can go in and find information that is needed to navigate our community. And I feel like we’re at a tipping point here, where we’re going to lose an essential service. And we need to really, truly understand what this means to our neighbourhoods, what it means to our community. And I wonder if you can comment on that a little bit further. Thank you, Mr. Sconey. Thank you, and through the chair.

[3:27:45] I think that’s the most consistent story we hear is the library as a safe space, as a place for people to meet, as I think some of the videos that we were posting recently for a mother to bring their child to play with other children. We have library settlement partnerships in seven of our branches that welcomes newcomers to the city of London. We serve as an extreme weather heating and cooling centre during those events. And that’s certainly at the central library.

[3:28:18] It’s taken advantage of considerably. The library is one of the last three and open spaces available to Londoners or to any citizen of any city in Canada. And I don’t think that can be underestimated and how much people enjoy that. Some people come for the books, some people come for the computers, but a lot of people come because they feel safe. They feel like they’re not judged. These are all things that have been consistent across libraries in the country. And it’s no different in London.

[3:28:51] If by removing hours and closing branches, you’re removing that part of the community. And that it’s so important to a community. It’s hard to measure. We don’t have, it’s hard other than showing a video of somebody a testimonial. But of course, that doesn’t ever compete with hard data. But this is really, really so important. I certainly, the Canadian Urban Institute’s report called overdue touches on this considerably. So I think that I urge council to take into consideration this aspect of library service while making their decision.

[3:29:31] Thank you. Councilor Raman, you have two minutes remaining. But I do have a speaker who’s listening to me to come back. Thank you. Yes, they’re a safe place. They’re now a place that provides food in our communities as well. For my board, this is a place where students can go to get snacks after school. This is a place where they can go and know that they have support, that they have after school programs waiting for them, that they’re met with a smiling face.

[3:30:04] I can’t stress how much this funding is needed at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Just to be clear, just to reference what Mr. Ciconi said, the rate members at the meeting that voted in favor of the motion, I was the ninth member, I wasn’t at the meeting and I would not have voted in favor and I’m not going to oppose the motion. And I’ll be brief, Madam Chair. You know, Mr. Ciconi referenced assets that are performing and this is something that I have mentioned to the board on numerous occasions that we have three branches that need to be examined and whether or not they should continue on.

[3:30:49] And these are branches, Madam Chair, that are open for days, every day. They’re open for hours, one day a week. And they’re also branches, as Deputy Mayor Lewis mentioned, when he referenced Glenworth, that probably should have been closed 14 years ago, but it hasn’t. And I think now, you know, I can separate myself as a board member of the library board and speak to you as a Councilor who’s concerned about our tax rate, our base tax rate right now, which is ballooning. And I agree with everything that Councilor Ramen has just said, it is a safe place.

[3:31:25] All of our libraries are safe spaces. But we have to take a hard and fast look at the branches that are not performing for us. Because like any business model, the entire business will fail if we concentrate on those small ones that aren’t doing their job. And that’s what we have in the library system today. BECOC library, which is shared by Councilor Stevenson and myself, it’s a great library. It’s a great safe space. We, I enjoy going there and out Councilor Stevenson goes. At any time, you can see lots of students and seniors there and they’re mingling and they do find it to be a great place for engagement.

[3:32:04] And we have made preparations to our capital budgets. The Mayor’s made this preparation for us to recapitalize on that property and to make it a better property. And we have others that need renovations and they will get the renovations. But for our purposes today, Madam Chair, we need to focus on our base budget right now. And right now, we can’t afford this. And I do apologize as a board member. It’s really important for me to, I mean, I chose to be on the library board. It’s important for me. But at the same time as a Councilor, I have to think what’s best for our entire community.

[3:32:39] Thank you. And I’m just pausing your time. And it is that balance of board work and Councilor work. Next on my speaker’s list, I do have Councilor Hawkins. And if anyone else would like on, just let me know. Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. And you know, I appreciate the comments that we can’t afford that we’re all trying to find ways of reducing this tax burden. I find myself here, I feel like I’ve got a hat and I’m looking for some crumbs to be put into it, to have supports for homelessness housing, to have support for LTC.

[3:33:26] And now we are looking at libraries. I just find this very unfair, but I am gonna do my best. And I’m gonna start with asking a question through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Sconey about underperforming branches. And exactly, how is a library determined underperforming? I know the three that tend to be in question here are small branches.

[3:34:05] I know the one in my ward, Lambeth, is well used. I would never think it was underperforming, the way the community holds that library, very dear to them, and is well used. So I wanna have a better understanding how the board, and the possibilities if this amendment is not supported, they will be on the chopping block. And so I need to have a better understanding, not just myself, but I need to be able to explain this to the community.

[3:34:46] Thank you, Mr. Sconey. Thank you, through the chair. I think, to Councillor Cudi’s point, in terms of approaching it from a business standpoint, it’s a simple case of return on investment of the usage collections, people visiting the libraries, wireless use, computer use, and so on and so forth, the statistics that are easier to gather. What is not as easy to gather is what you’re speaking to, Councillor Hopkins, and that’s the use of the library in other ways, and the importance of it to the community that it serves.

[3:35:24] I would venture to guess or say that sometimes it’s not a question of underperformance in an area due to the lack of use per se, but the location, in some cases, of the library that hurts it. So there’s a difference between closing a branch and removing service. And in these particular cases, I believe we’d be removing service, and that’s without really any alternatives given the budget that we have. The budget on the floor would allow us to examine and seek alternatives if indeed the decision was made to close the actual buildings themselves.

[3:36:07] So without this budget, we don’t have many choices at all. We’re in a position where all we’re looking at are reductions. Most of our budget goes towards fixed costs, and we don’t have a lot of space outside of that. So when we start looking at our budget, and the budget that is currently in the mayor’s budget, I think 85% of that is fixed costs, and everything else we have to look at in terms of cutting costs.

[3:36:40] And that means, as I said stated before, collections that means hours, that means branches, that means programs, and everything that we do that Londoners have come to love. So in terms of your original question, what would make us decide that we would not like to decide that, I think is the answer to that question. We would like to not be put in that position, but in terms of cold, hard facts, we would have to look at things like that. Thank you.

[3:37:11] Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you for that explanation. I think it’s really important that we understand when we say certain things exactly what are we talking about. And I know as our city grows, now population increases, and we’re going to see that in the southwest end of the city in the future. We need to maintain what we’ve got, and this is just a reasonable ask. It’s not a huge amount of an increase to the taxes.

[3:37:48] I want to step back a little bit, and just want to say, ‘cause I know when I travel around and visit other cities, the way the libraries are treated in those cities really tells me a lot about what the priorities in that city are. And I really want us to understand, and I’m finding it very difficult here to see how we as a city can just automatically go, okay, it’s about time.

[3:38:24] Let’s close these branches as we grow. I’m not really entirely sure how we are going to make these decisions right here, right now, and not take a look at the investments and the meaning of these libraries. I know libraries are spaces for all of us. There are many, many Londoners that have a library card. It’s really interesting to know how many Londoners use our libraries and the importance.

[3:39:01] They are important spaces, and I’m just going to speak for my own personal view about being an immigrant and moving to Toronto when I was a pre-teen, and finding a library to me was not only a safe space, it was also a welcoming space. And I just feel so sad to think that future generations, my grandkids, as we contemplate and compare what is important over here and what is not over there, that they will not have the opportunities that I had.

[3:39:41] And I just have to take a moment and pause and try not to get emotional about it, because yes, we’ve got to find tax savings, but this is not the place to find it. So I— 30 seconds. That was just going to be wrapping up and hoping that my colleagues will support this very, very important amendment to us. Thank you, you had 15 seconds left.

[3:40:17] I always try and give that 30 second comment, ‘cause there’s some times I think you’re wrapping up and you start over. So I always give you that cue just for you can wrap up on your own terms. I had Councillor Stevenson next, and then I’ll continue my speakers list from there. Thank you, the libraries are near and dear to my heart and certainly invaluable to their communities and to the people who rely on them.

[3:40:51] I have to say for me, and I’m a business person in return on investment, I wanna see that, not here. Libraries are a community service to the neighborhoods, and I don’t think that we should be looking at it from a return on investment. The, these neighborhoods all deserve to have a place to go, and the fact, I must admit, I really, really dislike the talk of potentially closing the Carson Library rather than the entire system bear the burden of the cuts.

[3:41:30] Why one particular area or a few, I can’t speak to, they’re different situations. But the Carson Library is open for a full day every day, five days a week. It is not a few hours a week. It is a neighborhood that has been more than its fair share of the social services based on city council policies, and it’s not a safe neighborhood to be walking around in. Hopefully the police budget is gonna fix that or alleviate that along with our whole of community response, but I really dislike and I will be fighting with everything I have to ensure that the Carson Library stays open for a neighborhood that has borne more than its fair share of BRT, construction, social service policies, and a variety of other things.

[3:42:20] So as much as I really, really support the library, I dislike the threat of closing branches based on return and on investment calculations. And yeah, I wish there was more money for the libraries and I will be seeking to find it, but at the moment again, we’ve got a tax rate that is really, really concerning to people. So it puts us in a difficult time, and I really request that the board, when they make their decisions, look at an equitable kind of sharing of the financial issues and not burden a neighborhood that has a lot of low income, is gonna have more and more newcomers with CLCC’s building.

[3:43:08] I just, my heart I ask you to please consider the neighborhoods and the incredible service that you provide and not just the finances on this. Thank you, further speakers, online or in chambers. Hey, Councilor Troso. Reserve, my main comments first, just to sort of get myself composed a little bit.

[3:43:44] This is probably the most important thing that I’m gonna do on this council during my term. I think you’ve, the speaker, Councilor Stevenson, I think you’ve, you’ve hit it on the head in terms of why we should be supporting this increase very articulately and very well. We don’t wanna close branches. Now, what I wanted to say, and a lot of this is taken from my colleague Jeremy McCall, who wrote a wonderful piece on his blog, but the London Public Library scores first in user satisfaction, and there’s a reason for that.

[3:44:24] There’s a reason for that. This is where people want to be. And it cuts across education level, it cuts across nationality, it cuts across everything, cuts across neighborhood. Consistently, this is what people say. They wanna be spending their money for. And if we’re gonna be asking residents to increase their taxes, which we are, we need to be giving them something that they really, really like, and that’s their libraries.

[3:45:00] Now, the most marginal members, I wanna address the equity point here. The most marginal members of our community stand to lose the most if we do not get this money. This is an equity issue, this is a conciliation issue. It’s an equity, conciliation, diversity issue, not because that’s how libraries were drawn back in the 19th century, but in terms of how libraries have evolved into today’s modern urban setting. Equity is a deserved teller of our city.

[3:45:34] We’ve all agreed to that. And equity will be much harder to deliver. On the ground, to people, not through city hall, but people walking around in their neighborhood or downtown and being able to go into this place where they’re not expected, hey, they’re not expected to buy things, they’re just expected to go in there and be themselves and find their community. If the library budget is not increased, at the level that we’re asking for here, we will have to make some difficult decisions.

[3:46:15] And yes, I’m sorry to say that is going to involve things that we all want to avoid. At risk, at first, we’ll be smaller branches. These branches offer computers, printing, Wi-Fi, tech help, story time, programs, study space, meeting space, literacy programs, materials I’ll talk more about, materials under the next item, referrals, cooling and warming space, bathrooms, volunteer opera. I mean, I can go on and on and on.

[3:46:48] And the role of the public library has changed so much from when I first took my master’s library science degree at San Jose in the mid ’90s, it’s changed so much. 30 seconds. I will ask for an extension. We could just do that now, let me just pause the time. What extension are you asking for? I’d like to— I could do this in two hours, but I’ll take five minutes. Thank you for your honesty on that one.

[3:47:21] So a request for extension of time up to five minutes, moved by Councillor Trousa. I would need a seconder for that. Seconded by Councillor Hopkins. This will need to be a vote in eScribe, so it’s just loading in. I’ll let you know when it’s ready. OK, it’s ready. Master vote. Building the vote, the motion carries 10 to 5. OK, so your five minutes commences now.

[3:47:58] Thank you. So we’re not sitting on a lot of reserve funds. We’re not sitting on alternative mechanisms in terms of our base budget. I’ll talk about one exception to that later. We have to protect our staff. Our staff is our greatest treasure. Our staff and our patrons. And the relationship that our staff makes with patrons. And people— you’ve seen some of our testimonials online. People come in to the library, and they really appreciate being recognized, especially in the branches.

[3:48:36] They really appreciate being recognized and known. By the staff. And that is just such an important part of people’s connection to the civic— to just the civic life in London. We are going to see an increase in people who are coming to London that need to take advantage and use this broad service. And for a while, within the library community, there was a tendency not to want to say we’re social workers.

[3:49:17] But we are. We’re doing so much more than checking out books. And the more community is equity-seeking, the more that’s the case in the library. So our budget reflects a quality of service that we provide to our patrons. I use the word interchangeably because I spent many years working as a librarian.

[3:49:52] So I think that when you look at the notion of closing down, either closing down entirely or curtailing the hours in particular branches, that is going to have a detrimental and very deleterious effect on the community. And I think most of you understand that. You’re balancing that against our concern to find cost savings. But this is not the place to do it.

[3:50:27] This is not the place to save a percentage or two. If you value what the library currently offers, I ask you, mayor and counselors. And so many of you have served on the library board in the past. So you have a good sense of where I’m coming from on this. I’m asking you to approve the amendments that are on the floor. If that does not happen, if that does not happen, I really worry about the future of our library system and the welfare of the people who rely on us.

[3:51:12] So thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And just let you know that you’ve stopped three and a half minutes of your additional five minutes. Next on my speaker’s list, I have Mayor Morgan. So thank you. I will make a few comments here. I reflect back to my time as chair of the library board. And I happened to have the good fortune of being chair when Joe Fontana was mayor. And he decided to hand us a bunch of zeros. And I think there was an approach we took at the time.

[3:51:48] And we would try to make some tough decisions as a library board. And one of the things we put on the table was to potentially close the Glamworth branch. We made that decision, it was a tough decision as a board. And the community rallied around it and said, at the time, it needed significant capital improvements to bring the facility up to an accessibility standard. And so there was a bunch of fundraising that was done by the community. And as a library, we tried to innovate and find a way. And we really minimized the impacts of the challenges that we faced during that time.

[3:52:23] So when I put this budget together, the 19.9% ask was pretty high. And it has been a bit of a frustrating experience for me because despite the fact that I may have lowered that to 5.5 and the percentages of all the other years went up a little bit, giving the library more money in each of those years than they’ve ever had as increases before, for everybody to say, we’re cutting the library services. No, we’re giving them more. We’re not giving them as much as they would have wanted. And in my conversation with the chair and some others, the capital needs were really important to them.

[3:53:05] And so I said, here’s what we could do. The capital plan is pretty important. I’ll put the capital plan in. We’ll give you some emergency money. The capital asset management plan is pretty important. Our staff will work with you. We’ll determine future capital asks from that. But the operating ask is really difficult. So I put it where I put it because I tried to prioritize the investments there. So one of the things that the chair said to me was, well, that’s fine. We’ll figure it out. And I say, hey, I was in that situation. I had to figure it out, too. You guys will figure it out.

[3:53:39] Do what you can, try to find a path in a way. So it comes as a bit of a surprise to me when the next thing I hear is there’s three branches, either potentially closing or significant service reductions, the comments that were just made by the counselor about the horrific impacts the library system. So this all seems to me like a little bit over the top. The London Public Library is not going to cease to exist if we don’t give them exactly every single piece that they ask for in their budget. Now, what I have heard today is a backtracking from a position of branches are going to have to close immediately to, instead of the 5.5%, we gave them in 2024 that if you go up another 1 and 1/2% to 7 or another 331,000, that there might be a way to start to look at things and find a way.

[3:54:27] So to me, it’s nice to actually start to see some movement on thinking differently on this than perhaps has been put in form letters or on websites or web pages. And I honestly want to be a good partner with the library because I believe in the services. I mean, I served on a board for eight years. And I know the great value there. I get books for babies with pretty much all of my kids. So here’s where I am. I think the board does have to make some tough decisions. I think this all can’t come back on City Council.

[3:55:01] And you can’t project that we’re making each and every one of these decisions because the board has to decide how they’re going to best allocate the different money that they have in a way that is effective. So here’s where I think my compromise is in this discussion. I am not interested in raising the library’s budget to the level it was before. And I think even Councillor Trostau’s suggestion here is a bit aggressive. But if they want some runway to try to have the conversations on how to figure it out. And if they’re looking to come back with a discussion with City Council, then I could get to approving the 2024 ask of an additional amount.

[3:55:40] But I’m not interested in going beyond what I put in the tabled mayor’s budget. But I would entertain a conversation with the library in the subsequent year to see what their asks look for. Look like moving forward and where they have critical needs. But so I know that’s not the motion before us. But if the Councillor was interested in dividing out just the 2024 piece, I probably supportive of that to give runway for the conversation. I’m not supportive of going immediately to the higher amounts in the other later half of the budget without knowing much more clearly how the board is going to try to be a little more creative.

[3:56:15] And I appreciate that they’re now having those conversations because that was not what was indicated to me early on in this process. So I just wanted to just carve out my position on this and say as it currently stands, if it’s all together, I’m a no. If you want to just look 2024, I could get there, but I’m not going to move to the rest until we have a meaningful dialogue with the London Public Library Board and what this looks like moving forward. Thank you, and that was your five minutes. Councillor Hillier. Yes, and thank you for recognizing me.

[3:56:52] I’ve been reviewing the emails I received from the community regarding plan work. And I’ll be fair, it’s a cute little branch. I love it, I’ve been there a few times now. But here’s my issue. When I’m weighing over a 30% taxing freeze over four years, cumulatively, I don’t know which way to jump because I don’t want to put people out of their houses either over this little branch for one day a week. I’m going to listen intently to what anyone else has to say about this, but I’m still in the fence on this one because I’m looking at the long-term taxing implications and every single thing we’re looking at just keeps making it higher and higher over the four years.

[3:57:30] Thank you. Sorry, just pausing the time there. So procedurally behind the scenes, we’re working on some procedural type questions. Councillor Hopkins, can I ask you to take the chair just before I can make comment? And then I’ll… Okay, and then I can look for further speakers ‘cause I had no one on my list at the moment. So I slid myself on. I’ve got the chair and I have you madam chair. Thank you, I am timing myself. So just chiming in on this one. And also as a past library board member, a mum of three who used the library for various needs, including performing driver’s ed books.

[3:58:14] So just fair warning to learners as my kids are working on all that as well. And I do have the Gelna library which has many newcomer settlement services in the Southland community center. Definitely a safe place. I will say publicly in line with the mayor’s comments, I too had conversations with staff and the boards. In past years, council did go back to the boards and say, can you bring forward opportunities for savings? I would say that conversation took time away from decision making, prolonged decision making.

[3:58:54] And since we asked them to do it, not every agency board commission did that. So it did not have the entire… And desired effect that council wished. We went this way. I was told that if we make our decisions, the board behind the scenes will do the work of a board, make the hard decisions, look at their books, prioritize things. And that’s their operational things to do with the governance that they have. They have many branches. I know that it’s the asset management plan that’s before all the agency boards and commissions that everyone’s going through since why we saw some different elevator asks and things this year.

[3:59:36] I have concerns about the assets of London Public Library, how things are being maintained. I question leaf key roofs and books. As a museum conservator, these two things do not go hand in hand and they close the doors to the public and it is a public space that is well needed. I don’t enjoy social media. I tend to take it in versus creating content. And I have been following the posts of library board members. Sometimes I find half-truth in it, which doesn’t please me as we’re trying to have community conversations, especially if we talk about being a safe space.

[4:00:19] And I find those worrisome. Sometimes the members of the community write saying, “You need to support and increase the library funding.” The mayor’s already done that in the budget he did. The mayor’s budget is the largest increase they potentially have ever seen in all the multi-year budgets. Just their ask goes above and beyond that. So, preferencing as a community conversation of you haven’t done anything is a false place to start with and a false narrative, so this isn’t an ask above what was already in the mayor’s budget.

[4:00:55] So, those tend to be my comments of just a concern of what we’re seeing in the community feedback as we get it, of misinformation, concerns over what I’m seeing from some library board members putting out in the public realm and some of the things publicly being said, which was not in line with conversations behind the scenes. So, I would not be doing my job if I didn’t call those concerns out publicly as a counselor and as the budget chair. Thank you, that’s three and a half minutes of my speaking time and I return, my speaking time to the counselor Hopkins.

[4:01:30] I’ll return the chair, I’ll return the chair back to you and I have counselor Raman next, or maybe not. I have no one on the speakers list then. Okay, that’s okay. I have no one online at the moment looking in chambers to see if anyone else would like on the speakers list and indeed it is counselor Raman. Thank you through you. I just wanted to ask the procedural question if it’s possible to split it 2024 through the rest. Yep, okay, the clerk can just speak to that.

[4:02:07] It is possible, just at some number stuff behind the scenes. Thank you through the chair. We are trying to work on that as quickly as possible. The concern is the interrelationship between the various years. I don’t know if Ms. Korman has had a chance to send that email or we are working as fast as we can behind the scenes. Okay, Councilor Raman, are you satisfied with that for the moment, procedurally? Procedurally, yes, but I guess it’d be up to the mover if he wants to split.

[4:02:46] Yeah, colleagues, as per procedure, we normally allow dividing emotions. It helps once in A, B, and C, but we’re just seeing as this is numerically different years how we can do it and how it ties into things behind the scenes. So clerks are working on that. I do see Councilor Troso, please proceed. Yeah, and I think it’s always appropriate to split it in my view. And I think anybody on this table can do that. I would like to ask the CEO to explain why the numbers are so different because my recollection was if there was an intentional taking away from the first year.

[4:03:27] So if that’s gonna be done, I think in fairness, we should at least put some of that back and that number might be increased a little bit. But I would like to ask Mr. Victoria Cohen if he’s still here if he could address that. Yeah, he is still here, Mr. Ciponi. Thank you. And through the chair, and I’m sorry, but I hate to ask this my own board member, but could Councilor Troso clarify the question he’s asking, please? Yeah, specifically Councilor Troso, I think which numbers of the original numbers versus this number?

[4:04:02] It looks as if we’re heading towards a motion to split off the 2024 number from the other three years. And I’m asking you to react to that and also look at the issue of, since we purposely made that smaller in order to backload it, whether some of that could be put back, I guess that’s the issue for whoever’s making the motion. But what would the effect of having year one be okay with the other three still up in the air?

[4:04:46] 30 seconds. Would we have the opportunity to be able to come through the base budget change next year? I think we would want to reserve that ability and we’d also be wanting to look at assessment growth. But I think what the mayor is suggesting is interesting, but it does leave some questions. So I would like a comment on that from the director. Okay, so I heard a question from Mrs. Coney about the numbers and how front loading versus back loading. And then I had a question to our finance team about based budgets in the multi-year budget updates that come annually.

[4:05:25] So Mr. Coney, first, please proceed. Yes, and thank you and through the chair. I would say that getting that first year’s amount, although it’s not significant, I think it would help, anything would help. But I think the promise of being able to speak with council, with the mayor, with the city in finding ways that we can move forward, that promise is very, very encouraging. And we certainly welcome any opportunity to discuss that going forward. I do think that with that boost and some other funding sources that we have at our disposal, we could probably manage this year and put a plan in place and really have some really, I think solid information to share with the city in terms of justifying increases in the coming years.

[4:06:14] Thank you. And to staff, there was a question about, as I heard it, face budget questions of how they would come up annually, if we know how that would work, based on a strong mayor budget process or how this would occur. Thank you, through the chair. So our annual update process is really intended to address things such as newer changing legislation or unanticipated cost or revenue pressures that have come up or additional new council direction that has come up over the course of the year.

[4:06:51] So if these conversations and discussions were to continue between the library board and council and there was a desire for the library to then come forward with a budget amendment in future years through the annual budget update, that would be something that would fit with the parameters and the intentions of the annual budget update process. Thank you. Thank you. Next on my speaker’s list, I had council approval. Oh, thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. And I know we went straight with LTC, but my question was, again, as London is growing and the libraries and I’m just going to repeat a couple of things that were stated here.

[4:07:30] It was really not just what it used to be. Sometimes borrowing books, they really do a lot of resources offer in terms of newcomers to Canada and other valued services. Have they applied before in the past? Have they been successful in any cases in terms of the growth assessment? And if they haven’t, would there be a possibility that you think that potentially they could qualify if they make the case properly? Mr. Murray.

[4:08:05] Thank you through the chair. So I will give a very similar answer to the answer I gave related to transit in that there have been cases that the library has submitted in the past for potential assessment growth funding and similar to the challenge that the transit commission has faced, the library has submitted cases that have often read more as service improvements or service enhancements than actual growth needs. Consistent with my answer to the transit question as well is that if the library were to want to submit a future assessment growth request and it was in alignment with the parameters and the eligibility criteria and the policy, absolutely we would be willing to look at that and assess it against the policy and bring it forward if it in fact meets the definition of the policy.

[4:08:55] Thank you. Councilor Pervell. Thank you, no more questions? Councilor Cuddy, you currently use two minutes and 20 seconds, so please proceed. Thank you Chair and through you. I think that’s the most I’ve ever spoken, two minutes and so don’t. Very quickly, I’d just like to reference back to Mayor Morgan’s point that when he was library board chair, 2010, cock discussed about closing land worth 14 years ago. Not something new that’s just on the agenda today.

[4:09:30] The other thing I wanted to point out was that I’ve heard Councilor say this isn’t a business model, we can’t look at this as a business, but these are all business plans. They all are and that’s what we have to look at. And while we can’t, I’ve heard people say we’ve got to look at the sensibilities of it all. We have to look at the practicality of it as well. We’re almost at 9%, the highest we’ve ever been at in our tax base and we have to look at saving everywhere we can.

[4:10:02] And if we close a branch that doesn’t mean down the road, we won’t open a new one. It just means we’ll open, as Mr. Kirkoni said, we’ll open a new one in a different location. When we have the funding or the resources to do that. But right now, what we have to do, Madam Chair, is look after the buildings that we do have. We have to look after Beacock and some of the other ones that need work and I’m advocating for that. And again, I will not be supporting this, thank you. Thank you. That brings you to 340 and potentially yes, the most that you’ve ever spoken to emotion.

[4:10:39] And that is the last person I have on my speakers list at the moment. So just looking online in chambers, seeing none, calling the question. Oh, sorry, that is an excellent question of what am I doing. So, okay, so it’s a question of right now, it’s still just one lump of all four years.

[4:11:14] Did someone actually want it separated? It is currently as moved. Councilor Raman. Thank you from what I’ve heard in the conversation I want to separated. I think that there’s additional room for a conversation if we do separate it and allow the library to be able to gain what they need in the end through those ongoing discussions. Thank you. Okay, so you’re looking to separate it 2024. Okay, sorry, Councilor Raman, I need to know how you want it separated per year or just the 2024 as you heard in conversation.

[4:11:50] And then the other three called as a package. I’m open to either, but if anyone else has direction they’d like to provide, I think it’s just consistent with calling out 2024 and then if others want to pull up the other years separately, fine, but I can package them either way. Okay, so right now I have 2024 coming separate and the other three coming as a package. I’m just gonna get that into eScribe. And Councilor Troso and Raman, you’re okay to be the same mover and seconder as we call it.

[4:12:41] Okay, so. Questions about that amendment and I think that would start the clock, but I am interested in wondering if we could do it for the first two years because the first year has been exceptionally downloaded to later years. So that first year. Okay, sorry, so just procedurally since the Council doesn’t want to move this, there’s no vote on it. It would just go back to being one. I would need it. I didn’t say I was opposed to it. I said I would have questions about what that motion would look like.

[4:13:16] It’s simply calling 2024 separate out of what you had cabled as the 2024 operating expenditure of $331,931. So my question would be would the maker of that motion make that the first two years and would the mayor be okay with that? Would you be, would you be okay with increasing the first year a little bit in light of the fact that we did backload it? Okay, so as per section 34.3, it’s a request to divide the motion to be voted on separately, which is the right of a member of MIDI, which has been done.

[4:14:16] If the original mover is no longer okay with things being called separate, you could remove your support as a mover, but it’s just strictly a call to be called a question separate. Yeah, I will support separating this out. I’m still going to proceed with the rest of the motion afterwards and ask people to change it. Maybe somebody wants to separate it. After we separate out 2024, maybe somebody else wants to separate out 2025, which would be fine with me.

[4:14:55] So yeah, okay, yeah, I’ll support that. Okay, so procedurally, we’re at the point of voting. There’s been a request to call them separate. As we do that, since we’re in the middle of voting, you cannot go back and start doing amendments to change the other numbers of other years since we’re just calling the vote separate as my speaker’s list is exhausted. I’m taking procedural questions only at this time.

[4:15:29] Yes, in that case, could I also put on a motion to separate out the 2025 so we could vote on that one separately too? Sure, Councilor Ferrer, procedural question only. This is a question to, I guess the procedure, if it’s not, just stop me. But the way this motion is crafted, if we were to pull out 2025, that 25% to 25% increase is based on the 2024 increase. So if we, it might do it, I just wanted to go to staff maybe in— - Yeah, to Mr. Murray.

[4:16:08] Thank you, through the chair. So the amounts that you see in the amendment for each respective year represent the incremental amount for that year above and beyond what’s in the mayor’s budget. So they can be voted on separately and independently. Procedural question only, Councilor Perbal.

[4:16:50] This is part of procedure, if I were to say, so we can get on with the move voting to do all four years separately. If you want to vote on all four separate, I don’t care. Okay, so if that’s what you want. Let’s do that. Okay, so conversations done, we’ll do each year separate. Okay, opening the question on 2024. Closing the vote in the motion carries nine to six.

[4:17:43] Okay, the vote is voted to open on 2025. Closing the vote in the motion fails six to nine.

[4:18:45] Just the vote to open the vote on 2026. Closing the vote, the motion fails six to nine.

[4:19:38] Okay, about to open the vote on 2027. Closing the vote, the motion fails five to 10.

[4:20:18] Thank you, that concludes the London Public Library’s base budget. Mr. Scrami, please stay with us. I packaged any motion to do with the library back to back just to capitalize on your time with us today. So next would be business case P30, which is the Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services for London Public Library. I have a mover of Councilor Trousow and a seconder of Councilor ramen, looking to see if this is accurate and you’re ready to put this forward at this time. Seeing a nod from both. Councilor Trousow would ask that you read it out.

[4:20:54] And then if you would like to be the first speaker, happy to go to you for that. Thank you very much. I did ask the clerk if we could separate the vote out on the $100,000 Community Investment Reserve Fund piece of it from the rest of it. Yeah, and it will be divided into an A and B once it’s loaded into eScribe. Okay, so basically what we’re finding in the library. Sorry, Councilor, I need you to read out the motion and then I can take your comments to introduce it to everybody, please.

[4:21:30] That the mayor’s 2024 multi-year budget be amended to include business case P30, Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services in the revised amount of $131,000 to support investment $31,000 for expansion of the services delivered by the central library’s second floor creativity lab. The second part, end investment of $100,000 to expand the suite of children’s digital literacy discovery programs to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund.

[4:22:13] And this is seconded by Councilor Raman and I should just explain what the differences between those two pieces are before I ask the director for questions. Yeah, I’m just gonna start your time. Just one second. Okay, perfect if you refresh E-Scribe what the Councilor just read out is in there and it’s also on our screen above us, Councilor. Thank you, this is a revised version of the original business case P30 at a reduced level.

[4:22:49] We submitted a business case on Enhancing Digital Divide Support Services because of the increase and the success that we’re seeing, especially in the main branch with certain types of electronic and technological services. We want to, first of all, expand the services of the existing creativity lab which is on the second floor to replicate that in the children’s section.

[4:23:28] And that’s the big part of that. The second part is the children’s digital literacy discovery program and the reason why that’s being funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund is the first part is year by year whereas the second part is a one-time request. And we understand that the one-time request is appropriate to take from that fund. So these will be voted on separately but I think they’re very much related. We would have liked to have been able to expand our digital divide support services even greater.

[4:24:09] But this is where we landed in terms of the absolute core that we really felt that we needed to protect. So I would ask the director if he could further elaborate on what these programs are in the library and what the usage of them, what the usage of them is and secondarily why we think it’s useful to expand it to the children’s section. Mr. Sakoni. Thank you and for the chair.

[4:24:40] Just for a point of clarification, I think that this particular business case did actually all of it qualify for the Community Investment Fund if I’m not mistaken. I think it was the collections amendment that we’re putting forward later that is split between community investment and tax levy. I think just— - I’m corrected. Yeah, and I think that it’s just this is the one area, the one strategic aspect of the city strategic plan where the London Public Library is actually named by name within the plan itself.

[4:25:16] We have always bridged the digital divide, going back to photocopy machines with Wi-Fi with computers, with computer training, all of these things with the Wi-Fi hotspots that we purchased recently and continue to provide to the public. This is the next step. This is providing digital literacy opportunities. We have the labs. They’re primarily used by adults. We want to expand this particularly to the children’s section to create a STEM lab.

[4:25:51] And then the training that we provide at the branch level with the laptop sets that we’d like to purchase, we have done some of this already and it’s been highly successful. And I think this is where somewhere the library just, it’s right within our wheelhouse in terms of providing this type of service. And it’s been highly successful, not only at London Public Library, but other libraries. And again, as it being mentioned in the city’s strategic plan itself, I think it’s quite appropriate for us to be requesting these funds at this time.

[4:26:25] Thank you. Councilor Trossa. I will reserve the rest of my time to hear my colleagues speak to this. I’m sorry for mixing that up. But in any event, I’ll yield and maybe come back when others are done. Thank you. You are at two minutes just for your reference, looking for further speakers online or in chambers. I’m seeing none, would be an indication that we’re ready to vote on this one.

[4:27:01] And it will be called Separate, A and B as requested. So yeah, so I had a request to, it is divided into an A and B to call part A, which is the central library second floor creativity lab first, so that’s gonna come up. And then we’ll do the other vote for part B, which is the children’s digital literacy discovery programs.

[4:27:35] So call on the question, part A will come up first in eScribe in moments. Closing the vote, motion carries nine to six. And in a moment, part B will open, which is the $100,000 to expand the suite of children’s digital literacy discovery programs.

[4:28:13] So just a moment on that. Councilor Hopkins, closing the vote, motion carries 10 to five.

[4:29:19] Thank you for that, I do recognize that there’s one more for the library first. Usually around this time, we do have a break for recess, but the mayor does have something for us. Yes, I don’t have any information, but we seem very mysterious. I have a call on a matter of city business that was told me to be urgent, that I need to take, so I need about 15 minutes. Just go do that. Now I was hoping we could take the break now. Okay, so either we break for the 15 minutes, allow the mayor the time to do the call, or we move forward without him. So he is moving recess for 15 minutes. Would he have a seconder?

[4:29:51] He has a seconder in Councilor Hopkins. Okay, I’m told this could be a hand vote. All in favor, 15 minutes. Motion carries, I’ll save him back in 15 minutes. Okay, just a couple minute warning for everyone to settle back in, grab a water or whatnot.

[4:46:38] Hey, if we can just settle back in, we’re ready to get started. If Councilors who are joining us remotely can just put their screens on. Thank you, the three Councilors have joined us virtually. In chambers, I’m just missing Mayor Morgan and Councilor Trousa, who I’ll need for a mover. Okay, we’re moving on to item P69.

[4:47:16] This is a mover of Councilor Trousa and a seconder of Councilor Raman, looking to make sure that’s still accurate. Okay, and we’re ready to do that now. Mr. Saconi, you’re still with us. Perfect, Mr. Saconi is still with us. I’ll just highlight that this has, some goes on to the taxes, some come from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, have not been given notice or a request yet to call those items separate, so they are currently one. Okay, Councilor, if you’re okay to read out your motion, that’s fine.

[4:47:54] Councilor Raman, as the seconder is gonna read it out for us, please. Thank you, that the Mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended to include business case P69 expanded support for library collections in the revised total 2024 to 2027 amount of 234,000. Annual funding totaling 134,000, 2024, 30,000, sorry, I’ll go back down to the operating expenditure and tax levy, so 2024, 130, 2024 tax levy is 30,000, 2025 operating expenditures, 32,000, 2026 operating expenditure, 35,000 in 2027 operating expenditure, 37,000, so that’s one time funding of 100,000 in 2024 to be funded from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to ensure that the London Public Library can replace high-demand children’s in-team print material to keep pace with increasing use of these collections post-COVID.

[4:49:06] Okay, thank you, looking to see if the mover and seconder would like to start off the speakers list. Just so I’ll just take a moment of my time. Collections is a very difficult area for public libraries and academic libraries, ‘cause of the very special relationship we have with our vendors and licensors and publishers. And we’re constantly being faced with new restrictions from the publishing industry.

[4:49:43] And I would say that as bad as inflation is, we’re generally dealing with inflation plots in terms of the demands that the publishing industry is making with libraries. And this is an ongoing tension in the whole field of librarianship. Basically, this is broken down to an annual funding total for the four years, along with a one-time funding. So the one-time funding is from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, and this is specifically to buy one-time a group of high-demand children’s and teens print materials.

[4:50:30] Now, the library found during COVID that there was a marked uptick in the amount of children’s and teens materials that were used, that were taken out. And much to our surprise, we were very happy, but much to our surprise, we noticed that when people were coming back to the library, this increase in use continued. We were very pleased about that, because getting good quality reading material into the hands of children’s and teens is very important. So what we would like to do is go out and replace, use this $100,000 to make a one-time purchase so we can keep pace with the increasing use of these collections.

[4:51:16] And the other part of this is over the four years. I would like to ask the library CEO if he could expand a little bit, maybe a little bit more detail about the increase in use that we found with the children and teens, and also why these broader purchases are necessary. Mr. Scotty. Thank you, and through the chair, starting with the children’s material, and as Councilor Troso suggested, as other physical materials started diminishing in use, specifically media during the pandemic, we noticed quite an uptick in the use of children’s and teen materials, print materials, and that’s sustained beyond the pandemic and has actually increased much to our surprise in this digital world that we’re living in.

[4:52:15] And the issue is that with children’s and teens in particular, there are books that remain relevant much longer than you’d have in an adult fiction or narrative nonfiction for adults and so on and so forth. So they wear out, I don’t know if you have children who have taken board books home from the public library, but they tend to get abused a little bit. Children aren’t as careful with the books. Very often they’re available in a trade paperback, which falls apart very easily.

[4:52:47] So these books come back and they’re pretty messed up and they’re pretty worn out and they get used a lot. So this money would go towards buying some backless titles that have stood the test of time and have always been popular and just repunishing those books, the stock that we have in our branches to make sure that there’s not long waits and that these books are readily available to children and teens. In terms of the other materials, we’re noticing an increase in books in the market that reflect those marginalized communities, those in burgeoning communities in newcomers and so on and so forth in the market and the demand for those are increasing and that is not going to slow down.

[4:53:40] And so we’re looking to get a boost in terms of the amount we have to spend specifically on those materials to make sure that those communities or their needs are being addressed. And these books are important because they reflect the lives of those community members. And that’s something that’s always been an issue with a lot of the material that exists in the library is that it reflects a sort of a certain culture and these reflect a different culture, these reflect a newer culture. And so, and it reflects their culture. So it’s really, really important to make sure that we’re addressing the needs of everybody in our community and this money would really, really help with that.

[4:54:19] Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Trussow. I’ll yield the rest of my time maybe come back to it but see what others have to say. Thank you, you’re at two minutes and 20 seconds. Councillor ramen. Thank you and through you and I appreciate Councillor Trussow and the library board again, working to bring this item back to us. I also wanted to just bring up that not only is this important for those inclusive and authentic representations in our community of diverse voices but it’s also reflective of what’s happening in education right now.

[4:54:56] So if you look at a lot of the courses that are being offered in our high schools and in even our grade schools in terms of those reflecting authentic voices, I know I’ve seen multiple offerings from school boards from the public and elementary system that are reflective of this in curriculum, meaning that students also have to find these types of texts to do homework. So having them in our library is important because it serves as another resource for students to be able to use those resources and not have to go out and buy a book in order to be able to complete assignments.

[4:55:34] And it’s also reflective of what we’re seeing in what young readers are reading and I think that’s where the library continues to be cutting edge is where they’re able to keep those items on the shelf and keep young people engaged in reading. And so I thank them for bringing this back and continuing to remind us of the importance of print material because it hasn’t went away. In fact, it’s still very popular and I’m glad to see this in front of us. Thank you. Thank you.

[4:56:07] Further speakers on this item? Deputy Mayor Lewis. I’ll be brief, I really struggle with approving an expansion of collections when we were just told on the base budget that we’ve got leaky roofs and we may have to cut back staff hours. And quite frankly, I find it rather inconsistent to be saying, by the way, we also need to spend money on collections right now. This is an expansion. This is not a reduction in services. I’m not supporting additions to the budget with expansions. Thank you.

[4:56:42] Further speakers online. I’m not seeing anyone at the moment in chambers. I’m not seeing anyone. Hey, my speakers list would only have Councilor Troso on it. Well, actually we want a clean, dry, safe facility for people to come to. But when they get there, we want them to be able to find library materials if they’re so inclined to look for them. So I don’t think it’s inconsistent at all.

[4:57:16] I think the two fit very nicely together. And I think that the library board has demonstrated, I think a good understanding about the difference between the base budget and business cases that’s supplemented. And I salute them for doing that. Further speakers. Okay, the motion is, the motion’s all currently one. I’ve had no ask to separate it. So, okay, there’s now been a request to separate it. So moment please.

[4:58:00] Okay, so we’ll proceed with calling A first. The vote is open. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven to eight.

[4:58:40] Thank you. Part B is being loaded to E-Scribe now. So calling the question. Closing the vote, motion carries eight to seven. Thank you.

[4:59:19] Moving on to item business case P-56. This is moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Seconded by, sorry, Mr. Skoni, thank you. That concludes the three items I have at this time. Should anything else occur, you will be given notice and welcome to come back. So thank you for your time today. Thank you. Business case P-56. I have a moved by Deputy Mayor Lewis. Seconded by Councillor Layman. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re ready to move forward with this item at this time? I am, Madam Chair. Okay, I would just need your seconder to come on screen and just indicate the good for a seconder.

[4:59:56] And the wording’s just being loaded into E-Scribe. Councillor Layman’s a thumbs up. So just one moment. And once again, I’ll ask you to read it out. And then I could start my speaker’s list with you if you like, so, okay. Sorry, I’m just waiting for that to be in E-Scribe. Yup. Hey, if everyone refreshes, it’s in there.

[5:00:32] And if you read it out, we can follow along. Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment reads that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by reducing funding to initiative B3 Climate Change Investment Fund of Business Case P-56. Climate Emergency Action Plan implementation support to an annual contribution of $1 million. It being noted that this reduction offsets the cost of P-51 transit service hours. Okay, would you like to see the modeling of this decision?

[5:01:07] Yes. Yeah, so as per the last beginning of the day, if staff could model this in Mr. Murray’s chart, when you’re ready, just let me know. Thank you through the chair. So just as a reminder, currently in the contribution to the Climate Investment Reserve Fund, there is annual amounts of $2 million, $2 million, $3 million, $3 million over 2024 to 2027. This would see it reduced to $1 million in each year. This has the effect of reducing 2024 tax levy increase from 8.8% to 8.7%.

[5:01:48] 2025 remains at 8.9%. 2026 would be reduced from 5.9% to 5.8%. 2027 would be unchanged at around 6.8% and on a four-year average basis, it reduces the increase from 7.6% down to 7.5%. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Lewis, we jumped to the first speaker on the list. Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m not gonna use all my time right now. Colleagues, we are facing budget pressure and a number of you cited the importance of transit for getting people out of cars in supporting the transit ask.

[5:02:28] So if getting people out of cars and onto transit is key to address some of our climate change needs, then we should be drawing that money from the climate change reserve fund and supporting transit that way until such time as transit can come forward with assessment growth, figure out what they’re doing there. This provides some relief. It doesn’t provide all the relief to that transit ask. It still leaves almost $2 million back on the taxpayer, but this provides some relief to that very significant change we made earlier today. And if transit is helping us to fight our GHGs and reduce our climate footprint, then this is a direction that we should all be supporting.

[5:03:10] Thank you, Councillor Frank. Thank you. It will come as no surprise I won’t be supporting this. I think that despite us approving and moving forward of some of the transit service growth hours, which I think is an exceptional and wonderful thing that we are gonna be doing, I don’t think that it needs to be taken away from the climate change reserve fund. We haven’t even created the parameters for this reserve fund and this is exactly what I’ve been worried about this entire budget session, is that anything with the word environment or greenhouse gas emissions will now somehow come out of this very tiny, teeny, tiny little fund. And I don’t wanna do that.

[5:03:44] I want to make sure that whatever’s coming out of that fund is something that we wouldn’t actually be funding for climate change programming. Transit to me, it’s something that we’ve historically funded in the city. I don’t think it should be coming out of brand new reserve fund that we are gonna be moving forward with. So I appreciate that the amount was not the entire amount to the reserve fund, so thank you for that. But I will not be supporting this because I think we need to be actually making some progress on our climate targets. And I don’t necessarily think that we have been making great strides, I think we’ve been trying really hard, but we haven’t materially invested very much financially into our climate emergency action plan.

[5:04:23] And this was a very small step forward in that area. So appreciate the efforts from the deputy mayor, but I would not be supporting this. Thank you, Councillor Layman. Thank you, I’m seconding this motion. I’ll push back a bit. I think we’ve actually contributed a lot. Remind this committee that in the last term of council, $175 million of taxpayer money went towards rapid transit and better transit initiatives. I think what I’ve seen in our deliberations, we’ve seen good work and creativity on trying to get things accomplished that are important, but recognizing the fact that at the end of the day, it’s a taxpayer that’s paying the freight.

[5:05:12] We have used a reserve funds for various initiatives during the debate. I think these two are tied together, based on comments I heard during the actual transit debate earlier today, where getting people out of their cars into transit for purposes of reducing our carbon footprint. I can’t think of a better way for the monies from this reserve fund to be used in that regard and being mindful of the tax burden.

[5:05:47] Thank you. Thank you, further speakers to the sign-up. Councillor Traussell. Thank you very much to the chair. I’ll also be opposing this reduction. I don’t really see why we need to reduce this fund. This is a very important fund that is in support of a number of initiatives that gives this council a little bit of room to be creative and move in the next few years.

[5:06:20] So I just don’t think this, I think of it as a clawback, and I just am not in favor of it. So I’ll be voting no on this. Thank you, Councillor Bime-Rabigan. Would you like to speak to this as I see you on screen? I’m checking on my mic, there it is. Yeah, thank you, chair. And I’d like to thank the mover and secondary for this motion. I think this is a very responsible, reasonable way to go. 10 million dollars, even the 10 million was a reduction. Was far too much.

[5:06:57] We have to look for savings here to keep this increase down. I’m not sure if we all appreciate the kind of increase we’re facing and the kind of increase our whole community and city are facing. Councillor Hillier stated earlier, it’ll be in the realm of 30% over four years, that’s just massive. So if we can find a reasonable, responsible way to try and bring that down, then let’s do it.

[5:07:32] And we’re still gonna have 4 million in this reserve fund. So I think it’s worthy of all our votes. Thank you, chair. Thank you, looking for further speakers. Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. I’ll be supporting this motion. And I too agree with Councillor van Merber gonna like to thank the mover and the seconder for this motion. I can clearly connect the dots between the Climate Emergency Action Plan and the TLC, or LTC, excuse me.

[5:08:10] And it makes sense, you know, we’re a car-centric city. And you only have to drive out on Wonderland North to see that. And, you know, if we wanna make a major improvement on our transit system in this city, going through, you know, proving LTC certainly is one way to do it. And we do have to fund it some way. And to Councillor Hayley’s point, and also Councillor van Merberger’s point, our tax base is now almost at 9%. It’s almost unaffordable for most people. And in fact, you know, I’ve actually had residents call me and say, you know, Councillor cutting, we can’t support this, I’m not sure I can, I can afford to, you know, to stay in my home.

[5:08:51] I’m not sure I can, I can afford any of these increases that we’ve been suggesting. So I will be supporting this. I think it’s a, it’s a, it’s a great motion. And I look forward to all of my Councillors supporting it as well. Thank you, my colleagues. Thank you. Looking online and in chambers for further speakers. Councillor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you. And I will be opposing this amendment. And it just takes me back to when we came up with the climate emergency plan.

[5:09:25] And it was unanimously supported by the previous council. And now we have to put money into it. Now we’re clying back. I just do not quite understand where our priorities lie. And I know it was suggested that we’re taking people out of cars when we had the transit conversation. And the transit conversation for me was we were giving opportunities for people to move around that don’t have cars.

[5:10:03] So I think we can pick and choose what we wanna hear and what we wanna do. I know what I hear in my community. And I think it’s really, really important that we have an ability of having some money to bring forward the plans that we need to do as a city. So picking things apart to me just doesn’t sit very well. Thank you, looking for further speakers. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’ve only used a minute, so please proceed.

[5:10:45] Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’ll just wrap up by saying this, picking things apart is what we’ve been doing this whole budget process. Taking a look at business cases and parts of business cases and deciding what we support as individuals. And some members of this council did say we need to get people out of cars and onto transit when we had our debate earlier. I’m not attributing that to Councillor Hopkins. I’m not saying that’s what she said ‘cause she did not. But I wanna be clear that that was said during our debate earlier today. This fund doesn’t exist yet.

[5:11:18] This budget is creating this fund. And we would still be putting a million dollars every year into a reserve fund for future projects related to the climate emergency action plan. However, what we would be doing is deciding that some of the money that we were going to put into a reserve fund for projects we haven’t decided to do yet, we have put into transit instead. That is where I would have actually supported the earlier transit motion for a one year service hour increase had the source of funding been this fund rather than coming from the tax levy.

[5:11:55] So this is why I’m seeking to correct this balance. There will still be a $4 million fund. And as economic times get better, as we have done in the past, reserve fund contributions can increase again. If there are surpluses, reserve fund contributions can increase again. But right now, we are in a very tough budget situation and contributing less to a reserve fund right now because we have chosen to spend immediately on transit. Makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, I’ll speak just briefly to this.

[5:12:29] So I’ll support the motion. But I’ll say that I do think that there are a number of reserve funds that we’ve added in this budget that we’ve decided to contribute to. And those are all levers. Now they can be certain amounts. You can bring them down. You can bring them up through annual budget updates over the course of other multi-year budgets. We’ve increased contributions. We’ve reduced them. I think the infrastructure gap is probably the most obvious one. There were times when we cranked it up and there were times when we pulled it back. I will say too, and I don’t know that we’re not talking policy here. There are other policy tools that we have at our disposal to top up reserve funds.

[5:13:04] When we have annual surpluses, we have the annual surplus policy, which directs some money into reserve funds on a one-time basis. There’s nothing saying that we can’t as a council have a conversation about whether it’s appropriate for a fraction of surpluses to go into boosting the climate action reserve fund and start to top that up, not just with a base budget from the tax base, which I think we have to start doing and then ramp up over time. But also the other policy tools that we have at our disposal. Assessment growth is another one where on a one-time basis, we do direct money towards infrastructure gap and debt reduction from time to time.

[5:13:39] Maybe we want to look at that policy as well and say, there’s a little bit when we one-time the money that goes into this particular reserve fund. So I would say, I can support this now because I think the budget is all about balance and we’re investing here and we’re pulling it back there. But on this case, and with the reserve fund contributions in general, we have other tools at our disposal. And that includes, I mean, the other reserve fund that I put in there, and that’s the contributions to the economic development reserve fund. We have the ability to ramp that up, pull it back over time, and I anticipated council would probably potentially make adjustments to those. So I’ll support this, but I think we need to have a conversation on the policy side later on about the other options that we have to boost reserve funds that we know we’re gonna have to ramp up over time, not reduce.

[5:14:25] Thank you, I currently have no further speakers, except for councilor Raman, please proceed. Thank you, and I appreciate the mayor’s comments on that, and appreciate the motion from my fellow council colleagues. I will be supporting this reduction. I do think at this time that building reserves when people are telling us that they’re going to struggle to manage the tax basis, difficult to discuss and difficult for us to go forward with. I look forward to looking at annual surplus policies and policy tools that we can use to be able to address this in the future when hopefully things are better.

[5:15:06] But as for now, I will be supporting this reduction. Thank you, looking for further speakers online. I see none in chambers. I see none calling the question. Building the vote, motion carries 11 to four.

[5:15:47] Thank you. Next up is motion for business case P-46. This is councilor Raman and councilor Stevenson. It has to do with economic and partnership initiatives. The wording is, okay, if you refresh, it’s in the system, it is on the screen. So councilor Raman’s ready to move this now. Councilor Stevenson is good to go with the seconder. I have a nod. So councilor, if you could please just read out your motion and then I can start my speakers list with you if you wish. Thank you.

[5:16:20] The motion reads at the mayor’s 2024 to 2027, multi-year budget be amended by reducing business case P-46, the economic and partnership initiatives, action number 12 by 450,000 from 2025 to 2027. And then you’ll see, excuse me, that the operating expenditure from 2025 to 2027 shows a reduction of 450,000. Thank you for that. Speakers list starting with you, please proceed. Thank you and through you and I’ll be brief in my remarks.

[5:16:52] So when I was looking at this particular business case and what was supported in P-46, specifically item 12, you’ll note that that is the development of a new economic development framework and strategy. I appreciate and applaud the mayor for undertaking a strategy to look at a comprehensive framework analysis. And I saw that he moved money from the economic development reserve fund in the amount of 450,000 in 2024 to even get that started sooner.

[5:17:30] And then also allocated $1 million from that fund so that there would be funds to be able to start those initiatives. So I applaud that energy. I think that’s great. What I have concerns with, what I want to be consistent with and stay true to is that if we have a strategy or a framework that we come up with, that we fund that strategy and that framework after we’ve seen said strategy and framework. So allocating 450,000 in 2025 through to 2027 to fund this work or move forward with it, I think is premature.

[5:18:09] And so especially when we’re faced with budget pressures, I think this is a way to say, responsibly to the community, we’re going to see what comes out of those discussions. We’re going to see how to proceed. And from there, we’re going to move forward with the funding that supports it. It’s similar to what we did last week with downtown. What we pulled funding out of was around strategies that were from 2015 that were sitting in our budget. So I do think that this is consistent and it allows us to find some savings and also to fund the things we support in the future as it comes forward.

[5:18:48] Thank you. Just let me pause your time and then I will recognize Mayor Morgan. So I probably say, yeah, pretty good for this one through my last comments. So just so I’m clear on what I was attempting to do here. In the originally contemplated plan, we were going to start the planning in 2015. You’re right, I pulled from the economic development reserve funds so that we could start that planning work with the support of Mr. Mathers who said, yes, we can start this work sooner if we put the money in 2024, that’s there. Then I added a $1 million contribution to the Act to have reserve funds.

[5:19:23] So we actually fund the strategies later. And then added 450,000 starting in 2025 to make sure that we’re boosting the economic development reserve fund over time to fund the strategies. That being said, with respect to my previous comments, these are levers. And so I think I will support the reduction of the 450,000 into the reserve fund in 2025 and beyond, because again, there is already still a $1 million going into that, which will allow us to execute on the plan in the short term. We can ramp this up over time if we need to, once we know what the plan is, through either annual budget updates or other mechanisms on a one-time basis, depending on what the initiatives are, they may not be all permanent tax-supported initiatives.

[5:20:04] They may be one time. And I also will say, we have the ability if we hold that $1 million that’s still there, which I would speak vigorously against reducing. We can roll that into other base budgets if there are permanent staff or something to be needed or initiatives for the execution of the plan once it’s developed by Mr. Mathers and his team and partners. So I’ll support this reduction. It’s an alignment with, I think, the last vote we just made. And I think the Councilors for bringing this forward, again, this was one I thought maybe would get adjusted by Council too.

[5:20:36] So I’m not surprised the Councilors brought it forward. I think this is one of those levers that we can adjust once. And I’m also not surprised it came closer to the end of the debate. And maybe it’s the end of the debate or the budget debate, I don’t know, because this is something that we can control to try to make that fluctuation on the tax rate. So I applaud the Councillors for bringing it forward. I think that amount is responsible, not going too deep, but going far enough that it makes a difference and I’ll support their amendment. Narraging the process by saying we might be close to the end, but thank you. I will note, I do still have other emotions.

[5:21:12] I am still hopeful that we’ll get through them today. So just, we are already at 320-ish. So just keeping our comments tight. I do see Councillor Stevenson in for— I would just like to see the modeling. Chair, can I, are you gonna have comments through? You just wanna look at it. Do you wanna speak to it or just look at it? Okay, so while staff gets at ready, are you ready now? You were born ready. You threw the chair.

[5:21:47] So the impact of this reduction would be a drop from 8.9% in 2025 to 8.8%. The remaining years as well as the four-year average would remain unchanged though. So it’s a 0.1% rounded reduction in 2025. Thank you, Councillor Ferrer. Thank you, through you. So I’m glad that Mr. Marie was able to show us the modeling I was interested on that as well. I will be supporting this reduction for reasons for myself.

[5:22:22] I’ve been talking about funding the downtown master plan and I do wanna do that. But with respect to earmarking funds and not having a definitive plan and I did have some emails going back and forth with the staff and I had that motion ready to go, but I thought it would not be the prudent choice to bring it on the floor just because we are trying to reduce that property tax rate increase. So with the same sentiment that I see here, I’ll be supporting that just because I see it the exact same way. Thank you.

[5:22:54] Looking online for further speakers, looking in chambers for further speakers, seeing not in either location, calling the question. Seeing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, I’m moving on to, we have been given notice of business case PL3.

[5:24:15] This is gonna be moved by Councillor Stevenson. Councillor Prabill, you’re still okay to be the second. I have a nod if you refresh e-scribe it’s in there. If you remember, one point we did discuss business case PL3. At that time, it was a motion to remove the entire case. This one before you is roughly half the funding. I’m dealing it to be materially different enough that it could come forward as it does have a mover and a seconder.

[5:24:48] I’ll also note in the beginning, the entire case failed two to 13 and we did spend an hour and a half discussing it. So looking to the mover to read their motion. And then I could start the speakers list with Councillor Stevenson if they wish. And then I would just ask your comments or just material to what’s on the floor as you already have a lot of background information on this one, Councillor Stevenson. Okay, thank you. So the motion is that the mayor’s 2024 to 2027 multi-year budget be amended by reducing the funding for business case PL3, more homes built faster act, built 23 statutory exemptions, 2024 operating expenditures reduced by 1,800,000, 2024 tax levy reduced by $1.8 million and the same for all the years through to 2027.

[5:25:43] Thank you. Would you like to be the first speaker? I would, yes. So I don’t need to talk about this a lot ‘cause nothing has changed from the last time. Just a reminder that we have had four provincial ministers commit to making the municipalities whole that this is not a statutory requirement to put into the reserve fund. It is a prudent business choice to alleviate any concerns that we might not be made whole. So I understood the lack of interest in removing it completely.

[5:26:17] This would still contribute 13,600,000 over the four years. It does put 1.4 million in 2024. Truthfully, I brought this forward looking for the money for transit. I still would really like to bring the tax levy down. I am open to a lower amount if that’s more of interest to my colleagues, but I’ll leave it there and see what everyone else has to think to say. Thank you. That was one minute looking for their speakers on this item. Just checking online, Deputy Mayor Lewis and then Councilor Trossa.

[5:26:54] Thank you, Madam Chair. So I’m glad this is a lower amount, but as we’ve heard several times today, provincial funding is not something we can rely on receiving nor is federal funding. So through you, Madam Chair, I would like to ask and I don’t know whether this would be Mr. Mathers given that it’s related to our being made whole under bill 23 or whether it would be through Ms. Barbone in terms of our ability to continue, should the province not come through with funding?

[5:27:34] What impact this would have on our ability to keep putting pipes in the ground and doing the things we need to do to build our homes? Okay, I would start jostling over there, but Ms. Barbone first and then Mr. Mathers if you would like to add on. Thank you through the chairs. So the way the development charges work is that ultimately through the development charges background study, we determine the cost of the infrastructure that has to be funded through development charges. Based on that, we calculate what the by-law has to fund over the next number of years.

[5:28:10] So with the statutory exemptions, those exemptions exempt those that are eligible under the new DC rules. So those amounts are not paid, which means that the development charge funds are short that amount of funding. So legislation expressly prohibits raising those funds through development charges in the future. So the requirement to fund those exemptions are placed upon the municipality because we have absolutely no other source to fund to make sure that the amount of that money is there to support the infrastructure that we are committed to building based on what we’re raising funds for.

[5:28:50] So in the event that there is a shortfall that has to be funded either through the tax rates or through the rate supported budgets where we have budget amendments also in the water in the wastewater because those are also funded through the infrastructure. So in the event that we have a shortfall, so we know based on the costs that we are in the process of trying to finalize calculations for 2023 that we are short collections based on those exemptions well in excess of $10 million. It’s closer to 13 to 15. We’re trying to finalize those calculations based on the data in our Amanda building system.

[5:29:26] Those have to be funded. I have no source for those. We anticipate that probably in the realm of $10 million is expected for this year. And as building continues, those exemptions will only grow. This is the source that we have and that we are recommending to fund the cost of those exemptions. Without that funding, we have absolutely no source to try to make those reserve funds whole. That leaves us with going to a reserve fund which I would caution against doing with respect to our Moody’s AAA credit rating because downward pressure on our reserve funds in the future could certainly put a downward pressure on our AAA credit rating.

[5:30:06] So that’s certainly something that I would strongly advise you to consider and put in a reduction. So I know that we’ll be coming forward with a needing to fund the 2023. There is a gap for 2024 based on what we anticipated, even on what we’ve put in that we will need to manage. So that is the risk. There is not any other options other than to fund these amounts to make the development charge amounts whole. Mr. Mathers, did you wish to add anything onto this? Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[5:30:39] And thank you, Ms. Barbara, for that very clear answer and laying it out for us where we are right now. And that’s why I can’t support this one. You know, Bill 23 is what almost a year old now or thereabouts, we still don’t have all the regulations. We’ve been told we were going to be made whole. We haven’t been told how we’re gonna be made whole. There was an announcement at AMO about the Building Faster Fund, but that doesn’t consider the number of permits that we get our job done by getting through our staff, getting through to builders to pull those permits.

[5:31:17] Those permits sit there. And if shovels aren’t in the ground, we don’t get anything from that Building Faster Fund. And so that goalpost has already been moved on us once. I don’t want to be like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football that Lucy’s holding and have that goalpost moved again. Until we get a really clear indication from the province of exactly how they’re going to make us whole, I just can’t create a bigger shortfall because the next year we’ll have to fill the gap twice. And that’ll hit the budget doubly hard next year. So I’m not comfortable gambling on this coming through.

[5:31:54] I hope it comes through. It would be great if it did, then we’d be in a surplus position and then we can put that funds towards something else. But until we know for sure, I just can’t take the gamble on this one. Thank you, Councillor Troisau. And then Councillor Hopkins. And Councillor McMaster, I’m just gonna note too that this did fail last time. If you start here a consensus, I’m gonna ask that you just keep your comments short and not repeat it, just to help our day proceed for efficiencies. Councillor Troisau. Are we able to, in whole or in part, allocate this money to a particular other business plan, perhaps one that failed?

[5:32:35] Would that be out of order? I’m not sure what you mean ‘cause this money is required for its statutory obligation. Yeah. My question is if this passes, where does that money go? So I will just recap that last time it failed two to 13. And I’m not hearing much support for it this time.

[5:33:12] Do you mean it’s money that we haven’t collected yet? Good staff answer? Through the chair, I’m not sure I entirely understand the question. Is the question when where does the money that is for this business case specifically go? Is that what you’re asking or the reduction? Or is it hopes that if we collect this money and we don’t end up needing it, how do we reallocate it? Should this motion pass? Would it just necessarily be a reduction in the levy or could this council direct that some or all of the money be reallocated to a different business plan, including one that failed?

[5:34:08] Ms. Barbone. Thank you through the chair. So if this were to pass, this would reduce the amount that is being allocated to fund the exemptions. So if this passes, this is reducing the tax levy and removing the funding away from being able to fund the exemptions and the legal liability that we have. But that money would then be available for us to spend on something else, theoretically, correct? Procedurally, a person can always make an amendment for a new business case idea or a reconsideration of one that didn’t pass that you were passionate about, if that helps answer your question.

[5:34:56] Okay, I’d like to make a motion to amend this then to say that the 2025 operating expenditure of $1.8 million be used to fund the 2025 public library board addition to the base budget. Okay, procedural, I need a few minutes with the clerks to look into that.

[5:35:30] I’ll ask would you, there’d be a seconder out there for what the councilor just stated. Colleagues, I’m not seeing a seconder. Okay, it appears you would not have a seconder for that, Councillor Truffsau. Would you have further comments at this time or would you let me proceed with the rest of the speakers listed, which would include Councillor Cuddy and Hopkins. Councillor Cuddy and then Councillor Hopkins.

[5:36:05] Thank you, Madam Chair and through you. Recently, I asked Mr. Murray, what would trigger a downturn in our AAA credit rating? And I believe Mr. Murray told me that a drastic reduction in our reserve fund would trigger that. Is that correct, through the chair? Sorry, the mayor was talking to me. He’s got something else, so he might need to be next on the speaker’s list. So I did miss the questions. The appropriate staff, please, to Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, through the chair.

[5:36:39] So what I will say is that there are a lot of factors that Moody looks at in assessing our credit rating. However, the two primary things that they specifically point to are our debt levels and our reserves and reserve funds. So they have consistently told us that a material increase in debt and/or a material decrease in reserve funds could potentially trigger a ratings adjustment. Thank you for that correction.

[5:37:13] I forgot the debt part, but I do remember that now. As much as I’d love to support this motion, and I think Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Pribble for bringing this forward, I don’t think I can, because the event that we aren’t made whole, we’re just, we have our risk is too high, so I won’t be supporting this, and thank you. Mayor Morgan. Yes, I’ll be very brief, I don’t put this into context. If we don’t budget for the money, and we build affordable housing, and it’s not enough, we have to fill out the DC fund anyways.

[5:37:47] And to give you an example of the magnitude, Vision Soho, which we all talk about in love, was $8 million of DC exemptions. So we have another Vision Soho. I can tell you, we’re setting aside what, 3.3 in 2024, which is a combination of players. Like that is the magnitude that we’re talking about. If we are aggressive on affordable housing, we’re gonna find ourselves in a hole, if we start reducing this. I think already staff have tried to balance it with the long-term projections in the roadmap to 3000, with the level they put in. If we start toying around with this, and we’re successful on affordable housing, we’re gonna have a hole that we don’t have a source of financing to fill it with.

[5:38:24] So I think we should just leave this one alone. It was a pretty divided vote last time. I just wanted to share the Vision Soho number so people understand the magnitude of an affordable housing development exemption, and what it can do to this sort of fund, if we’re not careful. Councillor Hopkins, did you still wish to speak to this? I’ll be very brief. The risk is way too great. I won’t be supporting this. Councillor Pribble. Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff, just because I know we had numerous conversations about what this went with you.

[5:38:56] But the example the mayor said, when we collect the DC charges, we collect them from any projects we can, and then we decide which projects they go to based on the priority of the city. It’s not that specifically it goes. It’s collected from this specific project. It has to go to this project. So just to clarify it for me, if I were to go with Mayor’s example, it doesn’t mean that if we had another project that we would not, another Soho, it doesn’t mean that we would not be able to move forward because we do have quite a bit of money in the DC Reserve Fund.

[5:39:38] And couldn’t be used for that if we had another Soho. To staff, thank you through the chair. So what that example is, is that the reserve funds that are to fund the infrastructure in the future is short money. So perfect example with Vision Soho is, those $8 million were not collected. They were anticipated to be collected as part of the reserve funds to fund the infrastructure in the future. So $8 million needs to be put into the reserve fund to fund the projects that are already in the DC background study that have gone forward.

[5:40:14] So the individual projects are all part of the development charge background study that is approved through the by-law. So it’s those projects that ultimately, if that funding is not at the level it’s supposed to, we’ll not be able to proceed because we’re short funding and have to make them whole, to be able to have enough money to move that forward. So it’s that $8 million that the city is basically backstopping to put into the reserve funds. So although the reserve funds have money in them, they cannot be used to offset the reductions through the exemptions. The development charge legislation expressly prohibits the use of those funds to make up the shortfall.

[5:40:54] Councilor. Thank you for that question. And historically, we really did have another Soho tomorrow. And we know we are collecting zero DC funds from this project. Would we have to let it go? Or could we tap into our DC reserve fund to fund another great Soho project too? To staff, thank you through the chair. So if another project were to come tomorrow, they would not, if they met the qualifications of the exemptions, they would not pay.

[5:41:32] So the project is proceeding, but the projects that are within the DC background study, which are many, many different projects to support the growth are going to be short money. That money has to be funded by the municipality to backstop that. So that, what it will do is that the city is obligated to look for a source, which would ultimately at this point, we would need to tip into other reserve funds that are tax supported reserve funds, which are not designated for this purpose and that have not been raised.

[5:42:04] So this is where, as we proceed, I don’t have a funding source. We will be going to reserve funds and we’re going to be using money that is not allocated for this purpose, which is going to further put downward pressure on the reserve fund levels that we have. So that is the problem is that that additional liability that we now have to fund the cost of those exemptions, we don’t have a source for. So we can go to a city funded reserve fund, but I can tell you that as we’re funding the multi-year budget, the reserve funds are starting to be used and are going down in balances.

[5:42:38] So there’s very little opportunity for us to start to use those that will lead to, if we have a sustained reduction in our reserve funds, a potential downgrade in our really struggling credit rating. Councilor. And last one, it’s going to be really quick. I do understand with what you explained to me that at the end, yes, we could be potentially short, if we don’t collect from higher levels of government, but to be honest with you, yes, it does have to do with this motion because it’s up, up. But on the other hand, I just want to kind of, if really this opportunity came up, we wouldn’t have to drop it because we could have, because we prioritize our DC reserve fund.

[5:43:16] So we would not lose an opportunity for Soho too, because we could do that. I do understand that at the end of the road, we could be short, but we could re-prealertize. Is that correct? Ms. Barbone. Through the chair, the re-prioritization of what gets funded through the development charge study is through our GMIS process, that Mr. Mather’s team brings forward annually. So that’s still, even with that, there’s still a shortfall that ultimately has to be made up, even when that occurs, because those funds were still anticipating the exemptions to be fully funded.

[5:43:57] Thank you, Councillor, you go okay? Okay. I believe Councillor Rama was next. Sorry, I misspoke. I don’t wanna say I lied. Hadley, sorry, Councillor McAllister. Thank you, I was about to call a point of order, ‘cause I’ve been missed a few times. I know I’m in the corner, but come on. Thank you, and through the chair. So, I know we talked about this before. I’m looking at it in a different light right now, in terms of not that I wanna play chicken with the province, but I do think we need to reduce their runway. And my issue with this is, I don’t wanna touch it necessarily for 2024, 2025, but I’m looking at the last two years.

[5:44:35] And I think we need to start saying to the province, I’m playing a bit of a hard ball and say, I’m looking at saying amendment to reduce 2026, 2027 to something like 500,000, like half a million dollars. So, put something in, but I think we need to start showing the province that, look, there’s an election coming in 2026. You keep saying we’re gonna be made whole. I keep hearing that. I’ve heard it ad nauseam for years now. And at some point, we’ve gotta say, are you gonna make good on this promise? And I think municipalities need to push back a little bit. And this may be one way where we can push back. They’ve got their two years.

[5:45:06] There’s an election cycle coming up. If they’re serious about making us whole, I say we try. I know, come 2026, we might have to have this conversation again, but I think we need to start doing things to show them that we’re serious about this. So, I’m open to amending this to not touch it for the first two years, but I think we should drop it at the back end of our multi-year. Hey, also my speakers list of Councillor Stevenson and Councillor Raman. I believe Councillor Raman was first, but realizing my speakers list has had many iterations throughout today.

[5:45:44] Councillor Raman. Thank you, and to staff. I’m wondering if you can comment on whether or not you consider the 1.8 million material or not, because we keep hearing that the downgrade is based on the materiality of the amount of what we take from the reserves and that Moody’s would be looking at the materiality of that. What I see, I think, is on balance. I actually think that the mover and the seconder were quite thoughtful in the way that they’ve crafted this to consider that idea of materiality and whether or not it would cause potential downgrades.

[5:46:32] I don’t think it’s drastic. I don’t think we’re leaving it with nothing. I think we’re considering an opportunity that’s not as maybe robust as the First Amendment. Ms. Barboon. Thank you through the chair. So the 1.8 million is a reduction to what was already put forward. But what I can tell you is that $10 million in 2023 that we have no funding source for, and then another fraction in 2024 that’s going to need a source is going to put significant downward pressure.

[5:47:10] So 1.8, you could probably argue, may or may not be material, but when we’re looking at already beyond a $10 million funding source required for 2023 and very little in the future, I think that, and further pressure in the future, I certainly think we’re heading down that path of having some very non prudent decisions being made as to what liabilities the city of London has to pay. So I think certainly from that perspective, if the province does come forward, I think the prudent decision would be then you recognize that revenue and these can absolutely come out.

[5:47:47] I think certainly from my professional opinion, based on the fact that the province has never funded exemptions historically before, I think it is highly unlikely the province, irrespective of the let’s make a city whole, will fund these exemptions. I think there’s many other costs and implications of the bill that has come forward that we may be successful in, but I do not think in much likelihood that there is any traction that we will get this. I hope that I am firmly wrong so that we can take this out, but I don’t have any other alternatives, unfortunately, other than to fund this, because whether you fund it through the property tax base, the only other alternative is we’ll be going to reserves.

[5:48:29] And if it’s not funded in its entirety, the only other alternative you have is to start pushing out infrastructure projects through the GMIS process, which will impact future subdivisions if that funding is not there. So that will impact the housing targets that the city of London has. Thank you, Councillor Rama to follow up. Ooh, so much to follow up on there. Okay, so let me start with, I have heard quite clearly that four ministers are saying that they are committed to making us whole.

[5:49:05] And although we know that that is a bit of political rhetoric, we’re in the business of politics. And I wanna say that one of the things that I see here is that this is our staff being very prudent about how we should manage our dollars, and I understand that, but I also think that we have to look at the fact that we are not alone on this. This is not just us. This is all cities, municipalities across Ontario that are faced with the same pressures that are having the exact same conversations that are saying, hey, you promised us that you’re going to make us whole.

[5:49:44] And you’ve been saying this consistently since you brought in Bill 23. When it comes to the tax supported reserve funds, we’re now talking about potentially 10, which is now potentially 13 to 15 million, plus the 1.8, is that something that we can support through our tax supported reserve funds? Staff. Thank you through the chairs.

[5:50:15] So I think certainly without having a really detailed review of every single reserve fund, I would say overall no. This is certainly the only one that we would have flexibility with at this point is our contingency reserve fund, which already is going well below the target, and certainly have already used it for a number of temporary funding sources. So I think certainly from my perspective, nothing has ever been put aside for this. It is a significant amount, and that trying to look at other reserve funds will certainly put some of the business cases and some of the plans that are in council strategic plan and jeopardy of not being funded, because there are large reliance on reserve funds going forward.

[5:50:57] Councilor? Okay, thank you. I appreciate that answer. I personally, and I agree with the councilors, there’s a reason why we keep going back to this, because it is putting those pressures on our budget, and it seems like we are trying to ensure that the province pays us and makes us whole, and yet in order to do that, we have to pass that on to the taxpayer, and it’s really not sitting well and comfortably with any of us, and I think that is why we keep revisiting this.

[5:51:34] That’s why we keep revisiting this conversation, because I think people need to get that message very clearly that this is the case. So I appreciate the amendment. I’ll support it, because I do think that it’s a protest vote at this point, and that’s where I’m at, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hopkins, did you take the chair for a moment?

[5:52:09] I have the chair, and I have you on the speaker’s list. Thank you. Absolutely, none of us like this. And I think perhaps it’s the joy of serving as a municipally elected official, and downloading, we’ve heard from staff clearly that if we don’t make a plan for this, other ramifications that could be fall us, and then it’s us that’s responsible, the tax papers and us who didn’t prepare and protect them properly, and helping them plan with taxes and expenses across all property tax categories that we have, as much as I would like to probably do a protest voter, just responsibly as a councilor for me and the budget chair, I can’t.

[5:53:01] I would love to, I would love to. But knowing that the credit rating and what would happen to our cost of borrowing, that if we all decided to do a protest vote in this past, we would have an issue. So I would love to cast that vote. It’s not a privilege I can take with taxpayers. Thank you. I will now return the chair, and Councillor McAllister is next. Sorry, Councillor McAllister, I would get back to you. I did have Councillor Stevenson, and apologies for not looking for enough in the corner of prior.

[5:53:39] Thanks, just a couple of things. Maybe a question to staff ‘cause I’m really having trouble that well, 1.8 reduction in annual reserve fund payments is gonna put our credit agency rating. I don’t think that’s what, I don’t think that’s what was meant, but that’s what’s being said now, is that we can’t support a $1.8 million reduction per year. We’ve got some very, very large amounts coming out of our reserve funds and debt to cover some very large projects.

[5:54:12] So just some clarity there. To Ms. Barbone or Mr. Murray. Thank you, I’ll take a crack at this one. So absolutely not, we are not saying that $1.8 million is going to make or break our AAA credit rating. What we are saying though, is that we know we have a gap already for 2023 of North of 10 million, we know that even with a contribution to backfill for these lost revenues, we are still very likely to be short in 2024.

[5:54:49] And it’s that continued chipping away, I guess you’d say at our other funding sources, if we’re having to rely on other reserves or reserve funds and drawing on those balances for purposes other than they were intended for. That is where we start to run the risk of a sustained downward pressure on our reserve fund balances that could then put our rating in jeopardy. Councilor? Thank you. And just wanted to follow up when we talk about the $8 million on the SOHO project. That’s the exemption.

[5:55:22] So it’s like lost revenue on what we could have got under the old rules. But do we know approximately what it costs us? Like what this incremental costs are for the, that’s an infill project. I would assume it’s nowhere close to the $8 million, but I’m not, that’s not my area of expertise. But do I know, ‘cause we keep talking about this shortfall, but it’s a shortfall on what could have been, doesn’t necessarily, or does it relate to actually what is gonna be, it’s gonna cost us in that area? To staff. Thank you for the chairs.

[5:55:54] So the exemptions relate to exactly the amount of development charges that would have been paid, that are not. So as an exemption is given, that equal amount has to be put into the reserve funds to fund that exemption on a statutory basis. Because when development charges are calculated, they’re calculated on the gross basis. And that’s how they’re determined. So the exemptions then are funded on a one-to-one basis. So as the exemptions come forward, that shortfall is what we need to legally backfill to make sure that the development charge revenue is calculated as it was anticipated.

[5:56:31] Councilor. So you’re seeing there’s a statutory requirement to put that missing 8 million into the DC Reserve Fund, and I see heads nodding, okay, I didn’t understand that. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor McAllister. Thank you. And I am willing to put forward amendment in terms of, like I previously indicated, to not touch 2024, 2025. But I still think it’s totally with our right to have a protest vote, and I would encourage for 2026 and 2027, I’m willing to reduce it by 800,000.

[5:57:08] I know typically it’s around 750 in terms of dropping by 0.1%. But I think we need to send a signal to the province. That’s an election year. I honestly think that we should take this opportunity to do something. I know it’s not gonna affect the tax base hugely, but I do think that it sends a signal in terms of this is something we’re watching. There is an election coming up and make it on your promise. As we’ve indicated, foreign ministers told us they’ll make us whole. I think we should do something on this one. So I would like to put forward amendment to change, removing 2024, 2025, and dropping 800,000 for 2026 and 2027.

[5:57:54] And I don’t have a seconder, but I will look for one. Okay, so I will look for a seconder before I get into clear key issue questions. No, I would need a seconder before we can start questions on a potential amendment that’s on the floor. Is this a seconder of that? I’m willing to second if it’s a worthwhile endeavor here, if it’s not, do you know what I mean? Like if I’m not opposed to dropping it down, if council supports that, otherwise I don’t need to keep doing this.

[5:58:31] You would have to make that decision for yourself. I can’t do like a pre-vote of interest and test the waters for you. You’ve heard colleagues comment. I’ll support my colleague with the seconder on his amendment. Okay, so council McAllister, can you just repeat? If it was 2020, oh my God, there’s no 2020s. 2026 and 2027, were you dropping it to 1,000,000 or 800,000? Reduction, it would be just 800. Yeah, you’re reducing, it would be just taking out 800,000 for 2026. - So 1,000,000 for 2026 and 2027.

[5:59:13] No, no, no. Yeah, 800,000 is what it would be. 800,000, reducing by 800,000. I just think the number you want on the screen, 800,000 for 2026 and then 800,000 and 2027. I’m not, yeah, don’t just forget about the 1.8, it’s just, it would just be a reduction for each of those years by 800,000. Okay, so you kept saying it was 800,000 and then you say it’s a reduction of about 800,000.

[5:59:45] So those are different things. Do you want it to be a million dollars for tax or 800, 800? So the screen will read 800. I feel like I’m playing the prices right now. Councilor Stevenson, you’re fine with the 800. Yeah, we’re just getting those numbers correctly on our side. It’s in the E-Scribe.

[6:02:45] Okay, if you refresh, it’s in, so if the mover and seconder, well, everyone, if you want to refresh, it’s in the E-Scribe, looking to the mover and seconder to see if, okay, just a second, we have a finance issue now. I’m just holding the speakers list until this is correct for we can start off correctly. I just want to note that the 2024 and 2025, it wouldn’t be touched.

[6:03:30] It was just for the latter half. So we’re gonna need clarification. We have different interpretations from finance clerks and colleagues. So I’m not touching, it’s at zero for the first two years for 2024 and 2025, and then it was just 2026 and 2027 where we’re making a reduction. Okay, is that up?

[6:04:41] Mayor may not be right. Okay, so it may or may not be right. We have a question to finance just for clarification on tax levy stuff from the mayor. I’m gonna allow it to help, hopefully move us. And I want to get to the debate ‘cause I want to speak to this. But I think the confusion here and I think our finance staff have to help is, if you look at the actual business case, there is not across the board, like increases to the tax levy to fund this fund. There’s 3.3 into the tax levy in 2024, then another 1.7 on top in 2025, then another 1.6 on 2026, and then none in 2027.

[6:05:21] We’re actually increasing it. So Councillor Stevenson said, just reduced the first year by half, but the other year’s all stayed intact in the business case. So the problem is like colleagues are looking at the 1.8 being reduced in 2024 is just carrying forward for the rest of the time. If you make 1.80 in 2026 and 2027, you’re actually restoring and adding to the tax rate in those years, the reduction that you made in 2024. So this is not like a great way to do things because colleagues have to look at the tax impacts that are happening in that year.

[6:05:58] It always carries forward in the subsequent years. So you don’t change 2026 and 2027 in this motion because this motion is really only the reduction in 2024, being carried forward four times. So I think that’s where the confusion is and why you’re not getting the motion that you want. And so I think you just have to articulate to staff what you’re actually going for because I can tell you the tax increase in 2027 is like zero. We’re not asking for any more money in 2027. We’re only asking for 1.6 in 2026, 1.7 in 2025 and 3.3 in 2024, which Councillor Stevens has a motion on the floor to adjust.

[6:06:38] So I don’t know what Councillor McAllister wants to do, but he’s probably got to look at those incremental increases in the tax rate to make adjustments to it because we’re only really talking about the 2024 piece right now. Deputy Mayor Lewis, you’re just stretching. Okay, you’re not actually risen on a point of something. Councillor McAllister and Stevenson, I don’t know if you want to scoot-close together to discuss any of the information or finances here. Councillor Ferra, you’re just going to have to hold tight unless it’s a point of order or privilege.

[6:07:14] Just bear with us for a moment, please. Can we remove this amendment? It’s on the floor, moved and seconded. If no one objects to it being removed, we can just remove it that way, but if someone objects, we have to processally, not even a word, do stuff. Does anyone object to this being withdrawn? Seeing none, the original wording will go back in as moved and seconded.

[6:07:46] I will go back and find my speaker’s list. Just give me a minute ‘cause I move some papers. Okay, so we’re back to the original one by Councillor Stevenson and Preble. It’s an eScribe on the screen. The original speaker’s list is still intact and I had Mayor Morgan next to the best of my knowledge.

[6:08:25] Okay. I’m going to make two comments. One is on the financial decision that this is, and so this is not a good one. Yes, we can say 1.8 million might not be enough. And what our staff are saying is not that that is going to cause our credit rating to change. It’s the fact that we are not actually putting money into this fund to be able to fund the next vision Soho or the next affordable housing project. And it’s when we go and try to find where do we get the six or eight or five million dollars to backfill the DC fund for that?

[6:09:01] Where we draw that from, if we raid reserves on that, that’s what puts our rating at risk. That’s the thing that they’ll look at as like, that’s not a good idea, that’s irresponsible. So it’s as we continually have to backfill from other sources because what this business case is, is let’s actually use the tax base, start raising money so that we can actually pay these things on an ongoing basis for as long as we have to. If the province makes us whole, we get to back this out in an annual budget update because they’re going to be putting money directly into the DC funds for us. And then that’s when you see the tax reduction.

[6:09:36] But we actually have to start setting money aside. Otherwise, we have to find it from somewhere. And if that finding it from somewhere is raiding a bunch of reserves, that’s what’s going to put the high-level risk that our staff are saying. So that’s my first, my second point. On the idea of the province and doing something in the election year, and I don’t know if other amendments are going to come forward. And I’m going to walk back my earlier comments a little bit when I talked about the province and social assistance rates. Because the province has been like a good partner here on a number of fronts within the housing space.

[6:10:11] And I know Minister Flack has gone to the wall for London on a number of asks that we’ve had. He sat on our side of the table during ministerial meetings saying, you got to give London what they need here. Like, he’s been a great partner. So I don’t want to poke him or anybody else in the eye. I want to recognize the work that they’ve done by doubling our HPP funding and investing in London and saying we’re going to be part of health and homelessness. And we are using provincial money for part of that work. This might not be what you like, but there are active, positive engagements happening.

[6:10:45] Minister Calandra is looking at the decisions they’ve made and starting to change them. This is a positive atmosphere that is happening right now between the discussions that AMO and Ontario Bixi mayors are having with the minister to say, can you please take a second look at the impacts of Bill 109 or Bill 23? And you’ve seen Minister Calandra change some of the previous decisions. And so I don’t think this is the time to start to make protest votes or talk about the provincial election year. This is the time to lean into the collaboration and say, yes, we are good partners.

[6:11:21] Yes, there are impacts on municipalities. And we got to sort through this together because at the end of the day, we actually have the same goal here. And that’s building more housing. And in some cases, building more affordable housing. And so the province is trying to make that a little bit cheaper. Yes, there’s an impact on municipalities. And we have to have that conversation about how that impacts us and how we make it whole. But I think we can do that in a collaborative way. And we need to continue to do it with the collaboration that’s happening rather than make a motion here in London City Council that really isn’t adding to the productiveness of the conversations that we’re already having with the province.

[6:11:56] So I think it is easy through the budget process for us to hope from time to time at the province and at the feds. And yes, that’s because we often are, you know, having to fund things that maybe we haven’t funded before. But that doesn’t mean that we haven’t had really great partners on a number of common priorities that we have had through this process. And I don’t want that to be lost when we start to have comments like this. So please don’t support this. Let’s actually be responsible and put the money aside. And then let’s continue to work with the province to find a way to all celebrate the reduction in the tax rate in a multi-year budget update when we can find a solution together on this and the other things that we’re engaging with them on, including our work on health and homelessness.

[6:12:39] So I know I was a person who did make some comments today too. I walked those back and I want to lean into the collaboration piece because I think this doesn’t serve us well as a municipality if we pursue this. Thank you and that concludes your five minutes on this item. Councilor Raman, you’re next and I have you at three minutes, you so please proceed. Thank you, I appreciate the mayor’s comments on this. I will say though that I see this as a step towards collaboration because I’m saying I believe you for ministers of the crown that are saying that this is going to be fully funded and we’re going to be made whole.

[6:13:19] And I believe you so much that I will make sure that the money is not somewhere except that you can then provide it. I do think that we are running into a risk, I agree. I think that this number is not the full amount so I think that that’s clear that we can make some other moves if necessary with our reserve funds if needed. But I do think that we are not asking the province to do enough and to do it quickly because this does have impact.

[6:13:59] So I wanted to ask the question because I’ve heard that the province could announce that this funding is coming as early as potentially March 1st. So if that’s the case, if there’s possibility that there’s more, there’s announcements coming on this on being made whole, how would we address that announcement and when would that happen? I know based on the mayor having strong mayor’s powers, budget updates are now under his domain as well. So I’m just wondering if someone can speak to that from a process perspective. And I’ll note too of when the announcement wave versus when funds actually flow to us.

[6:14:38] To staff, I’m not answering it, so. Thank you through the chair. So I don’t have any information. We collectively do not have any information at this point around when an announcement may be coming or what that looks like in terms of amounts that we may be receiving or timing of receiving set amounts. If there were to be an announcement at some point later this year, the opportunity would be to bring a budget amendment through our annual budget update process next year to right size and reflect what the new requirements would be based on the new information that has been provided by the province that we become aware of at that point.

[6:15:14] Thank you. Council, you have 30 seconds remaining. Thank you, so just to clarify the question. So only in 2025 could we make that change. There’s nothing we could do for the impact this year. Mr. Murray. Thank you through the chair. So unless the budget’s final or not final, there wouldn’t be an ability to adjust in 2024.

[6:15:51] So if this announcement were to occur before the finalization of the budget, it could be incorporated, but if it were to come after, I wouldn’t see us making an in-year adjustment. I wouldn’t see it flowing through 2025. Councilor Robin, 20 seconds. Can the mayor answer whether or not he would bring an in-year adjustment if that was possible? I’d have to talk to our finance staff about the appropriateness of the timing of it. I think like depending on where our current shortfalls were with funding the 10 million, we might have to just make sure that we boost that up.

[6:16:26] So I think this is, I’m not opposed to the idea, but I think I’d want to talk to our finance staff about what the most responsible approach was from the timing given the whole that we currently have and given when the money would actually flow to us. So, but I think positive news, you want to get out there as quick as possible and you want to incorporate into the budget process as soon as you can, but I would actually have to have a conversation with the details with our finance staff before I would do anything on that. Councilor Robin, appreciate the answer. Thank you. Looking for further speakers and chambers are online.

[6:17:02] Councilor McAllister. Thank you and through the chair. I do appreciate the debate. I know didn’t necessarily go where I thought it was going to go, but I do stand by my comments in terms of, I think we have to also be firm with the province. I don’t think, you know, it falls on us to essentially make up these shortfalls. One of the questions I always get from residents, whether they be in my ward or London in general is always, well, you know, the province is saving me money on this, but in reality, it’s not, it’s a shell game. And this is a great example where something has just been shuffled to us and we are now having to make up that shortfall.

[6:17:39] And so I just wanted to take this opportunity to remind people that, you know, you can be mad about the tax rate, but this is a great example of something that used to be growth pays for growth and now it’s the tax payers paying for the growth. And so that is a part of this that really needs to be called out and I just want to take this opportunity to explicitly say that. I will vote against it, recognizing what staff have said, ‘cause I don’t want to put us in a bad position, but I also want Londoners to know that this is something that has been hoisted on us and we’re not necessarily in favor of it, but it’s something that we have to do, unfortunately, to be prudent for the province on their behalf.

[6:18:16] So those are just my thoughts. Thank you. Yeah, Councilor Tressa, I think you’ve only used about a minute if you want to proceed. Just a question to follow up the last speaker. How do we do what you just said with some additional language in the motion? Is there a way that we can encapsulate what you just said, which I thought was very good into a motion? There is not.

[6:18:48] I would say you had asked prior about tax bill inserts and items like that will be coming to corporate services committee and perhaps a conversation that you can incorporate some other things into, but today is not the space for that. And we would do that if and when we decided we wanted to put the insert into the tax thing about the provincial part of it? Yeah, there’s a report coming. I don’t want to do spoiler alerts, but there’s a lovelies report coming.

[6:19:21] Ms. Barboon, if you want to just tell us the timing of it and then we can proceed hopefully with calling the vote on this one. Thank you through the chair. We have that included in our tax policy expectations. We have a section in there to address that, to give Council a vehicle to have that discussion at the next corporate services. I see no further hands, online, in chambers. Last call, calling the question. Boating the vote, motion fails three to 12.

[6:20:21] Hey, that takes care of that item that was for us, all motions that were circulated in advance have been disposed of either through committee or changes behind the scenes that currently exhaust motions that I was made aware of. It is four, four, 12. Looking to committee to see. I will note two things. One, we would need a motion to adjourn.

[6:20:54] And secondly, the mayor wanted to make an announcement that procedurally, no, he’s good, he’s now good, okay. So I have nothing else for you today. Oh, water wastewater had no changes to it. So it stands as the mayor already put his budget forward on that, we don’t need to do anything with it. Deputy Mayor Lewis? Madam Chair, I’m gonna move adjournment. I would need a seconder and I have one in Councilor Ferra. Okay, it would be a system vote just procedurally as this has been a four day meeting to make sure that we’re warranted being done.

[6:21:34] I don’t believe there’s debate on adjournment procedurally. Procedurally until there’s no debate on adjournment. Point of order is fine as long as it’s not debate. If there are other applicants who have filed business cases that are not in the mayor’s budget, do they not have the ability to still have somebody come forward with a motion to include them during the statutory period, which is not exhausted yet?

[6:22:22] I would be, I believe the notice of motion that the clerk told us of the deadline, I believe was the 21st to do a notice of motion. Those would become before us at Council on the 29th procedurally, we would take leave, deal with any notice of motions we’ve been given and circulated in advance. And that’s how you would deal with anything else that comes up between now and the 29th. Procedural of question only, Councillor Ferra. I believe this is a procedural question. After the PPM, what happens after we listen to all the delegates or people who are gonna be speaking at the public participation meeting?

[6:22:59] And if we have some changes we’d like to bring to the budget, is there a possibility there? ‘Cause that’s kind of what I was under the impression. It could be, I’m advised, if it’s deemed an emergent motion, you could bring it forward. And we’d need two thirds vote of council to hear it. That’s our happens of procedural question.

[6:23:40] There is the motion for adjournment. I would like to understand what that adjournment means compared to recess. Recess would be that we would come back at a future date, though I have no business before us. Adjournment would mean that this budget meeting, that’s been a continuation every day, is concluded and done. So if we asked for recess, there would be opportunities to bring forward amendments. Yes, and then another date would be.

[6:24:14] Without the notice of motion required, ‘cause we would just have another budget date. If that is procedurally your question. So what’s before you, since it was procedural questions, Councillor for a procedural question. Not necessarily procedural question, but I misinterpreted the procedure, so I would have to regrettably withdraw my second for that, ‘cause I do feel that a recess would be more appropriate. Okay, I have a seconder in Councillor Stevenson. So, motion to adjourn is that the budget committee date that was held for next Thursday would be released as chair, I would release it as I would have no business, ‘cause we adjourned.

[6:24:52] So if you are okay with adjournment, you vote yes. If you are not okay with adjournment, you would vote no. Procedurally, Councillor Trussow. Well, those two people’s rights under the art. That doesn’t sound like a procedural question. Well, it sort of is because I still think we can’t cut off the rights of budget claimants to make a motion during the 30-day period. That’s in the statute. Yeah, you do have a right at council.

[6:25:25] There’s notice of motions, and it’s Councillors who would need to work and bring things forward, not the community at large. Understood, but they should not need a two-thirds vote to get leave to put it on the table. The notice of motion, I don’t believe it’s two-thirds. You would need to take leave at two-thirds. The clerk is available to help you walk through the council procedural bylaws for questions today and outside a committee for the differences of notice of motion in your deadlines versus having leave taken at council. Well, that’s nice, and I understand I can contact the clerk, but I think they’re members of the public watching this who may have thought they were going to come forward with other things next week.

[6:26:13] Okay, I have a motion to adjourn on the floor. It’s gonna be a vote in e-scribe, just making sure it’s loaded. Okay, calling the question. Building the vote, motion carries 11 to four. Thank you, the meeting is concluded.