February 26, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:00 PM it being noted that Councillor P. Van Meerbergen was in remote attendance.

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That consent items 2.1 and 2.2 BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

2.1   Respectful Workplace Policy 2024 Update

2024-02-26 Staff Report - Respectful Workplace Policy Update

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports, and concurrence of the City Manager, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Respectful Workplace Policy 2024 Update Report from the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE RECEIVED;

b)    the proposed by-law, as appended to the staff report dated February 26, 2024 as Appendix “A”, being a by-law to repeal Council Policy By-law CPOL.-396-7, being “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination)” and replace it with the updated Council Policy entitled “Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination)”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024; and

c)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to review and update all policies and websites that refer to the Respectful Workplace Policy (Anti-Harassment/Anti-Discrimination).

Motion Passed

2.2   SS-2024-072 Single Source Mobility Contract

2024-02-26 Staff Report - Single Source Mobility Contract

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports the following actions be taken, with respect to Mobile Devices and Services:

a)    approval hereby BE GIVEN to approve an extension to the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers Communications Canada Inc. (“Rogers”) to March 31, 2025; it being noted that the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement was a single source procurement approved pursuant to s. 14.4(g) of the Procurement of Goods and Services policy;

b)    the proposed by-law as appended to the staff report dated February 26, 2024 as Appendix “A”, BE INTRODUCED at the Municipal Council meeting to be held on March 5, 2024:

i)    the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE AUTHORIZED to approve an amending agreement to extend the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers from February 1, 2024 to July 31, 2024;

ii)    the Deputy City Manager, Enterprise Supports BE AUTHORIZED to approve an amending agreement to extend the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement between The Corporation of the City of London and Rogers from August 1, 2024 to March 31, 2025, conditional on the Ontario Master Agreement between His Majesty the King in right of Ontario and Rogers being extended to March 31, 2025 or beyond March 31, 2025;

iii)    the Mayor and City Clerk BE AUTHORIZED to execute the amending agreements to the Master Agreement Adoption Agreement;

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

d)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation negotiating the maintaining of satisfactory prices, terms and conditions with Rogers Canada Co. to the satisfaction of the Director, Information Technology Services; and

e)    approval hereby given BE CONDITIONAL upon the Corporation entering a formal contract, agreement or having a purchase order relating to the subject matter of this approval.

Motion Passed

2.3   2024 Tax Policy Expectations

2024-02-26 Staff Report - 2024 Tax Policy Expectations

Moved by P. Van Meerbergen

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the following actions be taken with respect to the 2024 Tax Policy Expectations:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to include an individual line item on the 2024 City of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet identifying the impact of legislative changes set out in the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget; and

b)    on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the staff report dated February 26, 2024 BE RECEIVED for information.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Items for Direction 4.1 and 4.2 BE APPROVED

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

4.1   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - U.N. Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

2024-02-26 Submission - Proclamation-UN Day for Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated February 8, 2024 from the London & Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, March 21, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED as U.N. Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Motion Passed

4.2   Application - Issuance of Proclamation - National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Day

2024-02-26 Submission - Proclamation-National Hunting

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That based on the application dated January 22, 2024 from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters OFAH, September 21, 2024 BE PROCLAIMED as National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Day.

Motion Passed

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

None.

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session to consider the following:

6.1 Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

6.2 Land Acquisition / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice / Position, Plan, Procedure, Criteria or Instruction to be Applied to Any Negotiations

 

A matter pertaining to the proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, including communications necessary for that purpose; advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; commercial and financial information, that belongs to the municipality and has monetary value or potential monetary value and a position, plan, procedure, criteria or instruction to be applied to any negotiations carried on or to be carried on by or on behalf of the municipality.

Motion Passed (4 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 1:26 PM to 1:38 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 1:41 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 (25 minutes)

Because as budget chair, this is feedback I heard from colleagues of how we would do this, how we would count for it and thank you to the finance team for working with me on this as it did go through finance and legal. And it can be done with the current staff complement and the current funding that they have and implemented for the tax bill that comes out in May, if committee and council makes a decision on this item now. And just for transparent to the public about how we pay for things and what we are paying for on the tax levy. This was for transparency to meet with those conversations we had from colleagues so.

So, for your support of this in advance, and happy to answer any questions as would Miss Varbona and her team as they were fully aware of this going to the conversation. And just for those on e scribe that the motion is that civic administration be directed to include an individual line on the committee and for a city of London final property tax billing and their accompanying property tax pamphlet, identifying the impact of legislative changes as set out in the 2024, 2027 multi your budget and this report from staff be received. So happy to be part of the conversation and thank you for moving this at committee today. Okay, I have Council Roman with speakers list.

Go ahead. Thank you and through you and thanks to fellow counselors for moving this motion and bringing this to committee today. Supportive of the direction, excuse me to include the individual line item on our property tax bill. However, I just want some more clarity if possible around the impact the language or an impact of legislative changes.

I know we have said, you know, that, or sorry, in the multi your budget, the staff draft report, it had the legislative changes outlined. However, there are some things that are almost in a gray area that are in some of the business cases which, depending on whether or not you see it a certain way, it could be considered a provincial download, whether it’s from insufficient funding from the province or from the federal government in some cases that the city is now being asked to assist with from a business case from another organization. So how would we deal with some of treat some of those? Would we just refer to legislative changes as the ones that we outlined in the draft staff report as being those specific to the legislative change.

Thank you to staff. And I know comes to mind, I know we had a spirited discussion about Bill 23, for instance, so I’m wondering if you could, you know, add to Council Romans question in terms of what would be included. Thank you through the chair. So the very clear choice in the language to refer to the legislative changes.

I was outlined in the multi your budget is so that the public understands and can draw a line directly to how council and ultimately the final budget is outlined. So when I refer to the mayor’s budget that was presented on February 1st, there is a very clear sub total with respect to the tax levy impact from legislative change business cases. So those business cases were very, very clearly set out as a result and separated from the majority of the other business cases that were presented to the public and to council. That is the line specifically that we are referring to because they were very clearly outlined and that somebody if they were unaware what those changes were referring to on their tax bill could then have a source to go back to and look.

When you look at the number there’s 13 business cases in total that are included and they range from mandatory download of part three responsibilities from the province the Provincial Offences Act, all the way through to the statutory exemptions on the more homes built in to extract there is an item on long term care, but one of the more significant items is the next generation 911 center based on the police business case that was put forward. So there are a number of items there’s 13 business cases in total. There may be others below that they may have elements. However, they were not separated out solely as tied to being specifically legislative changes.

That is how we are suggesting would make the most sense that the public would then have something in the document and ultimately in the approved budget to show what those total charges would be from a budget perspective. And then ultimately that would translate through on the tax bill of approximately based on an average assessed value of about $53. Councilor follow. Thank you and through you.

That’s yeah, thank you. I appreciate that clarification. I did have some questions related to the report itself, but if you want me to do this now or do you want to finish up this piece first. Go ahead now if you’d like.

Thanks. On, I just trying to think the page number it’s in 2.1, but it talks about the discussion and considerations in the reassessment. There is an example where it says it talks about the different inputs and the. The very real question that I’m getting, which is what happens when we get reassessed.

I’m wondering if you might be able to help us with how that is explained encapsulated in here. Yeah, that is a pretty common perception is that an increase I get that question from my own family as well. So we have a tax rate that we calculate by using our total weighted assessment value to create our residential rate and then that gets extrapolated using our ratios to the other classes. So what we’re trying to raise is the budget levy budgeted tax levy.

So unless that’s going up, you know, you say, well, maybe my my house value is going to go up 50%. Well, unless the levee is also going up 50%, that’s not going to be your increase, right? We adjust the rate downward so that we raise the appropriate amount of tax levy. So, for example, if the average increase for residential properties is 5%, or 50, or what I guess I used 30%, but the average or the levy increase is only 5%.

Then you’re still going to adjust your rates so that the average increase is 5% for residential properties. So if your property assessment goes up more than the average, then you’re going to pay more than the levy increase. If your property is up and goes up less than the average, then you’ll pay less than the average increase on the levy. So is that provide any clarity all of them?

Thank you. It does. Yes. It’s just helpful.

I wish there were better illustrations for how we can demonstrate this because I do know this is a question I get quite frequently, especially from newer homeowners who just don’t have an idea of what their house value may be now or based on what perhaps their purchasing price was. And when they see their impact assessment, they know that it’s quite low and they’re trying to figure out how that’s going to impact them. I know we have a calculator or we did at 1.4 current value, but I’m just wondering, you know, we can’t predict what’s going to happen in the future, unfortunately. But I do know there’s been some discussion of this being evaluated by the province as well.

So does that follow up through the chair to the committee. The pending reassessment that’s currently on hold right now has been in front of mind for civic administration for a number of years. And the strategy that civic administration was going to implore and use when reassessment comes out is it definitely an education campaign and a communication campaign, not only to counsel and committee, but also to the community, be it our business property owners, as well as community at large. So that is first and foremost on our plan.

Once we get notification from the province that the reassessment is going to occur because of the confusion that we all have with the impact of assessment on our property tax bills. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, it’s very helpful.

And I appreciate that the city’s forward thinking on this and that we’re planning to do some education because I do think this is a concern and a worry for residents. I just wanted to turn to 2.2 the business education tax rate. I was looking specifically at the efforts that Mayor Holder and others did to the minister at the finance and minister of public services. And I know this issue is still kind of somewhat unresolved.

And I’m just wondering if maybe you can comment on where we are from from the perspective of trying to get get some resolution through the dispute advisory panel. Just through the chair. Yeah, we have submitted to the dispute advisory panel case saying that we disagree with them paying the lower rate. And that’s a little different between when there’s a disagreement between the federal legislation and the provincial legislation.

When we’re payment in lieu of taxes, it’s not the same as taxes. We have legislation to enforce the taxation rates, but this is a matter of interpretation and so far there’s been no response from the dispute advisory panel to resolve this. Councilor follow up. Thank you.

Appreciate the status update and your continued efforts on that. Thank you. Okay. I’m actually going to take this opportunity to make some comments and then I’ll go to Councilor Perbal unless there’s anyone else.

So I’m happy to support this as well. Just in terms of providing some more information to the public. And I think Ms. Burboni spoke to this.

I’m just wondering where something like Bill 23, for instance, falls. I know we had a long discussion in terms of that is a cost. Obviously, the municipality is having to cover. And this is obviously the discussion about making the municipality whole again, but that is a larger shortfall, which we are having to pick up the bill on.

So I’m just wondering, would that be captured in this? Or is this something that we need to explicitly call out as a separate line item? Thank you, through the chair. So based on the testing and the legislation, we can do one item separately.

We cannot do more than one separately. So I would throw that caution out if you were trying to suggest we would have more than one item. As part of the legislative, the 13 business cases that are referred to, the bill 23 statutory exemptions is part of that. So it’s one of the components of the 13 items that have been listed as legislative impact.

There’s provincial other legislation that the 911 center, I would say, is primarily CRTC legislation. So they’re not all necessarily pure provincial legislation, but legislative in total. Thank you for that. And I’m just also wondering, in terms of some of the business cases as we’ve gone through the multi year, some of them had previously been funded either provincially or federally.

So would those be captured in this as well, or how are we dealing with those ones? Thank you, through the chair. So anything that is a business case from P1 all the way through to P87, none of those are captured within, because they were not identified clearly as a legislative case. They’re ultimately council discretion.

So legislative was very, very pure in terms of we are absolutely required to do so to comply with the legislation. Anything that was below that is presented as a choice for council ultimately was not classified as legislative because there is a choice whether council wishes to proceed with that or not. So the business case that you’re referring to would not be captured in that as an example, because it’s even though it may have primarily been paid for by the province previously. It’s ultimately council’s choice, whether it wishes to proceed, and it’s not obligated from a legislative perspective.

Thank you for that. I’m just wondering then, I’m not trying to create work with staff, but in the future would there be a possibility as we’re doing the multi year budget to have those called out. I’m just wondering in terms of clarity for the public, because I think I don’t know all my colleagues feel about this, but I do spend a lot of time having to explain what used to be provincial and what is now falling on us. I understand in terms of we get the ultimate decision whether or not to fund it, but I do think that there’s a lot of misinformation in terms of what is within our ability to fund because really we have our things we absolutely have to fund, but there are a lot of things that the province is now downloading to us that we would love to fund if we had those kind of resources, but we don’t.

So I’m just wondering, this doesn’t necessarily have to be for this time around. I would love for that to be the case, but I don’t want to create work for staff. But perhaps in the future, is there a way that those things could be presented to the public? Thank you through the chair.

So the way the budget’s been presented this time around, particularly given it’s a multi year budget. The legislative component goes right out till 2027. So when you look at the mayor’s budget that was tabled on February 1st, you can see the impact of those business cases through to those through right through till 2027. The same is also true of the others, although they have been classified separately and really what we’ve tried to use from a legislative perspective and a definition that was outlined in the multi year budget was to differentiate between what council had to do versus what it had a choice to do.

Certainly in the future, looking to the next M.Y.B., if council wishes to have another category or something that is separate, that is certainly something that we could look to do. We’d have to make sure we had a very clear definition to make it clear and to explain to the public what that category would entail. But I think trying to pull them out separately, given where we are in the multi year budget process might be challenging to define to the public at this point in time. And thank you for that.

And I recognize those challenges for sure. I think, I mean, from my own perspective and what I hear from my constituents is, I mean, primarily, a lot of those would be either around housing or health care, right? Those are the two categories that I hear the most about. And even for instance, we had a number of cases before us in terms of CMHA, right?

And those are things in terms of municipality now having to fund health care. And so those are the concerns that I hear and I think if we had to create some more line items, definitely bucketing those and housing and health care would be beneficial for the public. And those are my questions. I know Councilor Perbal had a few, so go ahead, Councilor.

Thank you, sir, the chair to the staff. Last week, we talked about the office, the residential conversions and the grants that our city will be offering. And I wanted to ask in terms of the process and timing, how will that work in terms from the commercial use to the residential and when in the process, when and timing, when will this change occur and potential owners taking advantage of this grant, when will the new classifications apply to staff? Thank you through the chairs.

So primarily that’s driven through the impact process, but I can refer that to Mr. McMillan, who can walk you through the impacts and the timing of how that works. Thank you. Thank you through the chair.

So these conversions will require building permits to make the change and impact. Does their assessments once they get a completed permit notice? So there’s always communication between the building department and impact to say, you know, first to identify that there’s a permit. But then once it’s complete or there’s an occupation, impact will then based on that completion date, do the current value assessment and make the assessment in class change based on that date.

No, those may not be received right away, but they will be backdated to that date. Once the city receives the notice from impact, usually in the form of supplemental assessment. Councilor, follow up? No, thank you for that.

No, follow up on that. I have one more question from the against the chair to the staff. The educational portion talks on the commercial properties has been backed out. So the commercial properties currently don’t pay the portion of educational tax.

Was this, by the way, done? Is it done on a temporary basis or is there kind of no limit to it currently to staff? Through the chair, I’m not quite sure I understand the question. You’re saying that there’s no education portion of the property tax being paid by some properties?

Yes. So I don’t feel it’s couple of years ago. So commercial properties, the commercial property owners, they used to pay also the educational portion of the tax for about couple of years ago, and they don’t know. It was backed out.

Commercial properties do not pay educational portion of the tax. I was just wondering if this was on a temporary basis, or is this with no limit for ever staff? Okay. To the chair, I think you’re referring to the significant reduction in education tax.

So they still are paying the education tax, but at a lower rate than previously, because it used to be 1.25%. And now it’s down to 0.88. So there’s significant savings there. If they go to residential, multi-residential, the education rate is even lower at 0.153.

So there will be a reduction there as well. Councillor Falwell? No for that. Thank you.

Okay. I’m not seeing any other questions on this one. So we’ll open the voting for it. Okay, we are now where there’s no scheduled items.

So we’re now on to items for direction. So there were two applications for proclamation. They did have London connections. Thank you to the clerks for following up on the other one.

So I will look for a mover. Councillor ramen. Seconder, Councillor Cudi. Okay.

We’ll vote on those together. So we’ll vote motion carries 40. We have no deferred matters or additional business. We are now on to confidential.

So could I get a motion to move into closed session? Okay. Councillor ramen. Councillor Cudi.

Thank you. Okay. We’ll open that for voting. Just give us a moment for folks to shuffle up.

Closing the vote. Motion carries 40.0. Recording in progress. Recording stopped.

Okay. Welcome back, everyone. I always hope that we have some elevator music between those pauses, but we’re back in public session. Councillor Cudi, if you could report out.

Thank you. Through you, chair, committing that in private session from 125 to 140 to discuss confidential matters. We made progress on those matters discussed. Thank you.

Thank you. And that exhausts our agenda items. I’m looking to adjourn. Okay, Councillor Cudi.

Councillor ramen. Thank you. Once again, everyone. That was a super efficient meeting.

Thank you. vote those in favor any opposed now we’re good thank you thank you