Open Council

5th Special Meeting of City Council

Open Council

5th Special Meeting of City Council

February 29, 2024, at 1:30 PM

Original link

The meeting is called to order at 1:33 PM; it being noted that Councillors 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.

At 1:37 PM, Councillor C. Rahman enters the meeting.

2.   Recognitions

None.

3.   Review of Confidential Matters to be Considered in Public

None.

4.   Council, In Closed Session

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.1    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.1/2/Budget)

4.2    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality. (6.2/2/Budget)

4.3    Personal Matters About Identifiable Individual    

A personal matter pertaining to identifiable individuals, including municipal employees, and communications necessary for that purpose. (6.3/2/Budget)

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 1:37 PM to 1:48 PM.

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That Council rise and go into Council, In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering the following:

4.4    Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice

A matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality with respect to provincial legislation and municipal procedures.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

That Council convenes In Closed Session, from 2:18 PM to 2:47 PM.

5.   Confirmation and Signing of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting(s)

None.

6.   Communications and Petitions

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the following communications BE RECEIVED, and BE REFERRED as noted on the Added Agenda:

6.1 Public Participation - Budget

  1. W. Brock

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That, pursuant to section 6.4 of the Council Procedure By-law, a change in order of the Council Agenda BE APPROVED, to provide for Stage 12, Emergent Motions, to be considered after Stage 7, Motions of Which Notice is Given.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

7.   Motions of Which Notice is Given

7.1   Councillor A. Hopkins - Amendment - Business Cases: P-L8, P-L9, P-28, P-29, P-57

2024-02-29 - A. Hopkins - Notice of Motion - Police Budget Cases

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by E. Peloza

That pursuant to section 11.3 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GIVEN for the introduction of a notice of motion to consider amendments to the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget.

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That the correspondence dated February 21, 2024 from Councillor A. Hopkins with respect to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-L8, P-L9, P-28, P-29, P-57 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

12.   Emergent Motions

12.1   (ADDED) Councillor S. Trosow - Amendment - Business Case P-8

2024-02-29 Emergent Motion - Budget - S. Trosow

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by J. Pribil

That pursuant to section 20 of the Council Procedure By-law, leave BE GIVEN for the introduction of an emergent motion to consider amendments to the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget.

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by J. Pribil

That the correspondence dated February 22, 2024 from Councillor S. Trosow with respect to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-8 BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.   Reports

8.1   1st Report of the Budget Committee

2024-01-29 Budget Report 1

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 1st Report of the Budget Committee BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.1.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.1.2   (3.1) Public Participation - Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following written submissions for the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget 2024 Public Participation Meeting BE RECEIVED for consideration by the Municipal Council as part of the Multi-Year approval process:

  •    a communication from S. Turner;

  •    a communication from J. Paterson;

  •    a communication from G. Genereaux;

  •    a communication from M. Does;

  •    two communications from C. Butler;

  •    a communication from E. Yi, Executive Director, London Arts Council;

  •    a communication from C. Cadogan, Chair, London Black History Coordinating Committee;

  •    a communication from N. Blanchette;

  •    a communication from P. Free Cooper, Interim Marketing Project Manager, Grand Theatre;

  •    a communication from L. Davis;

  •    a communication from N. Kearns, Head of Props, Grand Theatre;

  •    a communication from P. McIntyre;

  •    a communication from the Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication from T. Burnett;

  •    a communication from the Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

  •    a communication from M. Quinton;

  •    a communication from B. Morrison and M. A. Hodge;

  •    a communication from D. Stanford;

  •    a communication from R. McDowell;

  •    a communication from L. Karidas;

  •    a communication from Peter;

  •    a communication from J. Kraehling, Associate Director, Michael Gibson Gallery;

  •    a communication from K. Pagniello, Executive Director, M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer, T. Kiefer, Housing Support Worker, Neighbourhood Legal Services, London and Middlesex;

  •    a communication from B. Maly, Executive Director, Downtown London and S. A. Collyer, Board Chair, London Downtown Business Association;

  •    a communication from A. Shah;

  •    a communication from S. Lewkowitz, Doctoral Candidate, Geography and Environment, Human Environments Analysis Lab, Western University;

  •    a communication from AM Valastro;

  •    a communication from C. Kennedy;

  •    a communication from M. Miksa, Executive Director, London Cycle Link;

  •    a communication from London Collective Action; and

  •    a communication from D. Szpakowski, CEO and General Manager, Hyde Park Business Improvement Association;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

  •    P. Moore;

  •    N. Judges;

  •    N. Branscombe, Member, London Police Services Board;

  •    S. Hall, Vice-Chair, Ecological Community Advisory Committee;

  •    J. Idsinga;

  •    T. Mahoney;

  •    M. Walker, Vice-Chair, London Police Services Board;

  •    M. Cassidy, Chief Executive Officer, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    S. Regalo;

  •    R. Higgins ;

  •    E. Yi, Executive Director, London Arts Council;

  •    P. McIntyre, London Downtown Condominium Advocacy Group;

  •    D. Pasquino;

  •    S. Ratz;

  •    N. Gilby;

  •    M. Denver, Amabile Choir of London, Canada;

  •    C. Smith;

  •    R. Cress;

  •    E. Klassen, Executive Director, Grand Theatre;

  •    R. Peake, Artistic Director, Grand Theatre;

  •    W. Lau, Chief Executive Officer, Leads Employment Services;

  •    D. Koontz;

  •    B. Mejia, Executive Director, Argyle BIA;

  •    R. Graham, Chairperson, Argyle BIA;

  •    J. Guilfoil;

  •    C. Beynon,  Amabile Choir of London, Canada;

  •    Z. Habib, Director, Sunfest;

  •    H. Edge, Chairperson, Forest City Gallery;

  •    M. Miksa, Executive Director, London Cycle Link;

  •    L. Derikx, Interim Executive Director, London Environmental Network;

  •    T. Cull, Antler River Rally;

  •    J. Dunn, Executive Director, London Abused Women’s Centre;

  •    V. Da Silva;

  •    M. Hodge, Climate Action London;

  •    B. Morrison;

  •    M. Wallace, Executive Director, London Development Institute;

  •    J. Hamm;

  •    M. Rowe, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Urban Institute; 

  •    D. Stanford;

  •    A. Voth, Executive Director, London Symphonia;

  •    C. O’Neill;

  •    D. Szpakowski, CEO/General Manager, Hyde Park BIA;

  •    B. Samuels, Chair, Environmental Stewardship and Action Community Advisory Committee;

  •    N. Nadea;

  •    E. Poirier, VP External Affairs, Western University Student Council; and

  •    B. Couto.

Motion Passed

8.2   2nd Report of the Budget Committee

2024-02-01 Budget Report 2-Complete

8.2.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That items 1, 2 (2.1), and 3 (3.1) of the 2nd Report of the Budget Committee BE RECEIVED.

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.2   (2.1) Staff Presentation

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the budget presentation from the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.3   (3.1) Mayor’s Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the budget presentation from the Mayor BE RECEIVED;

it being noted that the Mayor’s Proposed Budget was provided to each member of Council, the City Clerk, and the public on January 31, 2024.

Motion Passed

At 2:18 PM to 2:47 PM, Council convenes In Closed Session, for the purpose of considering 4.4 Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice.

8.2.4   (3.2) Amendment - Business Case P-5

Motion made by E. Peloza

That items 4 (3.2) through 21 (3.37) of the 2nd Report of the Budget Committee, with the exception of items 14 (3.27) and 15 (3.28), BE RECEIVED.

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED to remove Business Case P-5 – Fire Department Breathing Apparatus and Breathing Apparatus Decontamination (Amended – funding deferred from 2024 to 2026), and that this Business Case BE REFERRED to the 2028-2031 MYB noting that the equipment’s lifecycle renewal is 2031.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

8.2.5   (3.5) Amendment - Reserve Fund

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.6   (3.7) Amendment - Business Case P-26

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.7   (3.11) Amendment - Business Case P-38

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.8   (3.13) Amendment - Business Case P-27

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.9   (3.14) Amendment - Business Case P-34

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.10   (3.16) Amendment - Business Case P-48

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.11   (3.17) Amendment - Business Case P-53

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.12   (3.19) Amendment - Business Case P-2

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.13   (3.25) Amendment - Business Case P-62

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed

8.2.16   (3.32) Amendment - Business Case P-36

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

8.2.17   (3.33) Amendment - Business Case P-51

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

8.2.18   (3.34) Amendment - London Public Library Base Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.19   (3.35) Amendment - Business Case P-30

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.20   (3.36) Amendment - Business Case P-69

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.21   (3.37) Amendment - Business Case P-56

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

8.2.14   (3.27) Amendment - Capital Project PD1218

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.2.15   (3.28) Amendment - Capital Project RC1036

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

8.2.22   (3.38) Amendment - Business Case P-46

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by increasing Business Case P-46 to include actions 3 and action 6:

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

2025 Operating Expenditures:   $75,000, 2025 Tax Levy: $75,000  

2026 Operating Expenditures:   $75,000, 2026 Tax Levy: $75,000  

2027 Operating Expenditures:   $75,000, 2027 Tax Levy: $75,000

Motion Failed (4 to 11)

Motion made by S. Lewis

That, pursuant to section 10.5 of the Council Procedure By-law, with respect to the Chair’s ruling that the amendment to item 22 is in order, “shall the ruling of the Chair BE SUSTAINED?”

Motion Passed (9 to 6)

Motion made by E. Peloza

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 (14 to 1)

8.2.23   (3.3) Business Case P-7

Motion made by E. Peloza

That items 23 (3.3) to 45 (4.4) of the 2nd Report of the Budget Committee, with the exception of items 24 (3.4), 26 (3.8), 27 (3.9), 39 (3.30) and 40 (3.31), BE RECEIVED.

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-7.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.25   (3.6) Business Case P-9

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-9.

Motion Passed

8.2.28   (3.10) Business Case P-37

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-37.

Motion Passed

8.2.29   (3.12) Business Case P-42

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-42.

Motion Passed

8.2.30   (3.15) Business Case P-39

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-39.

Motion Passed

8.2.31   (3.18)  Business Case P-63

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-63.

Motion Passed

8.2.32   (3.20) Business Case P-56

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-56.

Motion Passed

8.2.33   (3.21) Business Case P-L3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-L3.

Motion Passed

8.2.34   (3.22) Business Case P-40

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-40.

Motion Passed

8.2.35   (3.23) Business Case P-51

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-51.

Motion Passed

8.2.36   (3.24) Business Case P-53

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-53.

Motion Passed

8.2.37   (3.26) Business Case P-65

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-65.

Motion Passed

8.2.38   (3.29) Business Case P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-15, P-16, P-17, P-18.

Motion Passed

8.2.41   (3.39) Business Case P-L3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-L3.

Motion Passed

8.2.42   (4.1) Tourism London

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the submission from Tourism London BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.43   (4.2) Upper Thames River Conservation Authority

Motion made by E. Peloza

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

Motion Passed

8.2.44   (4.3) Covent Garden Market Parking Garage Repairs - Business Case P-66

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the submission from Covent Garden Market BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.45   (4.4) London Police Services

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the submission from London Police Services BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed

8.2.24   (3.4) Adj. #4

Motion made by S. Trosow

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Failed (6 to 9)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Adj. #4.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.26   (3.8) Business Case P-29

Motion made by A. Hopkins

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing Business Case P-29 by 5%:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$31,000     2024 Tax Levy: -$31,000

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$79,000     2025 Tax Levy: -$79,000

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$82,000     2026 Tax Levy: -$82,000

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$88,000     2027 Tax Levy: -$88,000

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

Motion made by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Franke

That the Mayor’s 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget BE AMENDED by reducing Business Case P-29 - Police Vehicle and Equipment Requirements by the following:

2024 Operating Expenditures: -$158,000, 2024 Tax Levy: -$158,000 

2025 Operating Expenditures: -$307,000, 2025 Tax Levy: -$307,000  

2026 Operating Expenditures: -$203,000, 2026 Tax Levy: -$203,000  

2027 Operating Expenditures: -$199,000, 2027 Tax Levy: -$199,000

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

At 4:25 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 4:32 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-29.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by D. Ferreira

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

Motion Passed

The Council recesses at 4:58 PM and reconvenes at 5:22 PM.

8.2.27   (3.9) Business Case P-31

At 5:23 PM, Councillor S. Trosow enters the meeting.

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by E. Peloza

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

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

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

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

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

Motion Failed (7 to 8)

At 5:27 PM, Councillor H. McAlister leaves the meeting.

At 5:29 PM, Councillor H. McAlister enters the meeting.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-31.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.39   (3.30) BusinessCase P-15

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

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)

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-15.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

Motion made by S. Franke

Seconded by D. Ferreira

That pursuant to section 11.11 of the Council Procedure By-law, the Council BE PERMITTED to proceed beyond 6:00 PM.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.2.40   (3.31) Business Case P-16

Motion made by D. Ferreira

Seconded by S. Franke

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 (7 to 8)

At 5:58 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan, places Councillor S. Lewis in the Chair.

At 6:00 PM, His Worship Mayor J. Morgan resumes the Chair.

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that the Budget Committee considered an amendment to the Mayor’s Multi-Year 2024-2027 Budget related to Business Case P-16.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3   3rd Report of the Budget Committee

2024-02-27 Budget Report 3

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the 3rd Report of the Budget Committee BE RECEIVED.

Motion Passed (15 to 0)

8.3.1   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

Motion made by E. Peloza

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

Motion Passed

8.3.2   (2.1) 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget Reconciliation to the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) Financial Statement Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken:

a)    the “Public Sector Accounting Board Reconciliation” (Reconciliation) regarding expenses excluded from the Mayor’s proposed 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget, as appended to the staff report dated February 27, 2024 as Schedule “A”, BE ADOPTED; it being noted that the Reconciliation was presented in the draft 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget released at the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee on December 12, 2023; and

b)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to update the Reconciliation to reflect the consolidated budget figures once available.

Motion Passed

8.3.3   (3.1) Public Participation - Budget

Motion made by E. Peloza

That the following written submissions for the 2024-2027 Multi-Year Budget 2024 2nd Public Participation Meeting BE RECEIVED for consideration by the Municipal Council as part of the Multi-Year approval process:

  •    a communication from W. Kinghorn, President, ACO London Region Branch;

  •    a communication from L. Tinsley;

  •    a communication from P. Kemp;

  •    a communication from G. Dendias;

  •    a communication from R. Ross;

  •    a communication from C. Beynon, Sr Artistic Director, Amabile Boys and Men’s Choirs, Professor Emerita, University of Western Ontario;

  •    a communication from C. McIntosh;

  •    a communication from S. Watters;

  •    a communication from M. Saito;

  •    a communication from C. Richards;

  •    a communication from B. Couto;

  •    a communication from J. Hannay;

  •    a communication from K. Sepi;

  •    a communication from L. McLean;

  •    a communication from R. Todd;

  •    a communication from B. Newell;

  •    a communication from M. Caldwell;

  •    a communication from A. Miller;

  •    a communication from J. O’Connor;

  •    a communication from M. Thiessen;

  •    a communication from K. Cassidy;

  •    a communication from J. Klar;

  •    a communication from J. Beltrano;

  •    a communication from J. and M. O’Connor;

  •    a communication from D. Pollock, President, Navigating Retirement;

  •    a communication from J. Notwell;

  •    a communication from K. Kaisar;

  •    a communication from K. Chartrand;

  •    a communication from A. Ausrotas;

  •    a communication from A. Moyer;

  •    a communication from N. Roberts;

  •    a communication from T. Potvin;

  •    a communication from A. Weiss;

  •    a communication from M. Peeff;

  •    a communication from H. Parker;

  •    a communication from C. Ramdharry;

  •    a communication from K. Barua;

  •    a communication from N. Brandon;

  •    a communication from J. Rodger, T. Smuck, J. Dunn, E. Farooqi and E. Rose;

  •    a communication from C. Murphy;

  •    a communication from A. Thompson;

  •    a communication from M. Brown;

  •    a communication from E. Akanbi;

  •    a communication from C. Montgomery;

  •    a communication from K. Chapman;

  •    a communication from B. Parkins;

  •    a communication from K. Pagniello, Executive Director and Lawyer, Neighbourhood Legal Services;

  •    a communication from L. Abidakun;

  •    a communication from H. Coggins;

  •    a communication from L. Bikos;

  •    a communication from K. Albarkri;

  •    a communication from B. Samuels;

  •    a communication from L. White;

  •    a communication from N. Fraser;

  •    a communication from P. Linardic;

  •    a communication from S. Lucas;

  •    a communication from J. Sayles;

  •    a communication from V. Van Linden;

  •    a communication from the Grand Theatre, London Arts Council, London Public Library and Museum London;

  •    a communication from J. Cordes, Past Chair, Middlesex London Food Policy Council;

  •    a communication from P. Moore;

  •    a communication from B. Amendola, Community and Social Service Volunteer;

  •    a communication from L. Thorne;

  •    a communication from H. Chapman;

  •    a communication from D. Brown, W. Thomas, C. Watson, Coordinator, Midtown Community Organization;

  •    a communication from N. Fraser;

  •    a communication from S. M. Chitty;

  •    a communication from W. Brock;

  •    a communication from D. Ronson;

  •    a communication from J. Seeler, Co-Chair, London Homeless Coalition;

  •    a communication from D. Prout;

  •    a communication from M. Cassidy, Interim CEO, Pillar Nonprofit Network;

  •    a communication from A. Angelus and L. Sturaitis;

it being noted that at the public participation meeting associated with this matter, the following individuals made oral submissions regarding this matter:

  •    J. Cameron;

  •    S. Pastuck;

  •    F. Swart;

  •    A. Zylawi;

  •    Mya;

  •    P. Watson;

  •    N. Fraser;

  •    A. Rolo;

  •    G. Manly;

  •    S. Shakaram;

  •    V. Lubrano;

  •    R. Kivilahti;

  •    V. Warner;

  •    G. Muhalek;

  •    L. Bikos;

  •    A. Gillis;

  •    N. Judges;

  •    W. Damstra;

  •    D. Pasquino;

  •    S. Jordano;

  •    M. Wallace;

  •    N. Fasi;

  •    A. Weiss;

  •    G. Langille;

  •    K. Bendikas;

  •    D. Doward;

  •    S. Ani;

  •    Kade;

  •    Robert;

  •    K. Pagniello;

  •    Ezra;

  •    N. Branscombe;

  •    J. McRoire;

  •    Frey;

  •    A. Hassen;

  •    D. Friesen;

  •    H. Chapman;

  •    R. Bloomfield;

  •    Unknown;

  •    D. Boyce;

  •    R. Unknown; 

  •    C. Villeneuve;

  •    B. Samuels;

  •    C. Tustian;

  •    B. Amendola;

  •    Justin; 

  •    Trin;

  •    AM. Valastro;

  •    Unknown;

  •    M. Walker;

  •    D. Prout;

  •    Reid;

  •    S. M. Chitty;

  •    J. Hanks;

  •    Tee;

  •    Kevin;

  •    H. Tallman; 

  •    Unknown; 

  •    B. Couto;

  •    S. Lake;

  •    J. Wareham;

  •    Unknown;

  •    E. Unknown;

  •    L. Farhan;

  •    Cassandra;

  •    Alison;

  •    H. Anser;

  •    M. Moussa; 

  •    Margarette;

  •    M. Aden;

  •    Murilo;

-    Vieno;

  •    Nicole; 

  •    Rachel; and

  •    Emmanuel.

Motion Passed

9.   Added Reports

9.1   4th Report of Council in Closed Session

That it BE NOTED that Councillor C. Rahman presented the 4th Report of the Council in Closed Session, by noting progress was made with respect to the three items noted on the Agenda and one additional item as noted in the Minutes.

10.   Deferred Matters

None.

11.   Enquiries

Councillor E. Peloza enquired with respect to the timing of the Mayoral Decision for the Mayor to veto an amendment passed by Council to the Mayor’s proposed budget.  His Worship Mayor J. Morgan provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

Councillor S. Trosow enquired with respect to the property tax deferment program.  The Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports provides information to the Council with respect to this matter.

13.   By-laws

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Introduction and First Reading of Bill No. 73, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by S. Lewis

That Second Reading of Bill No. 73, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (14 to 1)

Motion made by E. Peloza

Seconded by A. Hopkins

That Third Reading and Enactment of Bill No. 73, BE APPROVED.

Motion Passed (12 to 3)

14.   Adjournment

Motion made by S. Stevenson

Seconded by H. McAlister

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 6:22 PM.

Full Transcript

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

View full transcript (4 hours, 52 minutes)

[19:07] Thank you, please be seated. Okay, welcome to the fifth meeting of City Council, which is a special meeting, which means the agenda only really has budget-related items associated with it. All the other matters that you’ve seen at committees will be dealt with at the next council meeting. I’m gonna start by reading our land acknowledgement. We acknowledge that we are gathered today on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee, Lene Peiwak, and Adawandran peoples.

[19:41] We honor respect the history, languages and culture of the diverse indigenous people who call this territory home. We acknowledge all of the treaties that are specific to this area, the two-row Wampum Belt Treaty of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Silver Covenant Chain, fever-hunting grounds of the Haudenosaunee and the Enfant Treaty of 1701, the McKee Treaty of 1790, the London Township Treaty of 1796, the Huron-Track Treaty of 1827, with the Anishinaabak in the Dish With One Spoon Covenant Wampum of the Anishinaabak in Haudenosaunee, the three indigenous nations that are neighbors to the city of Lene and at the Chippewaz of the Thames First Nation, O’Nida Nation of the Thames, the Muncie Delaware Nation, all who continue to live the sovereign nations with individual and unique languages, cultures and customs.

[20:22] As well, the city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication supports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this meeting, please contact council agenda at London.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. As this is a special meeting, we don’t have a singer for O Canada, but not because I don’t enjoy all of your singing. We do have a recording of, if you remember, the choir that sung to us at the inaugural, that was recorded, and we’ll be able to play that today as O Canada, and if you want to sing along, you have a beautiful voice, you can turn your microphone on, or you can listen to and reminisce about that inauguration day and the beautiful rendition of O Canada that we heard.

[21:06] So if you stand and rise with me and we’ll get that playing, and thank you very much, O’Nida, thank you. Before I ask for a disclosure of beginner interest, I just want to highlight a couple of approaches to the agenda today, ‘cause it may be formatted very much like a standard council agenda with committee reports, although you’ll see one noticeable change.

[22:59] First is you look through the agenda. There was one councilor, Councillor Hopkins, who provided a motion to which notice was given, so that is there on the agenda, and we will deal with that. In the reports section, you’ll see the reports of the budget committee, and then you’ll see listed the amendments. So all of the amendments that were approved are listed first, so everything that the budget committee has passed and recommended. Now, some of those would have been things where, maybe not everything of a matter passed, but some of it.

[23:36] So we’ll deal with those when we get to that section as a group, much like a committee report, people will want to make possibly some changes or modifications to them. At which point, I would say, what would you like to deal with separately? And so from that, just that list of amendments, we would pull out the things that Councillors might want to deal with separately or change, and then we could deal with the rest of those budget amendments as consent. So we would pass them all together as a group, all of the things that remain that we agree on from the committee, or whether maybe you’re not obligated to vote the exact same way you did.

[24:17] Your voting records are all indicated exactly as it’s outlined in the report. So pull out the ones that you feel you need to, but we’ll leave the rest of them together. We’ll pass them as a group, and then just like any regular committee report, we would then go through all the ones that were pulled out separately that Councillors want to deal with. The next section is called Other Items. And so this is something that you might not normally see on a Council agenda, but out of respect for the process that we said that we would do. These are all the business cases or changes that were not successful in the budget process, but also provide a foothold for Councillors to revisit those items.

[24:54] Now, what happens in this section is, again, we will pass the kind of an it being noted that all these things were discussed as a general motion. If you don’t want to do that with one of these items, you could pull it out separately. We would dispense with the rest of them, and then we would deal with the ones pulled out separately where, if you so choose, you could either reintroduce a motion or some very similar version of a motion that was dealt with at that time based on any thinking or feedback that you’ve taken since then. So all of those are in there as things that were discussed and debated by the Budget Committee that you could use as an opportunity if you wanted to pull them out.

[25:33] And then instead of just noting that those discussions happen, make some sort of actual change. So at that point, we will deal with other items, but we’ll do amendments all first. We’ll take care of those. Then we’ll deal with all the other items. And then we have the, sorry, the third report of the Budget Committee, which is some more technical pieces and receiving of participation. Then we have added reports, deferred motions, and inquiries of which, I believe, sorry, did I miss emergent motions, where are they?

[26:14] Oh, sorry, inquiries, yes. Emergent motions, item 12. I know Councillor Trois has submitted something there. People can bring up emergent motions at that time as well. You didn’t have to submit ahead of time, although the threshold for leave is different under emergent motions than it is for notice of motions. I was asked by at least two colleagues where they could make at the end some sort of general statement on the Budget. There isn’t really any placeholder in the Budget, but we had the council meeting for that, and that’s just a function of the way the budget works now based on the new provincial legislation.

[26:49] Budget that was tabled is the budget, unless we make amendments to it. So it’s during the amendments that you can make some comments. Now, I would say, if you need to make, and I would ask that you keep it pretty tight, if during amendments, if we have a bunch of consent items together, and you wanna say, I support the consent items, and I wanna make this one general comment, that’s probably the spot where if you need to make a general comment, but I’ll just be clear, there is no spot for five minutes of wrap up general comments on the budget. It’s just the way that the process works. So, I would suggest if you got something that you wanna say, you might wanna say it during one of the amendments that you’re pitching, or perhaps in that consent motion.

[27:27] And again, I would say, probably try to keep it tight to the way that the Budget Committee proceeded, but that’s probably a spot that you can do that. So that’s kind of just an overview of the agenda. We do have a council and closed session, which we will do in committee room five, is what we normally do when we get there. So, I don’t normally go through the agenda to give some guidance. I could certainly remind colleagues of this when we get to the different sections, just ‘cause it’s a little bit different, but I wanted to make sure everybody had the opportunity to prepare their thinking on their approaches to the agenda today. So with that, are there any disclosures of pecuniary interest?

[28:07] Facing none, there are no recognitions, no review of matters to be dealt with in public. So, we have three items for council and closed session. I look for a motion to move into closed session for those items. Even since seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion? No? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Meeting room five.

[28:42] We’ll move to committee room five. Thank you, please be seated.

[36:50] Okay, we’re on to item five, which is a confirmation and signing of the minutes of previous meetings. There are none. Communications and petitions, there’s an item on the added, which we can refer to the section of the agenda that’s suggested there. So I’ll look for a mover to do that. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Any discussion on moving that item? Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[37:39] Councilor Fossell. Thank you. I would like to request that item 12, emergent motions, be moved up on the agenda to come right after motion. Item number seven, ‘cause they fit together. These are both motions where notice has been given before the meeting and will require leave. I think it makes more sense to dispose of P8 before we go into all of the other miscellaneous amendments that Councillors might want to pull. Okay, so that’s, so you can stand, Councillor, ‘cause you’re moving a motion.

[38:16] So it’s a motion to change order. Just so colleagues know, it’s certainly allowed in the procedure by-law requires two-thirds vote of the members present is not debatable or amenable. So the Councillor’s asking for stage 12 emergent motions to be moved up to be right after stage seven, motions to which notice is given. So that’s a duly moved item, is there a seconder for that? It’s a privilege. So this is not debatable.

[38:49] So everybody knows what’s happening. There’s a request to move this up in the agenda. So it requires two-thirds of the members present and we will open, so we’ll open that for voting now. Those in the vote, motion carries 12 to three. You can sit down Councillor Fossell, successful motion.

[39:22] So we will deal with stage 12 after stage seven, which is where we are now. And that gets us to notice of motions of which Councillor Hopkins submitted a notice of motion, which is on the agenda. You can see it outlined there and a very good motion ‘cause it identifies the necessity for leave as the first component. So I will look to Councillor Hopkins to move her motion for leave. I understand it’s not debatable.

[39:55] So I move my motion for leave. I need a seconder for Councillor Hopkins motion for leave. Councillor Palosa has seconded. Okay, so the motion for leave is moved and seconded. It’s not debatable. It requires two-thirds. This one requires 50% of members of council because the Councillor gave a notice of motion. So we will open this for voting. Just a point of order.

[40:30] Yeah, point of order sign. What’s the point of order? Yeah. So just a point of order on process, your worship. So we’re asking to grant leave on a motion. The motion however has five components to it. So should leave be granted, our Councillors then able to pull apart because we’ve given one notice of leave, but then this could turn into five different votes or more on amendments. So would we handle this the same as any other motion with respect to pulling it apart?

[41:09] Yes, so it’s exactly as any other motion that we deal with at council. Once it’s on the floor, yes, Councillors can ask for it to be divided for the vote, but the notice of motion was given for this motion. So this motion is to be put on the floor as it was given. That’s why the threshold is only 50%. After that, just like any other motion, if council wants to divide the vote on it later, they certainly can. And of course, any motion that’s on the floor can be amended by any members of council.

[41:45] They’d like to amend or change them. No other points of order? So this is for notice, or this is for, sorry, this is for leave, requires 50% and not debatable, but that was a point of order. So we’ll open leave, just leave for voting. Close the vote, motion fails, six to nine.

[42:31] Yes, we need a motion to receive the correspondence for Councillor Hopkins. Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Cuddy. Okay, I’m gonna open the vote on receipt. Councillor Trussell?

[43:17] I believe voting yes, closing the vote. Motion carries, 15 to zero. Okay, so now we’re on to emergent motions to which was moved up to this point in the agenda. There’s one submitted emergent motion by Councillor Trussell. Although this is an area where other colleagues you don’t need to provide a notice for an emergent motion, the threshold is higher, it requires two thirds, it requires leave before the notice can be introduced. So given there’s one submitted, I’ll allow Councillor Trussell to proceed with his request for leave.

[44:01] I’m asking for leave to place this on the table. My understanding of this proceeding from the beginning has been that Councillors are to have 30 days from the filing of the mayor’s budget to make motions like this. And that is a matter of provincial law. That is in the Ontario regulations. And I’m not clear how we can be using. Councillor, you’re just putting your request for leave on the floor. Okay, I’d like to make the motion. Okay, I need a seconder for Councillor.

[44:39] So Councillor Pribble seconds. It’s a motion for leave is non-debatable. So we will open this for voting. This one requires two thirds of the members present for leave to be granted. So we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trussell.

[45:19] Voting yes, but I don’t see it on my screen. Closing the vote, motion fails seven to eight. Point of order, so go ahead Councillor. The Ontario regulation that governs this entire process was laid out in our rules at the beginning. And it was very clearly stated that after the mayor’s budget was filed, which was done on January 31st, Councillors would have a period of 30 days to make amendments to the mayor’s budget.

[46:01] That expires tomorrow. I am at a loss to understand how this council through its local procedures can supersede a provincial regulation. And I would like a ruling on that if necessary in closed session. Councillor, I need to know if you’re asking to go on camera for legal advice on a potential point or if you’re asking for me to make a ruling on a potential point ‘cause the just, which one would you like me to do because the one doesn’t involve legal council, the other one does ‘cause it’s procedure by law versus some questions you have about provincial legislation.

[47:02] Thank you very much. Typically, I would just let the chair do this, but I think under the circumstances, I would like to go into closed session ‘cause it involves the application of a provincial regulation, which I think supersedes our rules. So Councillor, there’s nothing on the floor.

[48:53] So asking to go on camera at this moment, there’s something to attach it to. I could certainly make a ruling on the procedure by law, but I think if you want to ask your question, if you want to attach it when we get to part about the second report of the budget committee, you could there, given that’s a piece where we kind of talked about the process and then we’re adding it to committee report to add a reason to go on camera. At this point, you’re raising a point of order and a point of order doesn’t lead to like a motion to go into camera, like the point of order has to be dealt with under the procedure by law, but you need to attach this to one of the reports that we’re dealing with.

[49:38] Thank you, thank you for that. And I understand that point. I would like to reserve my ability at the appropriate time then to get further inquiry on this due to what I believe is a conflict between provincial and our law and our rule. So if you could advise me when exactly I would do that, I’d be grateful. Okay, Councillor, I’m just trying to get ahead of a few questions ‘cause I don’t want to deal with a bunch of points of personal privilege or points of order, sorry.

[52:24] So it’s still my advice and ruling, basically, advice I got from the clerk that you would want to do that attached to a committee report. So when we’re presenting the first budget committee report or the second budget committee report, if you want to add a reason to go into camera at that time, you could, and then we could go in camera. Now, before the question comes up, what happens since we moved stage 12 up to stage 12? Based on any advice we received, which could be, I’m not going to presume what that is, Council could, you know, not withstanding our rules, revisit stage 12 in some way later or, but for now we should deal with the change in order.

[53:07] We should allow the stage 12 to continue. We can, when we get to the second report of the budget committee, we can add your reason to go into camera and you’ll need support from Council on that, then we can go into camera and get advice before we deal with any of the matters under those budget committee reports. So that would be the place that we could do it that would be kind of procedurally fine and gives us the ability to make any adjustments later based on the advice that we might receive. That’s 8.2? Yeah, thank you.

[53:40] 8.2 makes the most sense, yeah. ‘Cause that was the meaning where the original under the legislation, the original budget was tabled. It’s tied very much to the procedures and the legislation and the rules. Does that make sense? Just because this was a piece of correspondence on the agenda, we’re going to receive it, no motion to receive your communication so that it’s dealt with as per the minutes.

[54:25] So I’ll need a motion to receive Councillor Trost has communication. Councillor Stevenson is seconded by, it’s a scribble. That’s moved and seconded, I don’t see any comments. Okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Councillor Trost have.

[54:58] Thank you very much, close on the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Any other emergent motions? We’re going to move into reports then. I’m going to have budget chair present these reports and I know normally we would have you stand the whole time. I’m going to use some discretion here and say, if you’d like to sit at some point, feel free to. Just based on the length of time and I know that.

[55:34] So I’ll leave that to you but if you could start with the reports, that would be great. Thank you, I’m going to do these in sections. So the first one I’m going to put on the floor is 8.1 being the first report of the budget committee which had our disclosures of pecuniary interest and the public participation for the budget. So both items are on the floor. Okay, that’s moved by the budget chair. Any questions, comments on those two items from the first report of the budget committee?

[56:09] Seeing none, we’ll open that for voting. Councillor Trost have. Voting yes, voting yes. Voting the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[56:49] Thank you, the next section is section 8.2. As the mayor noted at the beginning on your agenda and our amendments is the items that pass through our multiple days of committee discussions. On the other items is the order in which we discuss them are the items that did not receive the majority of the votes so they did not pass coming out of committee. I’ve been asked to pull the following and I’ve as indicated at the beginning your votes of committee are public records.

[57:30] So ideally unless you would have an alternate amendment you like to put forward or you’re interested in changing your vote, those would be the most impactful ones to do. We’ve been, I’ve been given notice that item 22 being 3.38 business case P-46 is gonna be pulled and business items 27 being 3.9, being business case P-31, that one is to be pulled as well. That is all I’ve been made aware of in advance.

[58:13] Others, Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. I do have a question, if you can repeat those numbers I did ask to have number 22 pulled but if you can just review those numbers again. Yeah, so the bottom of the amendments one was amendment business case P-46 which was Councillors Hopkins is, they have something else they would like to do with it and under other items, business case P-31, this was the park cleanup operational one. I pulled that one, I would like to change my vote on it so I pulled it.

[59:00] Councillor Bason, just a request, based on what Councillor Troso asked, it might be advantageous to us to deal with one, two, and three first before we get to the amendment stage just to give colleagues an opportunity to. So I will put one, two, so we’ll chunk it up. We can totally, we can chunk this up. So I will put items one, two, and three on the floor for now and if everyone else has other amendments, think on them of what you wanna pull. So on the floor right now, I will put the disclosures be carrying interest, the staff presentation in three being the mayor’s budget and then we can get into amendments of other items after that.

[59:41] Okay, so those are the disclosures and the two presentations on the floor, moved by the chair. So Councillor Troso, I just want to make sure you don’t miss your opportunity.

[1:00:21] So we’re gonna deal with these three, then I’ll go to you before Councillor Hoppe, or Councillor Close, the budget chair does the amendments. So we can deal with these three, you’d still have the ability to ask for your in-camera session right after these three are done. Okay, all right, so any discussion on those three then? Seeing none, we’ll open those for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[1:01:27] Councillor Troso. I would like to make a motion to go into close session for the purpose of obtaining advice from our solicitor with respect to the relationship between the Ontario implementing regulations for the Strong Mayors Act and our local procedures, which I believe are in conflict. Yeah, so you can hold your opinion or get the opinion from the legal advice, but the motion to go into camera, we’ll just word that up solicitor client advice based on French legislation with the other pieces that we normally word it.

[1:02:11] I think everybody knows what you’re asking. Is there a seconder for that request to go into closed session? Councillor Ferrera seconds. Is there any questions, comments? Open the motion to go in camera. You can read the reason, but it’s pretty much as Councillor Troso articulated it just in the wording that we usually use. And I know you’re voting, but just because it’s a reason to go in camera, I’m gonna have the clerk read it out for the public record.

[1:03:03] Council convene in close session to consider the following solicitor client privilege advice. Matter pertaining to advice that is subject to solicitor client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose and directions and instructions to officers and employees or agents of the municipality with respect to provincial legislation and municipal procedures. And so can please continue. Opposed in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[1:03:44] Okay, and we’ll move to committee room five again. So we’ll move over there now and we’ll return when we’re done. Okay, please be seated.

[1:38:20] Okay, so done in camera. We’ll report that progress out when we do all the other in camera items later in the agenda, which means we’re back to budget chair representing the second port of the budget committee. Thank you. So for ease of operation as we go through this, I’m going to do the amendment section first, and then we’ll do the other items. So for the amendment items, these are the ones that had passed at the budget committee days.

[1:38:55] I have been given notice that items 14, 15 and 22 to be pulled out of that section. So I would look, so as this is a different process, how we normally do things, Mr. Mayor, as you’re chairing, I’m not sure if I will see if anybody else wants anything pulled.

[1:39:29] If you’d want to save those to the very end, or if you’d like to circle back and keep all the amendment conversations together before we go on to other items. I think for consistency, and how we’ve dealt with it at committee, usually everybody pulls everything out they want, and then we can deal with the rest in a group, and then we’ll go through and deal with all the one-offs. So there’s three items that the Councilor suggested that be pulled out separately from the amendment section. What else would colleagues like dealt with separately?

[1:40:02] I see Councilor Hopkins. Yeah, thank you, Your Worship. Just to understand the process going forward, I would like to, I do not see in the amendments or in the other items, but I would like to add a business case is P-28, P-29 and P-57 to be added. I’m not sure if there’s a duplication there, but that is my request.

[1:41:10] So Councilor, we’re dealing with the report from the Budget Committee, which is all the amendments and the motions that were made, that were successful. If you wanted, like the other ones that were raised during the budget process that were not are under other items, of which one of those items is, I know you wanted to raise the other ones. You weren’t given leave to do so. So, I mean, you could raise P-29 under when we get to other items under section 26, as I suggested earlier on in the meeting.

[1:41:50] Otherwise, you’d need another section for emergent motions to raise things, again, that aren’t part of the report that came out of the Budget Committee work that we did. So, right now, it’s really, of all of these things that the Budget Committee is reporting to us, recommending approval on, which ones do you wanna deal with separately, and which ones do you wanna deal with altogether as a group. It’s not really adding things now. The additive process was through notice emotions and emergent emotions, which we’ve dealt with.

[1:42:29] Okay, so I’m just trying to understand process here. If I’m not able to add other business cases, and I’ve cited the three, one of which is a duplication, is the process maybe through the staff, would I need to bring forward a motion on my submission? If it’s not something dealt with in the committee’s report, of which we’ve included both the things that passed, as well as the things that were discussed and referenced, then the only other way on a council agenda to deal with a matter that wasn’t in the committee’s report, that is separate from it, is through emergent motions, which Councillor Trozau, at his request, moved up to an earlier part of the agenda, and we’ve moved past that now.

[1:43:36] So, the only other way to deal with that, again, would be that at some point during the meeting, we suspend our rules, reintroduce another emergent motion section that would require, I think, two-thirds supportive council to do. We just went past that part of the emergent motions. Councillor Trozau wanted to move that section up, it got moved up, it’s passed. So, you can deal with everything in the amendments, as well as everything in the report, under the other items that we’re raised in, and could be revisited, and it doesn’t have to be that exact motion, that something in that ballpark would be, you know, generally in order.

[1:44:23] So, I don’t know if that’s clear. I know we talked about this leading up to the budget meeting. So, it’s not sure what more you’re asking. When is it appropriate to bring forward a motion to bring forward the business cases that I just cited? It was appropriate during the notice of motion, which a majority of council did not give you leave to do. So, that’s been decided. And then, emergent motions, of which, not just submitted, but any other emergent motions, when I asked, did anybody else have an emergent motion, that was the time to bring forward other emergent motions, which, again, would require leave, and then could be introduced as per the council or procedure by-law.

[1:45:10] So, given council moved that up with a two-thirds majority, at the request of another councilor, that items been dealt with, and now we’re into the report section, which is really just dealing with the matters that were discussed in the report. And we’re now on the amendments part, and the other items part is to come. And so, those are areas that if you see something in there that is connected to an item you wanna raise, though you can revisit those items. But the part where you can just suggest stuff at emergent motions has, like we’ve completed that section now, it got moved up.

[1:45:52] I understand that. I would like to be able to speak to three of the business cases in the police budget. One of which is in an amendment. How do I add the other two business cases? Is there an opportunity, or where is the opportunity? I put forward a submission, it’s not given leave, emergent motions have been dealt with. So, where is the process now to deal with the three business cases? So, I just answered that, councilor.

[1:46:32] You had the opportunity through emergent motions to raise emergent motions. That section we passed the agenda on. If you want to introduce new emergent motions, you would need council to suspend the rules. With the two thirds majority, do another emergent motion section, or revisit emergent motions, or go back and put it in another part of the agenda. And then raise emergent motions under the procedure bylaw with leave under that section. But, like that’s the answer. So, I don’t think I said that before, but I’m happy to clarify if you need it.

[1:47:12] I appreciate that, and can that emergency emergent motion be done at any time throughout the meeting? So, just like when councilor Trossa raised doing something different than our procedure, and got the two thirds of council to agree that they’d like to do that, you could do that. I would say probably in the middle of a budget of a committee report is not the best time, but you might maybe after the committee report see if there’s colleagues who are interested in doing that, but maybe in the exact middle of a committee report where we already have recommendations from the budget committee, I would say is not the time to do it.

[1:47:59] Again, Councilor Trossa did it at a stage in the agenda, so someone can do it at another point, okay? Thank you. All right, I was sorry, did I see a hand over here? I was looking the other way. Yes, Councilor Robin. Thank you, and through you, and I’m just trying to find an agreeable way forward for Councilor Hopkins and what she’s requesting. I’m just wondering about 3.29, where it does look at amendment to business cases that are related to P15 through P18, but it says the source of the expenditure is LPS.

[1:48:44] She’s connecting to business cases of LPS. That was not specific to any part of the LPS budget, so why wouldn’t she be able to use that as a means for which she’s bringing her amendment? Just need to look at that.

[1:50:25] So to answer your question, Councilor Robin, the point of putting the other items on was for colleagues to have a chance to revisit a number of the items that were discussed, but maybe not successful, just like other committee reports that come to Council. So could Councilor Hopkins re-raise that case, or that motion? Yes, could she make some adjustments to it when she suggested, yes, I mean, generally ideally be within the general scope of the original motion.

[1:50:57] I don’t want to create a situation here where people are just attaching something completely unrelated to something we did, just because they want to talk about it. I mean, that was the point of four days of budget committee was to talk about it. So the answer to your question is yes, generally, Councilor could re-raise that and make some adjustments to it, but it would ideally be pretty close to the motion that was discussed, although, yes, some changes in amendments can be made to any motion that we put on the floor. So if she wants to revisit that, make amendments to it, or change it, she could. Thank you, I appreciate the Chair finding a way for her to do that, thank you.

[1:51:48] Okay, so for the colleagues who are trying to remember where we are, Councilor, our Budget Chair Pelosi is presenting the amendment section, 14, 15 and 22 have been asked to be dealt with separately, and I’m about to ask everybody, what else from those ones that have been passed you’d like to deal with separately, Mr. Robin. Thank you, so just to clarify, Councillor Hopkins has included P-29, so I have submitted some language for an amendment for that.

[1:52:25] P-29, we’re not that yet, that’s under other items, it’s the next section we’ll deal with, item 26. So yes, that was a straight up adjustment to that business case, that could be put back on, that could be amended, you could change the amount, lots of options there, when we get to it. Okay, so just in the amendments, so between items four and 22, right now we’re about to have a motion on all of them except for 14, 15 and 22, unless someone would like something else dealt with separately, check online.

[1:53:10] Okay, I don’t see anybody else who wants something separate, so I’ll go back to the Budget Chair to present a motion. Thank you, under the amendment sections, I would put items four through 21 on the floor, realizing 14, 15 and 22 have been pulled and will be dealt with after this. That’s put on the floor by the Chair, doesn’t need a seconder ‘cause the Chair’s presenting it, any discussion, any of those items.

[1:54:00] Let’s see anybody looking to make some comments here. So, okay, so we’re gonna open those for voting. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one. Okay, so that means we’ve approved 16 amendments to the Budget so far, that’s what we just did.

[1:54:37] So back to Councillor Losa on the next motion and whatever way you wanna put that. Yeah, I’m just gonna keep us in the sections as we just discussed, so I’m gonna put, okay, I’m gonna put 14 and 15 on the floor at the same time as they were both pulled by Councillor Ferrera. This has to do with the capital projects. Or do you want them individually? Okay, I’ll just put 14 then, which is item 3.27, the amendment to the capital projects PD-1218.

[1:55:28] This was a 10 to 5 vote at committee. So that’s on the floor, any debate? Okay, go ahead Councillor Ferrera. Thank you and through you. So I asked to pull both of these amendments, I’ll just speak to item 14 right now because— Yeah, just 14 for now, yeah. I am asking for a reconsideration on this one. This is for the capital program for funds of small scale projects. It will help us with just initiatives and programs happening downtown.

[1:56:03] We are trying to draw people downtown, so I am looking for a reconsideration for your vote on it. I believe that this would be 45 cents per year to the average taxpayer to their bill. But I do want to confirm that with city treasurer before anything. And I would also ask if you could let us know if there would be any impact on the property tax rate increase if we were to approve this part of the amendment. Councillor Ferrera, you said something that might be just a little bit confusing for colleagues.

[1:56:39] I just want to clarify so people know what they’re voting for. Given this was an amendment that reduced the item that you like, you’re actually asking for colleagues to defeat the amendment, not reconsider it, but to just defeat it, which would actually leave that item in the budget. That is correct, sorry. All right, and I know people can look up how they voted, but remember when you voted the first time, you were voting for a reduction. This time, you’re voting on supporting or not the amendment. So this is the committee’s recommendation of an amendment.

[1:57:14] So a vote for a yes means the amendment continues to pass. A vote of a no means the amendment is defeated, and those funds are essentially not carved out of the budget. I appreciate that clarification, yes. Please defeat this motion. Yes, I don’t want to do lots of reconsiderations today. So I’m going to try to, when that happens, I’m going to try to provide as much clarity as possible. So other speakers on this. Sorry, point of order. I believe the council asked through you to stop. If it is that 45 cents. Oh, sure, yeah, go ahead, Mr. Murray. Thank you, through you, Mr. Murray, yes.

[1:57:47] I can confirm that the impact of this is approximately 45 cents in 2024. And this amendment in isolation and when routed to a single decimal point does not change any of the tax levy increases, either in 2024 or any of the four years or the four year average, for that matter. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Trossam. I don’t know if this is a point of information or a point of order, but I’m terribly confused and I don’t understand what’s on the table and what we’re being asked for to vote.

[1:58:26] Now, could so could that be please clarify? Sure, okay. So we all met as the budget committee and we talked about amendments to the table budget. This amendment is a carving out and a reduction of money from that particular capital project and that reduction passed 10 to five. So now the budget committee has a recommendation before us for an amendment that makes that carving out of that capital project from the base budget.

[1:59:03] So at committee, Councilor Trossam, for example, you voted against, I presume, ‘cause you didn’t wanna carve that money out. This is about proving the committee’s recommendation. So the committee’s recommendation is to cut it out. So if you still feel the same way, you probably vote against, right? Because you didn’t wanna cut out in the first place. There might be some that will be the opposite way. It depends on if they were additions or reductions, which is why you gotta look very carefully at the actual motions and I’m happy to take some time when people put stuff on the floor that colleagues flip to that page in the report to see what the actual motion was before they vote.

[1:59:46] I just wanna make sure people vote the right way. So that’s what occurred here. So I hope that clarifies for you. Any other debate on this? Sorry, oh, you got asked a question. That was a point of order you got your answer. You still actually have the floor in time, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate that. So yes, he said it exactly right. It was an amendment that we voted to remove funds for this capital project for the London Downtown Plan. So I’m asking for us to vote this down so we can put those funds back in to those accounts for this.

[2:00:24] Okay, any other speakers on this? Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m gonna rise and take this opportunity to say I will be supporting the committee recommendation. I will be supporting the reductions. I will be supporting all of the reductions that the committee made. I’ll be supporting all of the additions that the committee made. That’s gonna include even the vote on transit, which I was against at committee. But I will support here because the committee has done its work at committee.

[2:00:57] I won’t be changing my vote on this. I won’t be changing my vote on any of the changes that we made to the Budget Act Committee. Any other speakers? Okay, so this is on the floor by the budget chair. Everybody knows what the motion is. We’re gonna open that for voting. Present the vote.

[2:01:39] The motion carries nine to six. Thank you. I will now put 15 on the floor. Similar one that this was also that the budget being amended to remove Capital Project RC 1036 Dundas Place Equipment. And this motion passed nine to six at committee. And I’m putting it on the floor. Sorry, Councillor Ferri, you wanna speak? Go ahead. Yes, thank you through you. Same, I pulled this motion out of this amendment as well. Same deal, I would like us to vote this down so we can put the funds back into the account.

[2:02:16] This is for capital costs related to activating and operating the Dundas Place space. And without this funding, we would not be able to replace any damaged or end of life equipment to the Dundas Place, which would significantly affect our ability to activate the space. Again, it’s 100,000 year over year. So that’s 45 cents to the average taxpayer every year. And just for diligence, I’ll go back to the city treasurer to say to ask if will this have any impact on the property tax rate increase?

[2:02:49] Mr. Murray. Through you, Mr. Mayor, no, I will not. There will be no impact on any of the year’s tax levy increases, thank you. Thank you. So through you again, I’m asking for a council here to vote this amendment down. All right, now the speakers to this one. Okay, seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting. I was in the vote, motion carries nine to six.

[2:03:34] Thank you. The final one from the amendment section that I’ll be putting on the floor is amendment business case P-46. This was a rejection to business business case P-46. And that action item 12 be removed from the multi-year budget. And I believe this one passed unanimously at committee, 15 to zero, but I believe councilor Hopkins has an amendment she would like to put forward. Yeah, so this is on the floor by the budget chair. I’ll look for speakers or if there’s an amendment, I could do that now.

[2:04:08] If you’d like to now, councilor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, thank you, your worship. I did, I am putting forward an amendment to increase business case P-46 to include action items three and six. And I wanna just start off, first of all, saying that I do appreciate the $3 million that is in the mayor’s budget for this important plan. I know we had conversations about taking out 450,000. Yes, I know I need to get a seconder. Yes, of course.

[2:04:47] So councilor, maybe just articulate your motion so that people know what it is. You’re looking to add those two items. I’d like me to read it out, is what you’re asking? Yeah, if you’d like to, if you have the motion awarded, why don’t you read it out? I’ll get a seconder and then you can, you can make the case for us. That the mayor is 24, 27 multi-year budget be amended by increasing business case P-46 to include actions three and six. 20, 24 operating expenditures, 100,000, 20, 24 tax levy, 100,000, 25 operating expenditures, 75,000 tax levy, 75,000, 20, 26 operating expenditures, 75,000 tax levy, 75,000 and 20, 27 operating expenditures, 75 and tax levy, 75,000.

[2:06:00] Okay, so we’re gonna make sure that this is, ‘cause the original one had a reduction. That was the change, Councillor Hopkins is looking to, to increase the, basically the business case amounts to do actions three and six. So, the amendment is to add actions three and six. It still takes the other action, but obviously the numbers will net out a different way because there was reductions in the business case.

[2:06:34] She’s adding things in. So the costs are gonna be the net result of the business case now, including both of them. So, those net numbers will show in the, as amended motion, right? But the numbers on the screen are showing the costs of the move that Councillor Hopkins is making. So, what I’m saying is, so everybody’s clear, if you’re looking at the screen, you see that the amendment has a reduction of 450,000, or the original amendment from the original motion from the Budget Committee is minus four, 15, three years.

[2:07:10] The numbers you see in Councillor Hopkins’ motion is the amendment that will then get merged with the numbers there. So, these would not be the final numbers. This is just the number so you can see the value of the amendment and the cost of it that Councillor Hopkins is making. So, when we do an as amended motion, should this pass, there will be completely new numbers that aren’t related directly to these motions because you have to merge those two values together. So, I just wanna be clear ‘cause it’s gonna look a little bit different. So, everybody knows that Councillor Hopkins wants to add, actions three and six, is there a seconder to do that?

[2:07:51] Councillor Ferra, okay, is there so is there a mover? There is a mover and seconder for the amendment. So, now we’re gonna be on the amendment. So, you worship point of order? Yes, go ahead. I’m just going to disagree with your ruling as chair. I believe this is contrary to the Committee recommendation, which was a reduction, this is an addition back in. So, I believe this is contrary to the intent of the Committee recommendation. I’m gonna make my ruling and then we’ll have a vote on should the ruling of the chair stand.

[2:08:25] So, let me articulate the way that I’m gonna rule and the reasons why. So, my view on the business case is, Councillor ramen, if I remember correctly at the time with a seconder, wanted to reduce. So, the business case had multiple sections to it. There were many items in it. Councillor ramen wanted to take out a piece that I had added in. There were other pieces in that business case that I did not add in. So, I’m allowing this because it’s part of that business case. Councillor Hopkins could add those pieces back in and still, and we can still do the other piece.

[2:09:04] I mean, people can disagree, but I’m gonna allow it to stand because I think Councillor Hopkins does has the ability to add those couple of items back in or at least have us consider it on the floor today. So, my ruling is to allow Councillor Hopkins amendment as within the scope of the original intent and within the scope of the ability for us to make changes to this particular business case. And it’s not debatable. So, what we’re gonna have now is a motion about shall the ruling of the chair be sustained.

[2:09:53] So, the deputy mayor is suggesting that I’m wrong in allowing the amendment. So, the question is, should the ruling of the chair be sustained? So, if you agree with me allowing it, you vote yes, if you disagree with me allowing it, you vote no. And there’s no debate, we’re just gonna put that question up. So, should the ruling of the chair be sustained to allow the amendment? Okay, so that’s up and ready to be voted on now.

[2:11:55] Closing the vote, the result of the appeal, is that the decision of the chair shall be sustained? Okay, so the amendment stands, and we’re on debate on the amendment now. Councillor Hopkins, this is now your chance to make the case for the amendment. Sorry, a little delay there, but we had, I’m pretty sure that’s not the first, the last time that’s gonna happen today, but. No, I think this is a bad decision for you maybe. Go ahead. So, thank you for allowing me to bring forward this amendment, it is on three and six, and as you can see in the business case, it is not defined.

[2:12:34] In fact, that whole plan is not defined, there’s still a lot of work to be done. Representing a award that does not have a BIA, that many, many businesses, it’s really important that we can promote and strengthen London businesses, and three and six enables us to do that, and it enables us to do it right away. It’s something that we can support the businesses and leverage the networks that are in our city and work together, but doing it sooner than later.

[2:13:14] So, I’m hoping that I can get support for this amendment. Okay, other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Troz. A to the chair will be supporting this amendment. I am also in word six, which does not have the benefit of a BIA, and I’ve spoken to so many merchants in my ward who tell me they just, they need a little bit more help, and I thought that the submission that we received from the chamber was very persuasive in this regard, and I’m gonna be supporting this because I think we’re not doing enough to help small businesses, many of whom are facing staggering rents, serious conditions, which we’ve all spoken about, and if they’re not in a BIA, there’s just not a framework.

[2:14:11] There’s not an adequate framework to help them. So, I’ll be looking forward to working with the Chamber of Commerce and some of the other small businesses in my area, and we have some clusters, and that’s why I’m very enthusiastic about supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So that’s exactly why I won’t be supporting this. Businesses, small, large, medium size, have the opportunity to come together and form BIAs and do this work themselves with their own contributions through business levies collected by the city, and then given back to the BIA to do the work, we actually have businesses who are paying from their own pocket through their levy to do this work in their areas.

[2:15:08] I do not believe that it is the role of the municipal government to start supporting other small businesses from the public purse when we have businesses that are supporting themselves through their own contributions to BIAs. There is nothing that prevents any neighborhood cluster of businesses from coming together and choosing to form a BIA. We have some great BIAs in the city who do some great work, but that’s where that work needs to happen. And when we talk about reaching out to regional connections and things of that nature, the mayor included in his budget, not only funding for downtown planning, but also funding for an economic development plan.

[2:15:55] So what are we reaching out on when we don’t have a master plan on economic development yet? What exactly are we using these funds for? If we’re sprinkling them around because we don’t have a plan, that is not a good reason to fund this, in my point of view. There needs to be a plan for other steps afterward, but when it comes to those small business supports, I know in Ward 1, in Ward 2, in Ward 4, in Ward 7, in Ward 13, there are already BIAs who are contributing from their own funds to do some of this work, and that is appropriate.

[2:16:31] It is a private sector initiative to track things like small business success, not the public purse. Other speakers, okay, see none. So this is on Councilor Hopkins Amendment to add actions three and six. We will open that for voting. Using the vote, motion fails, four to 11.

[2:17:09] Okay, so that was on the amendment. We’re back to the main motion, which is as was recommended by the committee. That’s still moved by the chair, discussion on that. Seeing none, we’re gonna open that for voting none. Vote is open, but I’ll just explain so people know what they’re voting on.

[2:17:47] We’re back to the committee’s recommendation on this item as in the report, which was the reduction of 450,000 in 2025, 2026, 2027 that we debated and voted on at the budget committee. So it’s just as was recommended by the budget committee, and I’ll say at the budget committee, it was 15 to zero. Is anybody wants to know? Okay, so that’s what we’re voting on, continue voting, please. Close in the vote, motion carries 14 to one.

[2:18:36] Okay, go ahead. Thank you, that moves us on to the other items. These are the ones that were not successful at committee. I’ve been asked to pull 26, which is business case 29, 27, which is P31, 39, which is business case P15, 40, which is business case P16. Looking to see if there’s any others. Go ahead, Councillor Rossell.

[2:19:14] I’d like to add adjustment number four, the base budget for our museum London. Others? Sorry, could that just be repeated? Is that item 24? Item 24, 3.4. So far it’s when you’re looking at your agenda 24, 26, 29, 39, and 40.

[2:19:51] Others, go ahead, Councillor Rossell. Question, would it be in order to add P8 here? No, this is the same process that was explained to Councillor Hopkins. That was the emergent motion. There is no P8.

[2:20:22] The P8 was never discussed at the budget committee. This is all the items that were discussed at the budget committee that were not successful. So that’s what we’re dealing with now. Anybody else? I’m giving people time just to make sure they look through, avoid any sort of asks for reconsideration. So I think we have it.

[2:20:54] I’m gonna let the budget chair recap the motion that she’s about to make. Okay, so I’ll note that there’s also the communications at the bottom of 4.1 through to 4.4. Those will be received in this section as well. So I am putting on the floor everything, except 24, as it was pulled by Councillor Rossell. I will not be putting 26 being P29 on the floor. As was pulled by actually two different Councillors.

[2:21:30] Item 27, which is P31. 39 being P15 will not go on the floor right now, nor will 40 being business case P16. I would put the remainder on the floor. If no one else has anything else, it’s caught the ride that they want. Just want once more so we can make sure that we’ve got the motion worded.

[2:22:16] Okay, so the items that will go on the floor at this moment in time will be 23, 25, 28 through to 38 and 41 to 45. So that’s gonna go up in a second.

[2:22:51] Just so colleagues know that the wording on this, because these are things we discussed, is it being noted that the budget committee discuss these items and then receipt of the correspondence pieces that the Councillor mentioned at the end. So we’re acknowledging that we’ve done all of these. Sorry, it says 29 and it should read 39.

[2:23:29] I think that was a P29 is 26. And so 29 got sucked in there in a different way. So that’s why we’ll go a little bit slow on this to make sure we’ve got it. Okay, everybody’s read that, everybody’s looks okay.

[2:24:13] No, can the screen get refreshed, please? Is it what I’m going off of? Thank you. Also noted colleagues raised the thing that it says 3.3 and says saying other items. It says business case P7. So that’s creating some confusion as well in the header. We need to ignore that.

[2:24:47] We’re kind of going beyond, we’re kind of going beyond e-scribes ability. It just has to be like the if being noted to have to be linked to something. When we do the minutes, it’ll be very clear. So we’re voting on the motion that will be before us that will come up the number two. The number one is just, it needs to be a placeholder just to link it to something. It’s a technology thing. So when the motion comes up, it’s going to be that motion that you see as number two motion. It’s just that, yeah, the heading’s gonna be a little bit weird, but just ignore the heading. Okay, so discussion on any of these.

[2:25:23] Now that we’ve got the motion all done. All right, looks all good. Okay, we’ll open that for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you.

[2:26:03] I look to put item 24 being the adjustment number four on the floor and this one was pulled by Councilor Trossa. Okay, Councilor Trossa, go ahead. So this is the part where it’s an it being noted, but you can make a motion here, right? So you have to actually make a motion. There’s like, there’s nothing just sitting there besides, we’re gonna note it. So listen, I’m just gonna let in these sections, people make the motion that is similar to the other motion.

[2:26:39] I’m not gonna go through and add hours of time to say, everybody’s gotta change the it being noted into amending it into something that’s not the it being noted. Honestly, like, let’s just let people put what they want on the floor and vote on it. I hope nobody objects that I can do it the long way. But for now, I just like to get to, people wanna move motions on these. I’m gonna let them get to the motions they wanna move as long as it’s within the general framework. I’m not gonna make people go put in it being noted, amend the it being noted back into a motion. That’ll just add tons of votes and tons of time. So I’m gonna take some discretion here as chair, as long as everybody’s okay with that.

[2:27:14] Okay, I don’t see any objections. So Councilor Trossa, go ahead and put a motion related to this item. Thank you very much and through the chair, I would like to move the restoration under adjustment four of the base budget request that was submitted by Museum London. If I stop now, does that count as my speaking to it or do I, can I just stop? No, you’re just, you’re moving it. Let me get a seconder and then you can choose to speak now or later.

[2:27:46] Seconder for this, Councilor Ferra, you’re seconding? Okay, so now I’m gonna ask for speakers. If you go now, you get one shot. So it’s up to you, Councilor Trossa. Speakers to this. We’ll see any, see you may as well go. We’ve heard quite a bit from the arts community, specifically the submission that was made, budget submission that was made by Museum London, supplemented later on by the letter that was received that was received by four arts and culture groups.

[2:28:25] I believe that Museum London, as things stand now, is being put in an untenable position where they are not going to be able to continue the services and the staff and what they do for the community unless some changes are made. We’ve heard about this. My motion requests that their entire initial submission be accepted and I suspect that if there’s anybody on Council that wants to increase their base budget a little bit but not that much, they can make an amendment to that but I’ll leave that to amenders.

[2:29:07] Being somewhat familiar as a new board member when the Museum London Board, I am very concerned about the level of operation that we are going to be able to sustain if this is not increased. And I think that Museum London has demonstrated through its successful programming that there are viable entity that goes beyond, that goes beyond just the traditional notion of an art museum where people come in and passively look at art, how people do that there?

[2:29:44] And it’s a very important part of their operation. People don’t appreciate what goes on behind the scenes. Those pictures just don’t get hung on the wall. There’s a lot of staff work that goes in to preparing an exhibit and the exhibit doesn’t stay there forever. It turns over because it’s dynamic in addition the Museum has a number of programs. A number of programs and we heard about some of these during the presentations before so I won’t repeat them but this is just not reasonable to expect an entity like Museum London which by the way does not have an admissions fee.

[2:30:29] Many museums have admissions fee. This is a free will, this is a free will donation and don’t wanna see Museum London get into a further downward spiral where they have to either lay off staff, cut the programming, cut the ability of the community to come into our beautiful facility at the fork. I don’t wanna put the museum in a situation where they have to consider fees for services ‘cause that will add to a downward spiral and I think everyone here has been to and has enjoyed.

[2:31:11] The new facility that the museum provides for the community and it’s very diverse. So please I’m just asking, let’s adjust their base budget and if there’s a thinking that somebody would like to maybe not give them the entire amount as requested which is my motion that an amendment be made but I think something has to be done. This is not an acceptable situation in terms of what we have now, thank you very much. Okay, other speakers to this motion.

[2:31:49] Go ahead, Councilor Ferrer. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. Everything that Councilor Trostle just said is absolutely true and the museum, Museum London is a very critical place. The admission fees, the zero admission fees, we spoke about this before, that is zero barrier. It’s very easy for people to show up and visit the museum without any financial burdens or restrictions. I would also add that, and Councilor Trostle spoke to this, touched on this.

[2:32:21] The museum is in a very critical position right now with the way the budget is stated because they are looking into possibly letting people go, a very real idea that this is gonna happen. So the museum is now not gonna be able to operate the way it has been operating. So with these in mind, this is why I would hope that we would get support for Museum London. We need to increase the budget. We need to increase their base operating budget from what it is right now because they are gonna have to be making cuts and those cuts will involve cuts to real people who are actually working there.

[2:32:59] I would also say we have a very big treasure in the vault in Museum London. A lot of history of the city of London is in that vault. I fear that we, you know, you will see some, you will see some impacts just because of the way the staffing is gonna have to move around. So I would hope that we would be able to support this motion. Mayor Lewis, thank you, your worship, and through you to the points that both Councilors made. That’s exactly why I won’t be supporting this.

[2:33:33] When we go to other cities as Councilors or as private citizens, we pay an admission fee to enter a museum and we’ve talked repeatedly around this horseshoe since this Council was sworn in. Both the fact that we are a big city now with big city challenges and part of that challenge in terms of museum’s London’s budget is that the fee for services and the admission fees are part of being a museum in a big city. This cannot just always be come back to the public purse for more.

[2:34:12] There has to be purchase of service agreements with some of the programs they offer. There has to be admission fees at the door because we’re at 8.7% folks. And we’ve heard a number of people express through emails at the PBM, through town hall meetings that people are concerned about the rate. And yes, this won’t change the rate significantly, but we’ve heard a couple of times today. Well, this one will only change it by this much. This will only change it by this much. It is the cumulative impact of those changes that matters at the end of the day.

[2:34:45] So I won’t be supporting this. I appreciate Museum London. As Councilor Trussa said, all of us have been there. I think that they have a fine product. I also would not have a problem paying an admission fee to enter. I also would not have a problem with school programs. Having to have the school board pay a fee, be there, whatever that looks like. Because at the end of the day, that’s what museums in big cities do. I paid a fee when we went to FCM in Toronto to attend a museum outside of the regular functions.

[2:35:25] And I expect to pay that fee. So that’s part of supporting arts and culture as an individual citizen paying that admission fee to go in. There can be free programming days or free admission days, not every day of the week. Some of this fee has to come from the supporters themselves. Out of speakers. So the motion is moved by Councilor Trussa, seconded by Councilor Ferreira to essentially restore the base budget for Museum London, which is the removal of adjustment for in the table budget.

[2:36:05] So that would move their reduction to 5.4% back up to 6.3% in that first year. We’ll open that for voting. Councilor Trussa, thank you.

[2:36:48] Verbalie indicating yes. Closing the vote, motion fails, six to nine. Thank you. I will now proceed to put 26 being business case P29 on the floor. This was a reduction to business case P29 being the police vehicle and equipment. Councilor Plaza, just one thing. When, if, this is my fault for not saying, if someone makes an amendment. Sorry, yeah, the fact that the original amendment has done, sorry.

[2:37:20] No, we just have to do it being noted for that piece that we discussed it. So if you want to put that on the floor, same sort of thing. Yeah, the same one being noted that the information for the committee. Just so we can dispense with the items if they’re not successful in an amendment. So that’s on the floor. This is just the it being noted budget committee discussed it so that we can kind of tie it up the same way the other ones are tied up. I don’t think there’s any discussion on that. I don’t see any. We’ll open that for a moment. Councilor Trozano, closing the vote.

[2:38:18] Motion carries 15 to zero. Okay, now go ahead. Sorry for the interruption. That’s okay. That was me being inefficient with my efficiencies. So putting agenda item 26 on the floor being business case P29, which was a reduction for the police vehicle and equipment requirements by $90,000 each year. The original vote was failed on six to nine and this one’s been requested to be pulled by two different Councillors. Okay, well, I can look many wait. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. Yeah, you worship. I do have a procedure question.

[2:38:50] If how are you going to handle two amendments with the first one go forward and if that fails, the second one would go for it. That’s correct. Just like any other process, you’re kind of first. So you’re, you want to go? You can go ahead. I understand Councillor Raman did pull it. So I’ll let her go first. Okay, help. You know what? How about I’ll go first? You have the floor. So I recognize you, you want to go first. This is your, this is your chance. Okay, help. I’d like to put forward the amendment that I had laid out in my submission, which is D, I just have to, just to help out with the wording of clerks.

[2:39:38] Maybe they can just copy and paste that one. Yes, we can, we can take care of that, yes. So you want to— And I can read it out. Same amounts you articulated in your letter for this particular business case, which was essentially equated to a 5% reduction to the case overall. So yes, we will, we will get that up. Let me just make sure that there’s a seconder for that. And then, and then you can proceed with making some comments. Is there a seconder for that? Councillor McAllister, you’re seconding?

[2:40:13] Okay, so moved and seconded now. Councillor Hopkins, go ahead. So I’ll read out the amendment then that the mayor is 24, 27 multi-year budget be amended by reducing business case, P29 by 5%, 2024 operating expenditure is 31,000. Tax levy, 31,000 operating expenditure, 25, 79,000. Tax levy, 79,000, 2026 operating expenditure, 82,000. Tax levy, 82,000 and 2027 operating expenditures, 88,000.

[2:40:52] Tax levy is 88,000. And that’s clear, did you wanna make your, ‘cause you get to speak once, do you wanna speak now? Then on the rest of the rationale for it. Let’s make a second. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, no, I appreciate it. And I’m hoping I can get some support here on the submission. I wanna just start off with the 2024 budget year and the conversations that we have been having around the budget.

[2:41:27] And for me, the conversations have, right now it’s 8.7%, 3.2 of that applies to all other business cases. 0.5 applies to the legislative business case and 5% belongs to the police budget. For me, the submission is that we have to ask everyone else to scale back. It’s important to have the conversation to see if there is a possibility that the police budget sharing in the fiscal constraints that we’re asking from other agencies.

[2:42:02] So that is my reasoning, my support for really having it important that we do ask the questions of the police budget and to hold everyone accountable. I think we do need to scrutinize every budget. So I’m looking for some forward to reduce it by 5%. Okay, so that’s on the floor. I’ll look for speakers, Councillor McAllister.

[2:42:47] Thank you and through the chair. And I do appreciate in terms of what Councillor Hobbings have originally brought forward. Unfortunately, we weren’t able to discuss all of those business cases. But I do think what I’ve seen over the course of our budget deliberations is unfortunate that we haven’t really got into the police budget. And I do think it’s that’s a dangerous precedent for future budgets that we have essentially made it an untouchable item in the budget. And I know obviously my colleagues who sit on the police board can object to that. And even the mayor who also sits on that. We all sit on boards, we all have those discussions.

[2:43:23] But I do think the discussions that we’re had with our other service providers were tougher ones in terms of where they could scale back. I do believe in public safety. It is an issue I absolutely hear from my ward. The residents, the businesses, their concern, the deputy mayor and I, we advocated hard for private security. I don’t agree with substituting policing for the private security that we as a city had to fund. But that was a recognition from the police that work needed to be done. And I agree. But I do think that there are limitations in terms of what we should be funding in terms of the police ask.

[2:43:57] I think they’ve made their case. We can all make cases for all of the services that we collectively provide as a city. We all sit on different boards. But I do think that this is one where we have not done enough in terms of digging into these numbers. Every budget, there are absolutely items that can be reduced. And I do think that we have to, and all fairness to the taxpayer address this one as well. And I don’t think that we should say that a budget is untouchable.

[2:44:30] We absolutely have to look at these things. So I appreciate the discussion. I’m sure my colleagues will also have their opinions on this topic. But I do think that this is a small step that we can make in terms of reducing the burden, especially when it accounts for 5% for the next year. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. So a few pieces that I’m gonna say here with regard to this concept of the police budget is somehow untouchable two weeks or so ago.

[2:45:08] The deputy chief was here via Zoom and counselors had an opportunity to ask the deputy chief questions about this budget and did so. This proposal is specific to the vehicle and equipment piece. We’ve picked a number which I have not heard why the rationale of 5%. It seems to be a number that was just picked because earlier we had five things that we were asked to consider and we didn’t even pursue on the 5%.

[2:45:43] So here at the 11th hour, we’re suggesting in 59th minute that we’re suggesting 5% reduction with no understanding of the impact that this will have on the police plan. And I think that we have to be mindful of the fact that we heard from the mayor earlier in the budget process at committee that the budget that actually came to us from the police services board was not the original everything in asked that the board considered, that the board itself did work to reduce the ask before they even sent it to us.

[2:46:19] I think the other thing we have to be mindful of is that it’s clear this isn’t everything in the kitchen sink to a budget ask from the police because at the end of this, they are still going to be below the provincial average in their staffing complement, in their quote unquote cop to pop ratio as the media has framed the officers to the population. So the board did its work before it brought this to us and they’ve been honest about the fact that they would have asked for more but they recognize that this was tough too.

[2:46:56] They are still coming in below the provincial average in terms of their staffing complement. And we have no indication because we didn’t take the opportunity to ask when the chief was here two weeks ago on what an impact of an overall 5% reduction would be. But when we talk about vehicles and equipment, we did hear the deputy chief say very clearly to us, they recognize their carbon footprint, their GHG emissions is terrible. And that part of this equipment process was going to be starting to look at the transition to at least some of their vehicles to electric.

[2:47:29] Now, she provided us a long explanation about how there’s several challenges with this and they need to get their foot in the door to run a pilot program. I’m not going to reiterate everything she said there. But this is not going to have zero impact on them. It is going to have an impact. And we don’t have a say on what that impact is. I think we’ve all been very clear that and I think everybody understands operationally, we can’t direct how the police change their spending on this. So while it may seem like a small amount, it could have a significant impact.

[2:48:04] Could have a significant impact on one less cruiser on the road, it could have a significant impact on getting into the electrical vehicle market. It could mean that an officer is not wearing a body camera at some point when they’re accused of misconduct and that we don’t have video evidence for the special investigations unit to pursue because this is vehicles and equipment. So I don’t know what this 5% impact will be, but I know from what the deputy chief said two weeks ago when she was here answering questions for us that it will have an impact. And she said any reduction in their budget on any of these items would have an impact on their ability to staff and get people out on the streets and addressing community safety concerns now.

[2:48:44] So I will not be supporting this. I’ve had the chief in my ward answering constituents questions at Town Hall meetings. I’ve listened to the chief layout as planned. It makes sense. And at the end of the day, this is still, and I’m gonna come back to this, this is still going to leave our police force below the provincial average on things. They’re not asking to go to the front of the line and be the best funded and best resourced and best ratio of population to officers in the province. No, they’re saying we wanna get closer to the average, but we’re still gonna be below average on that.

[2:49:17] And I think that’s really critical for people to keep in mind when they’re talking about this police budget and this proposed reduction. Okay, my speaker’s list includes Councillor Raman and Councillor Layman. So Councillor Raman, go ahead. Thank you and through you. So I too have an amendment for P-29 and I’m not sure how to deal with it because it’s also a reduction. So I had reductions that were greater than this and they were related to the discussion that we had at Budget Committee and specifically some of the questions that we discussed with the deputy chief.

[2:50:00] So I’m just wondering, would it be considered friendly to amend? Is that something that the chair would consider? So because I wanna help you with this, if it’s not significantly different than where Councillor Hopkins is, I would suggest you amend it because us in our under our rules, like if you take a go at an amendment, you can’t just move an amendment that’s very close. So if there’s a significant difference in numbers, I would say I would likely deem that to be materially different and you could move that later.

[2:50:38] If you’re, you said they’re different, but more, but you’re, I don’t know if you’re close. I would say do it as an amendment here and given where Councillor’s emotional on the floor, I would say the proper way is to actually amendment. There’s not a friendly thing when we’re at council. So you can amend it and change the numbers and then we could proceed. So I would suggest, I mean, you can make your own judgment. I don’t know what your numbers are. So it’s hard for me to keep you further guidance than that. Thank you. And just for clarity, does the amendment have to say whether or not it’s operating or it’s capital or can it just say reduce?

[2:51:19] So if you’re amending Councillor Hopkins motion, it’s reducing the business case by that amount. I’ll go to Mr. Murray to be clear. Like, ‘cause I know some capitals capital levy, some is tax levy right now. Councillor Hopkins is drawing that from tax levy. I’m not sure if there’s, I don’t remember the business case, but could you identify? It’s not determined, but right now we’re specifically doing something with the tax rate. And I don’t know if there’s both a capital levy and an operating piece associated with this part of the budget. Thank you and through you, Mr. Mayor.

[2:51:54] I do not know the details of what the Councillor is proposing. However, how we have treated other police amendments is to reflect them as potential reductions to operating expenditures and tax levy, given that the city does not have the ability to dictate where the police spends their budget. That has been the general approach that we have taken with all the police amendments today. So let me help you give you some guidance ‘cause I want you to know. So right now, the amendments fundamentally based around a permanent ongoing reduction to this, through the business case and tax levy reductions.

[2:52:32] And Mr. Murray, you’re gonna keep nodding unless I say something that isn’t true. If you’re looking to make like a one-time reduction, even though you can’t dictate that something’s from capital, like that to me, that would kind of be a fundamentally different motion. So you could do that later. So, or you could amend it to say plus a one-time reduction. But right now, it’s a reduction that kind of ramps up in the same way that the business case does by the percentage number as Mr. Murray articulated. So that being said, what Mr. Murray said is correct, what the police services board does with it is completely within their jurisdiction.

[2:53:10] Thank you. And I appreciate that guidance. So I’d like to amend the amendment so that it would read that the 2024 operating expenditure is less 158,000, similar to this next to the tax levy, 2025 operating expenditure, expenditure 307, 307,000 sorry, reduction. 2026 operating expenditure reduction of 203,000 and 2027 operating expenditure is a reduction of 199,000 and that follows with the tax levy.

[2:53:50] Okay. So let me, so everybody heard those numbers? I’ll look for a seconder for that reduction and then we can continue with the wait. Councillor Hopkins, you’re looking at the second? Yeah, if you can give 24 and 25, I just wanna make sure I get all my numbers. 150,000, - 307,000, - 203,000, - 199,000. A seconder, I’m looking for a seconder now. Councillor’s Frank’s willing to second. Okay, so we’re now a new speaker’s list on the amendment and Councillor Raman, if you’d like to proceed on the amendment now, you can.

[2:54:30] Thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this amendment to P29. I’m basing this amendment on the discussion that we had at the budget committee. At that discussion, we had a very open and transparent conversation in which the deputy chief provided that the amounts that were listed here in and provided in the amendment. Here’s what we know. We know that this business case, P29, was one of the business case that pointed to additional sources of funding at the federal level that could be accessed by the police.

[2:55:05] That’s what we know. Yes, they were unsuccessful in one round. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t preclude them from going back and I think that that’s important where other source funding can be found. The other thing that stood out for me when I was looking at this particular business case and this particular amendment particularly, we’re not talking about any potential changes to staffing levels. If the police decided to move this money from one of the parts of the business case in which this is provided.

[2:55:45] They also indicated that there is no equipment loss if they moved it from P29. They could do other things to purchase other vehicles or make other decisions. So this is not a loss for the police in either staffing or it could also not be a loss for the police when it comes to vehicles. Additionally, as I mentioned, they have another source of funding. So here’s what we’ve done in our budget committee over the past few weeks.

[2:56:21] We have looked for reductions. We’ve made hard choices. We’ve looked for savings and efficiencies so that residents in our community see that we are looking and making sure that there is no stone left unturned that we’ve looked for every opportunity to find savings. This is $867,000. So when I look at it and I look at the choices that we’ve made, if we decide today to amend this in the subsequent budget updates, considering that we know that we’ve earmarked these savings, we could then go back and apply some of these dollars to business cases that we were unable to support should those come forward again in our budget updates, which I suspect because some of them were quite dire that we’re going to hear from them again.

[2:57:15] So we have an opportunity today to save some money in 2024 for residents. And in subsequent years, we can either continue to pass on those savings to residents or we can make some other choices. And we can do all of that without impacting police service. So the police still get everything they want. The difference here is that they would have to move away from a strategy of which we ourselves could not fund our climate emergency action plan and our fleet requirements that we wanted to ensure that we committed to through this budget.

[2:57:53] We could not do that because of the choices that we made at this table. So is it wrong to ask an agency board commission, anyone just the same question to say, we were had to make a hard choice on something we believe in, we’re going to need to cut there to do the same or can you look at this, bring it back to the police service board and find a way to be able to minimize the budget that way. I understand that I can’t direct where and how they see that reduction.

[2:58:29] So that’s why this is in front of you as an amendment today. I think it’s reasonable. I think it’s something that shows that we did hear what Londoners were saying to find some savings and efficiencies within the police budget. Okay, thank you. Councillor Layman, I had you on the original speakers list but your hands still up. So I’m not looking, I want to know if you’re looking to be on the amendment list right now. Yeah. - Yeah. Okay, then you can go ahead. You’re on the list.

[2:59:03] Am I okay to go? Yeah, go ahead. Is it my turn? Yeah, it’s your turn. Thank you. Yeah, I’ll speak to this. It ties in with the first amendment. I’ll speak once to this. I’d just like to touch on a few things. One, the deputy mayor mentioned a comment of that was made about the police budget being untouchable. And I like to address that as well. Quite the contrary, the chief has been out in the community being grilled by why these resources are needed on specific items within the police budget.

[2:59:47] He has been available to all Councillors for individual meetings to address their concerns or their questions. To say it’s untouchable, I think is wrong. It’s very touchable. It’s our duty right now to do the scrutiny which we are doing to see where we stand on this. If you agree with the amendments, then go ahead. I disagree completely with what’s being said. I will not support any reduction to the resources required.

[3:00:27] And the reason is this, when I knocked doors to now a year and a half ago in the election, the number one issue was public safety. We knew it that this city wasn’t safe to the actions on the police board. I learned why and it’s a situation where our resources, both in staffing and personnel and also in equipment are terribly lacking. A chief came in with fresh eyes and also looked at the state of the city.

[3:01:03] And he determined exactly what we all felt. He was charged with putting a solution forward to address these concerns and to do what’s provincially mandated present a plan to provide safety for the citizens of London. Safety for all, by the way, all the root of all these good things we do with social services and businesses and nonprofits and public housing. If we don’t have safety at the bottom of the base of that, then it goes for an all.

[3:01:42] I agree with the deputy mayor as well. But first, it was 5%, Y, 5%. And then the second amendment, why that number? It was suggested by the mover that this would have no impact on police service. I can’t understand how it would have impact on police service. Whether it comes from equipment or staffing, it’s gonna impact. The other thing that was mentioned was finding funding from other sources. The police board and police management are very, very aggressive in seeking out additional funding and they will continue to be so after this is over.

[3:02:23] So my final point is this. You’re welcome to have a different opinion than I, but that doesn’t mean this is untouchable. I personally feel that what the chief is proposing here is needed for this city and I will support it 100% on the direction that he wants to go and I will not compromise public safety. Thanks, I have Councilor Ferreira next.

[3:03:02] Thank you, Mr. Mayor, through you. So there’s a big lesson that I would like us to take note, to take away from here today. And that lesson is all to do with the public trust. That’s the public trust in council. That’s the public trust in the London police. And both have seen an accelerated downward slide from this budget work. How we conduct ourselves here filters down to how interactions between the people of London and the London police are framed out there. And I worry about that.

[3:03:37] Our ABCs and some critical city programs for housing have not been adequately funded. That’s the London Public Library, the LTC, the Grand, for instance, Museum London and going back to that, you know, what does the average cost for the taxpayer for the Grand Amendment that we brought here? 45 cents to the average taxpayer per year. I keep on bringing 45 cent amendments ‘cause I think it’s quite reasonable for big impact. We have significantly reduced the capacity of activating Dundas Place and downtown functions. We were able to give people some relief with their public transit experience, but that was at the expense of reduced funding to the climate emergency action plan.

[3:04:20] People in my ward have demanded that we have cleaner parks, cleaner paths, more waste disposal frequencies. I would like that too, and we didn’t get that. We didn’t approve the extreme clean program. We didn’t approve the housing stability bank expansion. We didn’t approve the additional funding to the housing stability table or the housing supports case management programs, all of which are housing first programs. They are the last line of defense between being housed and being unhoused.

[3:04:56] Those programs would have saved over 4,000 families per year from homelessness, and they all would have collectively cost the average taxpayer $8.81 a year. Without housing, there is no choice to safety. You just are not gonna have it. It’s things like that that have damaged the public trust. Our willingness to cut such critical housing programs and our unwillingness to do the same for anything to do with the police budget is just not a good look.

[3:05:31] I’m looking for need to have and not nice to have. And with that lens specifically for this amendment, I wish that we would have saw Councillor Hopkins amendment get spoken to. But for this amendment, I think, I do think we should prioritize the LPS, you know, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions. But I don’t think we can afford it right now. I wanna see the compliment for officers increase to meet the average per capita. So I am in support of that.

[3:06:03] I know that’s another business case. I’m not willing to charge the taxpayer for a facility that can be rented out to our peers at a profit because we’re only gonna use it 70 to 75% of the time. If we’re not using it full time, sounds like a nice to have to meet. I worry about people already below the surface who are on borrowed time. And I can’t in good conscience impose such a high property tax when there are costs that I see that are not necessary. A lot of us are feeling the pressure from increasing costs with rent, with mortgages, with utilities, with insurance, with food, with everything.

[3:06:42] And my decision will be with respect to what I see will provide adequate and effective policing services in accordance with the London police’s needs. For the people of London, please. And this is a message from all the communication that I heard, not all cops are bad cops. I know some really good ones. And our job involves both fiscal and fiduciary responsibilities with how we spend funds and how we impact Londoners in their living costs. So my message is what has occurred here should not be brought out there.

[3:07:18] So for me, as a decision maker of a municipality responsible for providing the infrastructure and administration necessary for the London police, I don’t believe it is wrong to ask if we can make some cuts here. So because I don’t have another amendment that will go to some of the things that I see as the areas we can cut, I will be supporting this amendment. Okay, I have Councillor Hopkins next. Your worship, I’m not sure how much time I have.

[3:07:51] Is this the friendly amendment to my amendment? You got five minutes because this is a whole new amendment. Okay, good to know, I probably won’t need that. But I’d like to start off thanking the Councillor for bringing forward her amendment, for doing her due diligence, for continuing the conversation that we have had through the budget process. So I am supporting this amendment. I think it’s relevant. It is an opportunity for us to look at the police budget that is over 50% of our budget to discuss how we can scale back and put some constraints on the budget.

[3:08:36] So thank you, Councillor, for doing your homework. I would like to respond, I think I heard two comments about why the 5%. I know that it’s now no longer in this, but it started the conversation. And it is why I’m supporting the friendly amendment to the original amendment. And the original amendment was started with 5% across all business cases to reduce the tax levy by 0.1%. It was a number arbitrary in terms of being able to reduce it slightly because that is what I hear over and over again for more nine residents.

[3:09:19] That this increase sure it will be absorbed by some, but most people will have a significant increase in their taxes. Going to be the young not being able to afford housing, affordability is going to be a question for the young and old and for businesses as well. So we must and need to have these conversations and find ways in reducing the police budget. It’s that simple.

[3:09:55] I think it’s really also important. I understand and respect. We all have differences of opinions, but I’ve heard loud and clear and continue to hear, not safety is a concern in the city, but housing and homelessness. It continues to be a concern. And I think it is most important that each and every one of us hold every agency forward commission to account. So thank you, counselor.

[3:10:28] And I will be supporting this amendment. Thank you. I have myself next. I’ll turn the chair over to Deputy Mary Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. And recognizing you next on the speaker’s list. So thank you. I appreciate the discussion that’s happened so far. And I want to make a couple comments based on what colleagues have said. First, I just want to caution people to be pretty careful with their language.

[3:11:02] A counselor talked about public trust. It does not sound good when you say all cops are not bad cops. I know some good ones. That is not the way that you want to reflect frontline service that goes out and tries to protect one nurse each and every day. That is not like, so let’s just be cautious with the language that we use. We can have a really good, I think fair debate without having to make it charged. On the amendment, first off, I’m hoping that through the presiding officer, I can ask a question. I’m a little unclear on how the amendment will be structured in the budget because there’s reductions in each of the operating years.

[3:11:38] And I don’t know if the intent here is to reduce by 158, then, and that carries forward, then reduced by 307 and that carries forward, or whether it’s a reduce, go back up, go back down, go back up. Okay, so that’s the way it is. So that makes some more sense. And is there an intent here to have any permanent ongoing, like what is the ongoing amount, post budget, or are these meant to be one time reductions to the tax levy? And I guess what would happen to the business case in 2028 and beyond? That’s so I have that question.

[3:12:09] And then I have some more comments. I just want to clarify first, so I understand. Sure, so we’ll look to Mr. Murray or Ms. Barbone with regard to that ongoing impact. Thank you and through the presenting officer.

[3:12:48] There is budget beyond 2027 for this particular initiative as part of this business case. The reduction that this amendment proposes would essentially set the base for 2027 and then anything beyond 2027, i.e. 2028 and thereafter would need to be considered through the next multi-year budget process. So that would be how we would address future requests or additional needs related to this particular strategy. Thank you, Mr. Murray, Mayor Morgan.

[3:13:23] Yes, okay, that’s helpful. I just wanted to understand that. So I understand the frustration that some colleagues have, and I recently had a chance to go to Ottawa on some business with the big city mayors. It’s speaking with other communities who have talked about their police budget and there’s a number who have approached the police budget in a different way. I know Toronto and Hamilton are often cited at Brentford as well, both Toronto and Hamilton took different approaches to this. Both of them ended up supporting the police budget in their entirety by the end of the process. But, you know, if the council is interested in looking at the police budget and trying to find some savings, I think there’s a way where we just kind of globally reduce the budget, which is certainly within our right.

[3:14:09] But if there are things that we want to signal to the police services board for them to look at that aligns with our priorities, you know, there’s another approach to this too. I know we can’t dictate what the board does, but we can certainly ask them to consider things. And so, if this council feels that, you know, our climate emergency action plan, we’ve had to step back from, and we want to ask the board to say, hey, given we’ve stepped back with this, we know we put it in our strategic plan, we know you’re trying to pitch things like get to an EV strategy, but could you do that a little later to push that down the road, knowing that they’ll have to figure it out by 2035 unless federal regulations change?

[3:14:50] I think that this is done in a different way. It’s not done in reducing their budget. It’s done in passing a motion later and saying, hey, notwithstanding our climate emergency action plan, we don’t think you need to do this right away right now. So could you take another look at the strategy, you know, see what happens to it and then, you know, delay it, do it a little later in the process, and see if you can find some savings that way, you know, savings will be front-ended and then it would be pushed down the road. You know, I think the police services board, but certainly consider that and look at the options.

[3:15:21] I just with the administration, knowing that there are some challenges on the back end leading to 2035 to head to. And I just want to remind colleagues that recently the police services board, and I shared this during the budget debate, decided to, instead of, you know, with about a $3.8 million deficit at the end of last year, decided, like, let’s not go to the city in their surplus process to say we need some help netting this out. We’ll, we’ll be funded from the police services reserve, which now has a very small uncommitted balance to it. Well, millions and millions below the target balance.

[3:15:56] And it’s okay to be below the target balance, but at some point they got to fill that back up. So listen, if, if, if, later on, someone wants to pass a motion and say, this council’s direction is not with standard climate emergency action plan. Take a look at your EV strategy and delay it. I think the board would take that seriously, and it would help them, hopefully not have to come to us in any sort of way. They’ll be able to boost their reserve and maybe return some savings down the road in subsequent years of the budget. Like, there’s ways to ask, have those conversations that aren’t necessarily trying to put a motion on the floor and then hope that they do something with it knowing that they have discretion.

[3:16:29] So, you know, I’m not unsupportive of some of the concepts that have been discussed in this space with colleagues, but I’m not supportive of just taking some numbers and reducing the budget at this time. Am I out of time or give me 30 seconds? Okay. Finally, I just want to say, because it’s been said a couple of times, like, let’s be careful about putting the police budget with health and homelessness. There’s like, we, I got criticized so much. Like, it’s the only thing you talk about for 13 months, right? We’ve done a ton here. We continue to do a ton here. This budget continues to have a ton of money and it carries forward other and we’re leveraging federal and provincial dollars.

[3:17:05] So, let’s just be careful about hitting just different services against each other. We are doing a transformative amount in health and homelessness and we will continue to do so as a council. And you have three seconds left. Good job. I will return the chair to Mayor Morgan. I have not, I have Councillor Stevenson, who has raised her hand to be added to the speaker’s list. Okay, I’ll go to Councillor Stevenson ‘cause I don’t have anybody else at this moment. Thank you. I will not be supporting this amendment. And I do listen to what my colleagues are saying and it disturbs me, I’ll be honest.

[3:17:46] This is legislatively required service. It’s to respond to calls for service that Londoners are making. This is not a want list or a wish list. This was what the board has brought forward saying is required and this need to chip away at it. Like it’s like a jealousy kind of thing. Other boards had to do it, this one should do it. I feel like the board has said this is what’s needed. The mayor said he was unequivocally supportive at the state of the city.

[3:18:21] The council has responded throughout the budget committee meetings. We have talked about this, we have discussed it. There has not been support to reduce the police budget and yet there’s continual attempts to just take some peace. Like there’s some satisfaction about taking some peace from it. Public safety, I will not compromise on public safety. I’m asking this council to trust the board that they have done their due diligence, that this is required, that any amount that is taken has an impact.

[3:18:53] I heard the deputy chief say that it was important that they get this and make that transition early because of all of the specific requirements that are specific to the police vehicles in terms of their lights and computers and everything. She explained why this money was needed in terms of the electric vehicles. So I will not be supporting. I would ask my fellow colleagues to accept the will of council that we wish to, and I’m hoping that we’ll be confirmed with this amendment, that we get to provide what has been told is needed to deliver the services that lenders need, and the board is gonna be holding the service accountable to what they said.

[3:19:38] So we get to give them what they say they need so they can give us what we need. And so I will not be supporting this amendment. I have councilor Truff sound next. Thank you through the chair. I will be supporting this amendment. I think that when you look at this in the overall context of all of the budget requests that this agency is making, it’s minor. And I think it’s a reasonable compromise. And I think it’s a reasonable compromise all the more so because we can’t discuss some of the other business plans yet.

[3:20:16] I think the police service is going to have a lot of discretion in terms of where they apply these reductions. I have mixed feelings about calling these reductions moderate. In the context of the police budget, these are moderate. In the context of many of the other things that people have been asking for, that agencies have been asking for, where we had business plans that were just removed or slashed. This is a lot of money, it’s huge.

[3:20:52] When you look at the context of we’re not done today, we’re still gonna come back to the loan bank for tenants in trouble. We still have a couple of other things on the table. This is a very moderate, moderate and incremental and reasonable compromise in the context of this particular agency’s budget. I don’t think that we are doing anything to bypassing this amendment.

[3:21:26] We’re simply applying the exact same standards that we are trying to apply to all of the other agencies. And I’ve seen some very small requests be opposed on the grounds that this is gonna be, this is what’s gonna break the taxpayer. This is what’s going to break the taxpayer. This is what’s going to break the taxpayer. And I’ve heard it time and again. And yes, there are things we can do later in terms of taking up that very excellent suggestion about looking for some tax relief for low-income seniors and other persons.

[3:22:05] But right now, this is what’s on the floor. And I’m sorry I don’t have the luxury to have this discussion about the training facility, which is even bigger. And I wanna stress I’ve gotten a lot of support for the police in terms of putting more officers on the street. This particular amendment that’s on the floor right now and what this amendment is appended to does not go to personnel.

[3:22:38] And I think it’s really important that everybody that’s listening this realize this is not a tirade against the police. And I very much resent the implication that came out a few weeks ago that those of us who are trying to apply some of the same fiscal constraint to this agency are sort of radical anti-police people. That is not the case. This budget, this budget amendment that’s before you right now is fully consistent with supporting the police.

[3:23:14] And I think that we have to distinguish between what is an adequate and effective police service, which we are under an obligation to provide and what goes beyond that with once. Because it’s really easy for people to talk about once, not needs, when it’s time to talk about the library or downtown or the museum arts. We have to apply the same standards. Now I know that there’s a difference because in the end, we can’t pick and choose what comes out of the budget.

[3:23:48] And we have to be careful. Because this council, if we’re gonna make any reductions in the police budget, we have to be careful that it’s sustainable and that it’s reasonable. And we stay within the boundaries of our statutory obligation. I commend the council for bringing this amendment. I fully support it. And I’m willing to take the consequences. I also support the underlying motion. And again, I am very aggrieved that we are not gonna be able to talk about the training facility, which I think is a much bigger item.

[3:24:28] But again, I wanna make it clear, I am not talking about supporting reductions to personnel who are going to be in our communities. That’s not what this business plan is about. So again, thank you. And that’s what I have to say. I have Councillor Frank next. And to, oh, voice crack. I want to start my remarks by addressing some of the comments more specifically from the mayor.

[3:25:04] It was suggested that we ask the police board to consider a motion to reduce some of their asks. Two weeks ago, I emailed the chief deputy chief and board chair asking if they would be willing to work with council to find some savings in their budget, specifically the amount for the amendment for P-15 to P-18, so about $2 million a year. And the response was essentially a very hard no. A nice no, a polite no, but a no nonetheless. So I understand that that was not the entire police board, but significant leadership on the police board. So I don’t have very strong faith that a request to the police board would result in any kind of reduction, which is why I’m supporting this motion.

[3:25:44] I’d like to see it go through so that we actually have a guarantee of some reduction. And I’ll explain why I think that’s important. If this motion fails, I’m sure we will take that advice from the mayor and send a letter to the police board. I know I’m interested in doing that. And if I’m proven wrong, I will apologize for my lack of faith. So, but we’ll see where that comes. Here’s why I’m supporting this amendment though. The majority of emails that I’ve received from my residents and the majority of the speakers that we had at the PPM all ask for the same thing. And they asked us to make some reductions to the police budget.

[3:26:17] They asked us to find savings and they’ve suggested that they prefer to reduce the police budget and be fiscally responsible. And I think it’s important that we demonstrate to the community that we listen to them. I don’t like having a PPM and then ignoring the majority of the input that we receive from the community. I know that’s all our own. We can make our own decisions here. But I don’t like doing that. I also want to highlight that if we’re trying to address crime in London, investing over the majority of our budget into the police budget won’t yield the results we desire. I think it’s really critical that we recognize that the police received just below the average cost per capita compared to their peers.

[3:26:50] And I’m pulling that number from the slide deck that the police board circulated. While the officer to population ratio is low, the money we give them is just below the average amount that they receive compared to their peers. So their peers, the average is $362 per capita, lending gets $334 per capita. And they receive the largest amount of our budget. Currently it’s 18%. It’s probably going to go up to 20% if this gets approved and the entire budget gets passed. And so I just want to go on the record to show that they’re not underfunded when compared to their peers.

[3:27:22] They’re just below the average. Places like London Transit are desperately underfunded compared to their peers. But the police is just below average. So I don’t think it’s fair to categorize them as underfunded. I remain mystified that an agency who receives just below the average amount though, has some of the worst call times compared to their peers. And crime is a multifaceted issue with roots that are deeply intertwined with socioeconomic disparities, systemic inequalities, a lack of access to housing, education, food, healthcare, and resources. And I think law enforcement does play a role in maintaining public order and safety.

[3:27:58] But the idea that pouring more money into the police budget alone is going to address all of our criminal activity. I don’t think that has basis in any kind of research I’ve seen. I think public safety is important. And I don’t think that the police are the only way we provide public safety to our community. I actually think it’s unfair to the police that we say that they’re the only people who provide public safety. I think that’d be overwhelming for one agency to have to carry that alone. And when we prioritize funding for police for other critical services, such as education, mental health care, affordable housing, community development. And I know that’s not all within our jurisdiction.

[3:28:31] We are neglecting the root causes of crime. Investing in these areas not only addresses the systemic issues that contribute to criminal behavior, but also creates environments where individuals are less likely to turn to these activities. And funding the police department at the expense of many of our other essential services is not a sustainable way of trying to reduce crime rates. And to truly promote public safety and address them, we have to prioritize investments in other services that I’ve mentioned. So while I appreciate the efforts of the Council and Mayor, I don’t think we’ve actually done that in this budget to the point that we need to.

[3:29:04] And I want to see us make this reduction now. And I’ll be supporting funding P15, which is extreme clean, and P16, the Housing Stability Bank, ‘cause I think that provides a much greater return on public safety in our community. And there’s a difference between what makes people feel uncomfortable and what actually makes them feel unsafe. And I think it’s an important distinction. So I know we all have different opinions. We’re all allowed to have different opinions, and that’s fine. Here’s mine. I don’t believe that more police makes a city safer. And I believe we’re gonna spend hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, not and not necessarily make the city safer.

[3:29:37] So that is why I’d like to see a reduction. I would have supported a greater reduction, but I’ll take anything we can get at this point. Any other speakers on the amendment to the motion? Yeah, seeing none. So you have that before you. I think everybody knows exactly what we’re voting on. So I’m gonna open that for voting. Vote motion fails seven to eight.

[3:30:25] Okay, so that returns us to the main motion. I had Councillor Pereira, who I had missed before, and then I had Councillor Lehman. This is back to the numbers that Councillor Hopkins. So Councillor Hopkins, your actual, that was Councillor Raman’s amendment to yours. So you’re still there. Your motion that you put is still on the floor. It just was not successfully amended by Councillor Raman. So, and Ferra is next on the, Councillor Ferra is next on the speaker’s list.

[3:31:02] Well, thank you. I guess I’ll be brief. I will be supporting this amendment. Councillor Lehman. He called you as brief, yeah. For this reasons I gave for the last, not support of that amendment on it, by here as well, thank you. Okay, any other else? Councillor Stevenson, yes, go ahead. Thank you. I’m not gonna be quite as brief. Last summer and in the fall, when I was questioning the homelessness funding, there was no willingness to consider anything and then the experts said, the experts said what was needed and who were we to question.

[3:31:51] So I find it very selective some of the comments that I’m hearing being spoken to about the police service. And I think it’s better. I would prefer, I’m not gonna say it. The speakers who were at the PPM, I know I wasn’t here but I did listen to four hours of it. And I’m all for people having their say and I do wanna speak about this later when it comes on the agenda. But that PPM did not represent the average Londoner. So to say that we need to take that into consideration, I think we absolutely do need to take into consideration what was said that evening.

[3:32:35] But I think as we always know, people come out to the PPMs usually when they wanna say no. That’s who comes out to the developments. We don’t get tons of people coming out and saying yes, we want that new mall, we want that new building. We get the people who are dissenting, so that’s fine. The voice was heard, but we do get to take it into consideration with the general public and the 480,000 or 450,000 other people that we have in London. There’s been decades of underfunding of the police service. And so to not even take that into consideration either, I think is a disservice.

[3:33:13] The chief and other people from the executive leadership team of the LPS has explained, they’ve written emails, they’ve explained why, every dollar matters, why they can’t take 50,000 or 90,000 off. And I didn’t hear these arguments saying, well, how come City Hall can’t just take a little piece off, they have a big budget? No, it’s only directed at the police. And I just want to take a moment to say thank you to the London Police Service and what they do for the city and to just reinforce how much the majority of Londoners, we do not hear from value, appreciate, and want you fully funded as per the wishes of the police service board.

[3:33:56] And I just want you to know that PPM did not represent the majority of Londoners, and we appreciate you. From the main motion, I’m looking for any other speakers. Yes, Councillor Trostai, you haven’t spoken yet, go ahead. I won’t repeat through the chair. I will not repeat everything I said a few minutes ago. Other than that, this is even less of a reduction. So it’s even more incremental and probably more not consequential in terms of what this agency can do.

[3:34:38] I want to specifically address the point that was just made about deference to expertise. And what I think I just heard was, well, people in this agency have expertise and we should defer to them. Well, guess what? People in a lot of agencies have expertise. I’ll talk about the one I know about the most. That’s librarianship. When the staff of the London Public Library works through their budget, they’re not just pulling numbers out of the sky.

[3:35:12] They are all professional librarians who have a lot of expertise. And they understand things like collections and what collections cost. So I really have a hard time when I’m told that it’s okay to cut all of these other agencies, ‘cause we need to cut, we can’t spend so much money. But then be told with this one that there’s expertise, I really have a hard time with that. Just like librarianship, museum, museum work, is a profession.

[3:35:48] We have professional people who have looked at this and it’s the same thing when we look at some of the social services. It’s the same thing when we look at some of the housing requests. These are not arbitrary people that show up at a meeting and demand public support for no reason. These were all very careful. I think that people in this budget process went through a lot of work, went through a lot of sweat, went through a lot of staff time in order to develop some very thoughtful business plans.

[3:36:29] That goes for everyone, including the police. But I think, and this is where I’m gonna close, we have to apply the same standard of deference and we have to apply the same standard of scrutiny to all of the different agencies. And yes, I know there is this additional legislative requirement that we stay within certain bounds. But within certain bounds, I just really wanna take issue with the implication if that was made.

[3:37:01] And I certainly hope it wasn’t intended. But I wanna take issue with the implication that the proponents of all of the other business plans and all these different professions and endeavors don’t have expertise. Thank you very much. Thanks, Councilor. I have Councilor Pribble. Thank you. First of all, I wanna apologize if I’m gonna start coughing because it seems like last couple of weeks when I start to talk, I cough, so I’m gonna try to be really brief.

[3:37:35] But I just wanna say this. And I did a couple of years ago, I did go through the two elections, one provincial, one municipal, no doubt that every single door, number one was safety and security. Then second was homelessness, and then kind of the duress of the things. But honestly, safety and security was number one. And the response times the police effectiveness was very low in terms of the eyes of the Londoners. I do, I will not support any amendments. I will support the police budget as proposed.

[3:38:15] Having said that, I really expect the accountability, efficiency, effectiveness and reporting, not just to the police board, but to us as well, when we do the annual updates, the ones that come from the growth assessment. I do not expect if this is passed during the next four years, the police services will not have my support in additional funding, they will not. And I’ll be looking for other agencies, organizations and Londoners to alleviate the pressure that we are going to be incurring, and especially during this first year.

[3:38:55] This budget, I don’t expect that it’s going to go below whatever is proposed there, over eight, which is a very high number, and it’s going to be very difficult next year, very difficult. But right after this, we do need to move on, because there’s a corporation we got to move on, and we have certain responsibility towards the corporation, and we have to move on. Having said that, right after this budget, I really want us to work really hard on year two, three, four. I cannot, honestly, I don’t know how we can sustain two years, the year one, year two, over eight percent.

[3:39:31] So bottom line is, oh, sorry, bottom line, what I’m trying to say is, I will, I’m accepting the police budget the way it is, but those things I said, message to the police services, those are really my expectations. We will hold you to what you have promised us. We believe in you, we need you, because the safety security needs to improve in our city. It is a big concern, doesn’t matter if it’s southeast, downtown. We do have these issues. And when we heard sometimes that it’s only reactive, it’s not true.

[3:40:05] There are a lot of proactive actions through the police as well, no doubt, and I really have nothing to add, but I just want to say, I will accept it. I will not make any adjustments. As us as a Councillors, we do have to look at here two, three, and four very diligently. Please, police board, if this goes through, do your finances without coming back to us next four years, with the updates, because we do need that money for other boards, agencies, and for Londoners.

[3:40:40] Thank you. Okay, that’s all the speakers that I have. This is Councillor Hopkins’ original amended, original proposed amendment, so that’s on the screen. It’s number two up there. I’m going to open that for voting. Pass the votes, yes.

[3:41:32] Three votes, no. Closing the vote, motion fails, seven, two, eight. So I’m going to, we’re going to take a break now. Can we finish up, because you train me for that? Yeah, yes, we’ll do that, Councillor, please. And then I’ll like to move a 15-minute break. 15 or 20? 15. 15, okay, well you can move it. We’ll see what passes. Sorry, so the motion on the floor is that the same, when not an amendment’s made, we’ve got to just recognize that it was discussed, so it’s the being noted.

[3:42:12] Councillor Ploza’s moved it, any discussion? No, okay, we’re going to open that for voting. Pass the votes, yes. Thank you, right. Councillor Ploza, this was the motion to be it being noted. Councillor Cuddy?

[3:42:53] Yes. Thank you, closing the vote, motion passes, 14 to one. Councillor Ploza. I’m moving a 15-minute recess. Seconded by Councillor Ferriara, this by hand. All those in favor? Motion carries. Okay, 15 minutes, please be seated. Okay, we’re back to Budget Chair Ploza in going through the other item section.

[3:52:39] Thank you, and the other items. I’m putting number 27 on the floor. This is business case P31, which was amending the mayor’s budget to include fundraising for action three, which was the extension of parks operation services. Put it on the floor, realizing Councillor Frank has an amendment. Thank you. Oh, that’s Councillor Frank. Sorry, yeah, I should have thought, I should have waited. Sorry, go ahead. My bad. I’d like to put the motion that we debated at committee on the floor as it stands for an amendment.

[3:53:15] And I’m the seconder. So that’s moved and seconded. Did you want to speak to it? Oh, Councillor Ploza, you want to, Budget Chair Ploza, you want to speak first? Go ahead. Yeah, thank you. And thank you to Councillor Frank to bring this one to the floor so we didn’t have to change, she was chairing what. I pulled this one and asked for it as I am changing my vote from committee to hear that hearing from residents for the public process through emails and engagement of my ward meetings and still enjoying parks 365 days a year through all seasons, it really is the park garbage that’s a community lack of pride in dirtiness in local areas and concerns that we’re hearing.

[3:54:06] I did take the time offline to discuss things with Ms. Share to see if there’s a way to do this without needing these funds, if it could be squeezed out somewhere else. We already did that last time on council, so there’s nowhere else left to squeeze. Had worked on this one last term of just moving the garbage cans in the winter to the sides of the road and some major parks that staff could just easily get to it versus going into the interior of a park. We’ve already done that and throughout the pandemic people have continued to love their parks, which is great in that community space and a lot of them are neighborhood connections getting the kids to school.

[3:54:44] So hearing from different families throughout the White Oaks Park area in my ward of just the garbage that blows in a special in the schoolyard area that it’s not what they want their children to grow up with of like this is the pride and community. Have also taken the opportunity was invited into Ashley Oaks Public School and their class is actually doing some projects around this and the students themselves had me in several different classes and asked for this initiative to be put back into our budget process. So between hearing from residents of all ages in my ward and across the city I am changing my vote on that one.

[3:55:19] So this is why I wanted to bring it for your consideration that and meaningful that I was changing my vote. I’m gonna ask you to make a difference, but those are my points for your consider. Thank you. Thank you, I have Councilor Ferreira next. Where’s my handle now? I said, I started with Frank and I ended with Ferreira. So I get why you guys, it’s Councilor Ferreira, I saw you raise your hand, so go ahead.

[3:55:53] Okay, thank you. So yes, I have many, many, many, many, many, many residents asking for this specific areas that are in need on my ward. Anyways, Ivy Park, Harris Park, the West London Dyke, along the Thames Valley, Parkway, Piccadilly Park, so I’m in Victoria Park, I’m getting it from all fronts. So this is something I definitely would like to see be approved. I know that there’s other people in the city who are also asking for it too. So I would hope that we would get this approval ‘cause this will go a long way. I’d like people to be able to enjoy their parks. I’d like to be able to enjoy the Thames Valley Parkway.

[3:56:28] I’d like to be people just to be able to go outside and see that just the environment around them. It doesn’t have, you know, mess and trash and debris and things like that. The garbage cans being cleared, frequency of that, very big deal. So I’m hoping that we can get that approval for this. Thank you, I have Deputy Mayor Lewis next. Thank you, Your Worship. Again, this is one of those business cases where I see the value, but I won’t be supporting it. And this to me feels very much like discussions we’ve had around sidewalk snow removal.

[3:57:10] No matter what we do here, residents are still going to be dissatisfied. We’ve heard counselors already talk about parks in their ward and I could say the same thing about parks in my ward and I would hazard a guess that all 14 of us can identify parks in our ward. If you think that $300,000 is going to clean up all the parks in 14 wards to the satisfaction level that residents are saying they expect. The garbage can never being overflowing, dog, bags, being left on whatever tree or signpost.

[3:57:46] People are lazy enough to dump them on instead of taking them home. It won’t. You’re going to hear the same complaints next year that you’re hearing right now because this will not get the job done. We will never get the job done to people’s satisfaction. People who need to actually take action to keep our parks clean is every single resident and citizen of the city who uses those spaces and take their garbage home and put it in their recycling bins and put it in their garbage, how many, I don’t know how many times I see perfectly good like recycling items, pop bottles, pop cans, things like that shoved in garbage cans in our parks.

[3:58:32] Things that belong at home in your blue bin when we take things with us anywhere. And by the way, it’s not just in our parks. I hear all the time and I’m sure that Councillor Cuddy and I’m sure that Councillor Hillyer would echo it and I’m sure Councillor Stevenson has probably heard it too about trashing the medians along Veterans Memorial or Highberry Ave. And again, don’t throw your litter out the window, take it home and put it in your garbage bin. And when you’re at a park, don’t leave your plastic baggie of dog waste along a convenient tree or a post.

[3:59:10] Take it home and put it in your garbage. Yes, we will have times when people will have things that they will need to dispose of while they are out. And that’s why we have garbage bins in our parks so that when those circumstances arise, there’s an opportunity to do the right thing and put it in the right receptacle. But we are never going to reach the level of expectation that people have with $300,000. And we’re certainly not going to ever reach the level of parks cleanliness that we think we should have.

[3:59:45] If people don’t take some civic pride in their public spaces and take their garbage home with them. Like I said, I know not everybody can do that all the time, which is why we have these cans for people to use. But when you can, you should. I got an email earlier today. And I know I won’t use her last name but I appreciate when Renee sends these to me ‘cause they’re happy moments. Said I saw a lady walking along the new sidewalk on Trafalgar Street today with a grabber and a garbage bag and she was picking up a litter on the roadside. That’s a resident with civic pride. That’s a resident that I really appreciate and thank.

[4:00:20] If by chance you happen to be watching tonight, thank you, thank you, thank you for helping keep our neighborhoods clean. But that’s where the responsibility lays is with each and every one of us. We’re not going to fix the problem by just putting more money into it. We have to change the narrative in terms of making sure that we’re all taking some pride in our civic spaces by each individually doing our part. That’s a ramen. Thank you.

[4:00:52] I want to thank the mover and the seconder for reintroducing this motion because I do think it is quite important to some of the things that we need to do in the city. So I just want to take us back to what action number three involves. So it’s the extension of parks operation services. It has in there not just about garbage cleanup. And yes, that is an individual responsibility, a collective responsibility, as well as has a staff component to it as well. Maybe it’s my, let’s call it my new fresh counselor eyes. But I do think we should try to improve services where we can.

[4:01:34] And I don’t think that because we won’t address all complaints, we shouldn’t try to address the concerns that residents are raising. And in this case in particular, to me, some of the really critical items here are things like other touch-ups and park amenities that we will be able to do because we’re doing these things outside of Jess, our traditional maintenance in the summer months and into the fall months. So things like renewing the wood chips in the playground area and paths, repairs to tenants and basketball courts, looking at repairs to park benches and renewals.

[4:02:15] It’s not just the garbage that I hear about in my ward. It’s also Jess, the opportunity to access a park and be able to access a playground outside of our regular operational season, but also that those things are being taken care of, that they’re being maintained and that you can feel safe and confident in using them. And so I think we do have a responsibility here and it’s a very small cost for the big output it will have that the impact it will have for the community.

[4:02:53] And I just wanna say, yes, I recognize that in the previous budgets, we found opportunities for savings in doing some of these things. We exhausted every avenue. We cannot continue to say that we are a community that is growing, that has growing needs. We’re going to expand our parks. We’re gonna do all these things, but yet we’re not going to invest the money to do them. So I continue to be supportive of this business case. I love the fact that we’re looking at supporting Londoners getting outside and enjoying our parks more. I think it benefits everyone and I think we should support it.

[4:03:31] Other speakers, Councillor Trostav, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. I really wanna speak against the notion that this should be self-serve. Yes, people should not be leaving big messes and people should pick up their dog litter. But I think once we suggest that basic level of, basic level of cleanliness services in the parks just be left to individuals. And no matter what we do, we’re not gonna be able to improve it. That is so self-defeaters. And I get so many calls from my word, from people who say, we really try to keep the parks clean, but there’s certain things that the city has to do at a minimum.

[4:04:14] This is not enough to do what I think needs to be done. I do think what’s on the floor right now will certainly help. But let’s not abandon our responsibility to provide decent places for our residents to go. I’m appalled to hear that. So I’m gonna be supporting this. Many of the things that Councillor Ramen just said where we’re on my list of things to say are fenches. But thank you very much. And thanks for bringing this forward. Other speakers, go ahead, Councillor Hoppen.

[4:04:50] Yeah, thank you. Worship I too will be supporting this amendment. I know I’ve been around quite a while. We have tried programs a number of years ago. We tried a program thinking outside the box or thinking outside the can. Make sure you take home your garbage. That did not work. So as a growing city with 500 parks and these parks are filled summer right into the winter. And I know residents really appreciate our parks and their while use. I wish we had a little bit more snow in the winter where we can sort of have some covering up of some of the garbage that’s out there.

[4:05:27] But I think it reminds me every time I’m in the park is all the garbage that’s lying around. We do need to increase our staff and to support our parks. So happy to support the amendment. Any of the speakers, the amendment is moved and seconded, we’ll open it for voting. Opposed in the vote, motion fails seven to eight.

[4:06:17] I’ll put the original amendment thing on the floor for, we’ll go back to that. So let’s vote on that. The notice thing, yes, of course. So that’s by the budget chair. Well, I don’t see any speakers on that. So we’ll open that for voting. Mr. Chaucer, Councillor Hopkins.

[4:06:53] I vote yes. Thank you, closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. I will now put item 39, which is business case P15 on the floor. This was a seven to eight vote at committee and it was in regards to including business case P15, which is the hoarding extreme clean program. I said it in the budget. I’ll put that on the floor. So what you’re putting on the floor is just the, it being noted piece and then someone.

[4:07:27] Yeah, and Councillor Ferra has an amendment. So let me go to Councillor Ferra. Thank you. I would like to take the motion as it was from committee and put it back on the floor for consideration. And I’ll move that in a second. And I have a seconder as well with Councillor Frank. Okay, so that’s moved and seconded. Did you want to speak to it now? Yes, I can go ahead. So we put this motion on the floor because in 2023, we saw that this program prevented 128 evictions and it’s providing assistance in 2023 for 41 at risk seniors, 23 at risk families.

[4:08:08] It provided 111 extreme clean cases. The London Fire reports over 700 people are at risk due to hoarding in the city. And I would also note that this helps a lot of people. And I did speak to someone last night, a paratransit rider who suffers from, or struggles with physical disability. And she told me that if we lose this program, she will be at risk of losing her housing. So I would just hope that we could approve this because this is again, another frontline business case that will help with our housing and our homelessness issue.

[4:08:53] All those speakers, let’s show us how to go ahead. Through the chair, I’d like to support this motion. Unequivocally, we can’t spend enough money on this because every cent we spend on this saves us money in terms of tenants not being evicted. In terms of people who are currently housed, not always in great conditions from becoming homeless. This is a cost savings.

[4:09:29] It is beyond my comprehension. How we cannot be supporting this unanimously. Given the fact that this council has taken some very deliberate actions, which I’ve supported to prevent homelessness, we can prevent homelessness at great expense and will be successful at some point. And we’re doing that. But if we just keep turning out more precarious tenants into the streets because of the problems that they face and their conditions, often the letter that we received from neighborhood legal services is really eye-opening.

[4:10:19] And if you’re even thinking and not supporting this, please re-read the letter from neighborhood legal services. Experts, people who are on the front line, people who are on the front line, I’m glad I’m not being heckled enough, it’s my fault. People who are on the front line are preventing tenants from being evicted. And they make the very good point that once a tenant is evicted, it’s not like another low-income person can come take that unit.

[4:10:52] Because under Ontario’s so-called rent control, we have vacancy decontrol. So once the landlord gets a vacant unit, which they have an incentive to do, they can just raise the rent to the next tenant. And we see what a big problem rent evictions are, we just got that report from Acorn. And I’m very happy that the city is taking measures to deal with rent evictions. But this of neighborhood legal services, they understand what it means to deal with a low-income tenant who’s under a lot of stress who is about to lose their home.

[4:11:33] And this service is a home saver. This service is a cost-saving. And I am, to borrow the words from neighborhood legal services, I am imploring this council to support P-15 in its entirety. Thank you very much. There’s speakers, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. While I appreciate colleagues’ passion on this, my vote will not be changing. And I encourage colleagues not to support this change because it comes back down to one fundamental principle.

[4:12:10] This was funded as a provincial pilot program. We cannot absorb every decision of a provincial government to reduce funding in whatever area they choose to do on our property taxes. They have the luxury of consumer taxes through HST and other syntax things, alcohol, tobacco, all of those things, and they have provincial income tax. They have an economy of scale that allows them to fund things that we can never fund through a property tax base. That is the reality.

[4:12:45] And that is true right across this province. There’s a reason why things like OW and ODSP must be funded by a provincial government. We cannot absorb those. And there are literally, there are more than a dozen business cases around this particular social issue. And they’re not all getting funded. And that doesn’t mean there’s not value to each of them, but budgets are about choices and where we have to put them. And backfilling and letting the provincial government off the hook for their decisions by backfilling on property taxes is not something that I’m prepared to do.

[4:13:21] It’s not good fiscal responsibility for the property tax base. We should be lobbying the province, yes. Councilor Cuddy and I, six months ago now, Councilor Trussall brought up the renovations issue, we called on the provincial government to immediately double the shelter allowance for OW and ODSP. And that advocacy needs to continue. But that’s the level of government that has to make those sorts of changes. And so I’ve been consistent throughout this budget. I will not backfill for other levels of government abandoning their responsibilities.

[4:13:57] It is not our responsibility to do their job for them. We have a responsibility. We are working on the renovations. I’m very pleased that that had unanimous support. And there’s a lot of work to do on that. And that is gonna make a difference on things. Previous Council, and I said this during committee, invested $96 million in, I forget how many business cases now, ‘cause I don’t have Mr. Murray’s email open when I asked him to help me account the business cases that were involved, but $96 million that’s now baked into the base budget that we are dealing with today.

[4:14:33] So they’re not business cases now, because that’s an investment that continues to happen throughout our community. And we talk about the roadmap to 3,000 and the portable benefit. And that is getting another injection. But that is our choice because that’s a council-led initiative and a council direction, not a provincial backfill issue. So that’s why I’ll be voting no on this. This has been, these social issues have been going on and it’s not just the current government. This has been something that’s been happening for a couple of decades now.

[4:15:07] Governments of different colors in office have not addressed these social assistance rates the way they should. That should be happening, but we cannot put it on the property tax base. So I respect the passion of the councilors for wanting to see this happen. I genuinely do, ‘cause I know your hearts are in the right place, you’re trying to improve things, but we have to flip to the other side in terms of where our responsibilities lay as a municipal government, we’re not the provincial government. Councilor McAllister.

[4:15:43] Thank you and through the chair. I supported this as committee. I will be supporting it here. I hear what the deputy mayor is saying in terms of these downloadable costs. And we have a number of cases where that is a problem. But for me, we spoke earlier about, you know, one nursing public safety was their top priority, but I also heard housing. Housing is absolutely something that we have to address. And I would love to be able to stand here and announce, well, the province has agreed they’re gonna backfill these things. That’s just not the reality. And unfortunately, you know, I don’t think it’s fair to let Londoners wait around a few more years until the next election.

[4:16:20] And I don’t particularly want to use them as pawns politically because I don’t think that that’s fair. I think if we have the ability to do something in the here and now, we should do it. ‘Cause this has a very real impact on people’s lives. And I’ve heard it. A number of my constituents have used this program and it has saved them for being on the street. And so for me, this is very much a vote of conscience and I cannot take away money that is going to keep people housed. So I will be supporting this. That’s for Frank.

[4:16:53] Thank you. Yes. I supported this committee. I’ll support it again today. I think many great points have already been said, but to me, the only thing I wanted to add to the conversation is this is, in my opinion, cheaper than what the end bill will be if we don’t fund it. So I’m actually looking this from a fiscally conservative lens where if we can pay to keep 100, 150 people housed a year, it is so much cheaper than paying for emergency services, for shelters, for the police response, for ambulances. It’s so much cheaper. So I’ll be supporting it here today.

[4:17:29] That’s what happens. Yeah, I supported this at committee and I’ll be supporting it again today. I think housing homelessness again is the number one priority I hear in our city. I do want to also say, I know the previous council invested heavily in housing and it was the right thing to do then, but we have been underfunding housing for many, many years. I know we stayed at a 0% tax hike a number of years ago, and even money at that time was pulled out of housing.

[4:18:07] So it does take us a while to catch up. I think it’s really important that the province that we should be advocating with the province to help us as a municipality support more and do more. I don’t think they’re going to go and read our budget line by line to see where we have not invested and where we’ve invested. I think as much as I appreciate the need to maybe push back with the province, I think we have the problem here in the municipality that we have to deal with, so I will be supporting this.

[4:18:53] The speakers, okay, seeing none, we’re going to open that change for voting. Those in the vote, motion fails, seven, two, eight. I just need to pause, Councillor Ploza, I need a motion with this by hand to extend past six p.m. at this time, moved by.

[4:19:34] You vote no, but then— Motion, can we do this? Oh, okay, we’re going to do it in the system because it requires two thirds, right? Okay, so moved by Councillor Frank, seconded by Councillor Ferriero. So this is just to extend the meeting past six. Have that ready, comments before six. Councillor Stevenson and Trassel, those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:20:27] Yeah, this time it would just be the original motion to receive from committee. Yeah, okay, so that’s put on the floor by the budget chair, I don’t see any comments on that, so we’ll open that for voting. Those in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you, the next item is item 40, being business case P-16. This is an amendment to include P-16, which was the Housing Stability Bank expansion, as set out in the budget.

[4:21:07] I’ll put the recommendation committee on the floor, realizing that Councillor Ferriero has an amendment. Go ahead, Councillor Ferriero. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and through you, same thing as the last one I’d like to take this item that has no committee recommendation. I’d like to put it back on the floor for consideration, and I would move that. And I have a seconder, I believe, as well, with Councillor— Councillor Frank, okay, so you moved in seconded, you can go ahead and speak now. Thank you, so I think that this one doesn’t get as closer as you can get when it comes to the direct way that we can assist people to keep them in their housing.

[4:21:52] Back to what I heard on the other discussions from a fiscally conservative lens. It will always be cheaper to keep people in their housing rather than putting them into housing, both cheaper financially and cheaper socially. That’s people not having to go through that experience. So with this motion or with this amendment, without additional funding for the entire housing stability bank program would have 3,200 households per year, save 3,200 households per year. It would help cover utilities, it would help cover rental arrears through loans and grants.

[4:22:26] And it also makes a good case that 70% of the beneficiaries from the housing stability bank program are on a fixed income. We do know that we have rising costs, inflation, everything. And but when you’re on a fixed income, you’re not able to really deal with that. You don’t have the wiggle room. It also notes that the program is seen an increase of the cost of housing, as we all know. And it has seen a reduction in the repayments and we have lost funding for that. So considering the realities that we are in right now and considering how this amendment will assist with that, we should give this funding.

[4:23:02] It is back to the financial aspect. It is cheaper to keep people in their house rather than helping people who are on the street and putting them into housing. It is really cheaper and this is the real cost that really has to be driven home. The social costs, I don’t wanna see people have to go through that experience. Imagine the anxiety, imagine the experience, imagine what you would go through when you know that you’re at risk of losing your house and then when you lose your housing. And then when you’re out on the street, that is a huge, huge cost.

[4:23:37] That is something that if we can cover with some finances, with some funding, I say do it. So please, let’s vote for this amendment. Okay, other speakers, go ahead Deputy Mary-Lewis. So I’m gonna be really brief here. The housing stability bank, this business case is an expansion, it’s an expansion. We could expand it triple quadruple the amount of money.

[4:24:11] We still won’t need every need. Everybody’s suggesting that we should eliminate the housing stability bank. But I’m not gonna support expanding it further. We are trying to move mountains and we are doing that in some areas, particularly around our supportive and our geared income housing supply. But we, again, we cannot do everything on the property tax base. If this was eliminating the program, you might have me, counselor.

[4:24:45] But this is not eliminating the program. This is expanding the program. And so I won’t be supporting it. Sorry, Councilor Trossa. Quite right, this is an expansion. Quite right, but the need has expanded. People face rent arrears. People face evictions for non-payment of rent for a lot of reasons. And we know this from the groups that serve them, like we’ve seen in our submissions.

[4:25:22] Tenants fall behind in rent because of a medical emergency. They’ve lost a job. They have unforeseen other emergencies. And this is a safety valve that we need to maintain and expand. Once again, when we lose an affordable unit, because the landlord is able to say, ah, you fell behind in your rent, we’re gonna take it to the board, you’re out. Where are they going to go?

[4:25:55] Where are they going to go? They’re already precocious. They’re already in a bad situation. Maybe they’ll couch served for a while. Maybe they’ll find a relative they could live with. But in a lot of situations, they’re gonna become homeless. How can we as a city, incredibly tell people that we are trying to combat homelessness? If we do not at the same time, do everything within our power to try to prevent homelessness? This is exactly the type of thing we should be doing. Now, once again, I’m gonna point to neighborhood legal services.

[4:26:30] We’ve also heard from LifeSpin. And I wanna quote neighborhood legal services. We know that people experiencing homelessness experience elevated risks of dangerous health conditions, injuries, violent victimization, increased mortality. People experience homelessness or at an elevated risk of mental illness or substance abuse. And for children and families, homelessness can lead to devastating consequences, with which go to the very fabric of that family being able to stay together.

[4:27:05] So for us to sit here and say, we can’t solve the problem. And besides, other levels of government should be doing more. Yes, other levels of government should be doing more, including changing the eviction rules. However, we have the provincial landlord-tenant regime that we have, and we as a municipality have very broad powers to protect the health and safety and welfare and consumer interests of our residents. And we cannot turn our back on the poorest residents that are counting on us for relief.

[4:27:44] We’re here as a municipality to improve people’s lives. And everybody runs for office, that’s what they say. We’re here to benefit the life, the life chances, chances of a family staying together, of our residents. And don’t think just because you’re a little affluent and you’re a few paychecks ahead of where you need to be, you won’t be there in some situation. Or if you’re really affluent, you’re still gonna suffer the negative externalities of increased homelessness.

[4:28:17] It makes no sense, not the fully-funned. Tents are not looking for a free ride. This is a very important program. And again, I urge you to support it. I have myself in the speakers, let’s start with Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Your Worship. I’m just gonna ask you to wait one moment while I pull up my timing app. Go ahead, I’d say I’m not gonna be that long but I usually am. I just wanna make a couple comments on everything.

[4:28:52] I think when we have these debates, it’s easy to focus on the item and the value of the item. And I think we all understand the value of the Housing Stability Bank and this expansion is a possible way that we could add to the budget and help people. But when comments are made, like we’re turning our back on people or we got in here to improve people’s lives, absolutely we did. And look at what we’ve done in the previous budget. And even in this budget, like let’s not sell ourselves short. We have $10 million more for the roadmap to 3,000. We have $33.4 million to support LMCH’s regeneration plan and other $5 million over the multi-year budget to support their service improvement plan.

[4:29:36] There’s $10 million for strategic acquisitions so we can continue to be on the side of building and supporting not for profits and creating spaces. And, and very importantly, $5.76 million to ensure the expiring RGI units in this city are not lost. We are stepping into that space to ensure people who are on rent geared towards income housing do not lose their units because of expiring numbers. So yes, we could do more. We could do more on all of these things.

[4:30:09] We could do more on most programs. But do not sell ourselves short that we care about the people in this city suffering from homelessness. We’ve talked for months and months about the whole of community response. We are investing significantly and we are stepping in to a number of areas where we have to, we have to help people. But so, regardless of how people vote on this, let’s not peg them one way or another. I think as a council, we are supportive of housing homelessness and we are investing heavily in it and we will continue to do so. And we will continue to ask other levels of government to support us, whether it’s housing accelerator fund or increases to HPP or the other asks that we have on the table with other levels of government, we’re not going to take the foot off the gas on those.

[4:30:54] On this one, I know councilors are gonna be divided on this, probably gonna be an eight, seven vote or something very close to that, but let’s not peg each other as pro or against housing on this. We are all collectively doing a lot and we have significant things that may not get talked about because we all fundamentally agree, but they’re equally important to the people who need our help on the streets. Thank you, Mayor Morgan. I’ll return the chair to you, noting Councilor Raman is next on the speakers list. Okay, Councilor Raman. Thank you and through you.

[4:31:25] I really do appreciate the way that you framed this conversation. Yes, we are doing a lot and we should not take that in any of the actions that have been done for granted, but I will say that what I heard quite clearly from the community was just the value that this program has and the need to find a way so that they do not face the same challenge they faced last year and had to come to CAHPS to find some funding to resolve and that was running out of funds.

[4:32:03] And so we inevitably know that that is where they’re going to be this year and we have an opportunity. And I’ll say we have an opportunity, but you just mentioned how the votes are playing out right now on these issues. So it’s really one of those perhaps that voted on the opposite side of this the last time that has the opportunity to change that outcome. And what I’ll say is this, if you’re not comfortable with the number, amend it to a point where you’re comfortable.

[4:32:42] Do something so that more money is on the table so that we can not put ourselves in a situation even if it’s just the 2024 number and then we can look ahead in the 2025 update so that we’re not back in the same place where this organization that’s doing amazing work that’s told us that any dollar you put in will go directly out. There is no administrative overhead in this addition all business case. Put anything on the table so they don’t run out of funding this year.

[4:33:25] Other speakers. This is moved and seconded. We’re gonna open this for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion fails. Seven to eight. Okay, that concludes the second report of the budget committee.

[4:34:06] You gotta do the original motion thing that— Oh, sorry, I’m just so eager to, so eager. Okay, so— The original one’s on the floor. That’s our proposal. Put the note that we’ve talked about this during the budget committee on the floor. As soon as that’s ready, we’ll open for voting. Councillor Trozzo.

[4:34:41] voting yes. voting yes, Councillor Trozzo. Closing the vote. Motion carries 15 to zero. Thank you. That concludes the second report of the budget committee which moves us along to the third report of the budget committee. There are three items, disclosures pecuring interest, a reconciliation report, and the public participation. Meeting, happy to put all three on the floor. Okay, those are on the floor.

[4:35:15] Any discussion on those? Yes, go ahead, Councillor Stevenson. Thank you, I just wanted to make a quick point around the public participation meeting somewhat, like what I mentioned earlier. Although I wasn’t here, I did listen to it from six until 10. And I did acknowledge the chair for the marathon session in the great job that she did, juggling all of the people who were here speaking. But I was really concerned about the comments that were made, derogatory comments made around about the chair, about the London police service, about Mr. Farhe, something that I would like to speak with Council about another time, maybe bring forward something, but it really felt that there was a lack of decorum and things were said.

[4:36:11] We didn’t, like, there was many comments made far beyond what was in front of them, which was the budget. There seemed to be a lot of comments made about that got off track. And so I just wanted to mention it that I felt that it was a concern. Names weren’t given, people were masked, there was profanity, there was a lack of decorum and following the rules. And I heard from a couple of people who were here to speak and felt intimidated and didn’t want to speak out. And I encouraged them not to do that and to not take any risks at all if they didn’t feel comfortable.

[4:36:47] But we talk a lot about making sure that this is an open space and people can speak and have different views. And I don’t know what it was, but I just felt we didn’t uphold that, that evening, the same way that we have on all the other times. So as we go forward, I’m just looking to do what I can to help support that in the future. Okay, I have Councilor Trossow next and then Councilor, yes, go ahead. Thank you, just on those comments.

[4:37:20] And it was a marathon and I would say comments were said about me as chair from some of the public, which is fine. I would just like to note that any points that were dealt with from colleagues for decorum that were raised in chambers were dealt with as we went throughout the night realizing it was just over five hours. But for me as chair, anything raised on Council side was dealt with. I think that’s a fair point of order because I think the comments could be taken as the chair, perhaps not doing the job. It’s incumbent upon Council.

[4:37:53] I would say there are lots of things said about me. I chose not to raise a point of personal privilege. So let’s just not- Yeah, absolutely, I’m in agreement. I think we’re good. So we’re not gonna reflect this on the job of the chair or anything like that. I think lots of colleagues can have different opinions on comments that were made. And if you feel yourself that that reaches a threshold where you need to step in, you have a recourse to step in and ask point of personal privilege. Beyond that, I think everything else that we’re on the verge of having a big discussion on is probably just differences of opinion on why the way people perceive it.

[4:38:27] So I know I have a number of speakers on the list. I’m hoping maybe conversation we just had maybe settles that, but I wanna recognize that everybody will have a different interpretation of words that are said and whether or not they reach the threshold that they feel they need to step in and we can do that individually. With that, I do have people who wanna be on the speaker’s list. I’ll see if Councilor Trossell wants to speak. Thank you through the chair. First of all, I really wanna agree that I thought the chair did an excellent job chairing what could have been a very difficult meeting.

[4:39:03] And I wanna talk about how there was protest. It was peaceful protest. And guess what, people can do that. People were not clapping. There was a lot of this, there was a lot of this. And I walked through on a couple of occasions and went into the other rooms. It was just totally orderly. Everyone involved was acting respectfully. What are we going to do? Ask for people that wanna come to a public participation meeting to send in their comments ahead of time so the polite police can make sure that there’s nothing.

[4:39:40] Councilor, like— No, but this is really— No, we’re going down a slope here where everybody’s gonna wanna jump in and everybody’s gonna have an opinion on what was said. I feel like I’ve dealt with it. We’re not gonna start to talk about what’d you say, like police, like— But that’s what she was asking for. Yes, and a point of personal privilege was mentioned. I tried to say, listen, we could spend the next hour talking about everybody’s opinions and what they felt was said or doesn’t say that they want to be. Council has made no decision as a group to do anything different on public participation meetings than they have.

[4:40:16] Someone wants to bring up a new suggestion. That’ll be done through a policy process. We can debate this at that time as much as you like, like as much as you like. But for now, we’re in a budget process. We’re on the verge of getting into a whole bunch of discussion on reflecting on a public participation meeting and not even the content necessarily related to motions but on how people feel about what was said or not. And that’s on a path that I just, as Chair, I want us to go down at this moment, at this point in the meeting, ‘cause I think it could be a long path. So you can wrap up, Councilor Trozell, but I just try for colleagues who are all around the speakers just try to heed my words.

[4:40:53] I think we could be at this a long time if we want to go down this path. So I’d prefer not to— I’ll wrap up and through the chair, I want to thank everybody that came out to the public participation meeting. I mean, we want people to be engaged with what’s going on here in City Hall. And I think that what I saw at that public participation meeting was a new generation of people who are about to get engaged with the city. So to them, I say this. And I just was very, it reminded me of 2012. I saw it then.

[4:41:28] I’m seeing it now. And I don’t want to do anything to discourage people from coming out and participating. And thank you again to everybody that came to that public participation meeting. And I’ll leave it at that. Okay, Councilor Franklin, Councilor Privel. Thanks, Councilor Trozell, I said what I was gonna say. So, excellent. Thank you, Councilor Privel. Thank you to the Chair who was chairing the public participation meeting, because I also agreed she did a great job. Thank you, everyone, who showed up. I’m really pleased that whoever showed up, that they do have the right and we live in the free world that they can come and they can do the way they express themselves.

[4:42:09] I’m all good with that. I just wanna say one thing, though, that we didn’t have a chance to address the public when they were here. But one thing is, and it’s not that directly they talk to me, but a lot of lenders, they don’t realize, and I just wanna reiterate the words that the mayor said five, eight, 10 minutes ago. We are doing a lot of things on the social stuff housing and we are on the right path. If you look at the lobbying we do with other levels of government, and we are bringing success in this perspective to the city of London, no doubt. So, Councilor, people are talking because we’re receiving the public participation meeting that happened, and there’s correspondence related to it.

[4:42:47] Getting into rebutting a bunch of comments that were made is, again, a path that I wanna go down. I think we’re pretty tight here. We’re getting near the end. We, this could open up into a lot of people sharing their opinions, and I just, so if you could wrap up, that’d be very helpful. Lastly, I’m gonna say that these cases that some of them that we have not approved as a council, they were, most of them were additions. And there’s a perception there that we are approving nothing. Nothing to some agencies, no additional money, no.

[4:43:25] I understand what you’re saying. I think lots of us, you know, there’s some friends in the media in the back row. This sounds like great commentary they’d love to hear. It’s not really part of what is before us on the floor, that Councilor Palosa has put. So, these items are to be received. I don’t have anybody else on the speaker’s list. I don’t see any other speakers right now. So, we’re gonna vote on these three items. Palosa in the vote, motion carries 15 to zero.

[4:44:02] That concludes the third report of the budget committee. Okay, so that concludes that section. Thank you, Councilor Palosa for not only this. I’m gonna say some things in a minute about budget share, but we’re on to added items. And one of the added items is the report out from our closed session.

[4:44:39] There were three items on the council agenda, plus the additional item, I’ll ask Councilor Raman to report out there. Thank you. I’m pleased to report out on our Council on closed session. We went in camera for three items, and then one additional item of solicitor client privilege advice. And we made progress on all items, thank you. All right, there are no deferred matters inquiries. I don’t see any inquiries. Okay, go ahead, Councilor Palosa. Sorry, this might have the right section for us. You do with what you will.

[4:45:12] Just looking that as we wrap up the budget tonight, realizing the mayor has veto powers, when would we anticipate hearing from you on that to know when we’re actually done budget? Moral, I’m trying to go watch a soccer game with my son first. So that was an inquiry, I’ve answered it. Anything else? Councilor Troso, go ahead. This will be a very short inquiry. We received a correspondence from the seniors advocacy group, asking us to look at the question of some changes to our tax system in terms of trying to bring a little bit more equity to it.

[4:45:52] When would be the appropriate time to bring that up? What committee would it go to? ‘Cause I know people are very interested in us looking at this. Okay, I’ll start to answer that. I’ll turn it over to our staff. From the inquiry that you’ve asked about, this is about the seniors deferral, yeah. Yes, so there’s an existing problem that we have on both seniors deferral as well as low income. I think if you want to raise it at the committee, I’ll ask our staff to let me know the relevant committee. An examination review of those programs for possible changes could happen through the regular committee cycle, but that would be the appropriate place.

[4:46:31] I think corporate services, yes, corporate services committee is the place, okay, great. All right, you guys see lots of nods. I think everybody got the same letter. We’re all thinking the same things. Okay, inquiries, okay, inquiries are done. Bylaws, we have one bylaws, just the confirming bylaw for this meeting, the same bylaw we pass every meeting, which is just the catch-all for all of our procedural motions. That’s bill 73, I look for a mover and a seconder for bill 73, moved by Councillor Close, a seconder by Councillor Hopkins.

[4:47:05] There’s no debate on first reading, so we’ll open that for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries. I believe that was 14 to one. Okay, the second reading, I’ll look for mover and a seconder. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor Lewis, or Deputy Mayor Lewis. Any discussion on second reading?

[4:47:39] Okay, Councillor Trostab. It’s my understanding that this is not the appropriate time to be making comments on the entire budget process writ large, but I just did want to just let everybody know that that question has been raised and there will be a later time where that would be appropriate. Yeah, well, and I’m sure if you want to talk about the budget process at large, you can, I mean, you can talk to the media, you can post something on social media, but no, this is the confirming by-law for the meeting, this is not, wouldn’t be relevant to the debate at the— I’ll leave it at that then.

[4:48:16] Thank you. So that’s, we’re on second reading. I don’t see, you go ahead Deputy Mayor Lewis. Gonna be really brief, because this doesn’t fit in anywhere else. I’m supporting this, of course, stuck my hand up to mover second it, but I am gonna take this opportunity, I know you’re gonna have something else to say, your worship, but I want to take this opportunity. This by-law is a result of, I don’t know, how many hundreds of hours of work by various members of our staff team, as well as, I know, more than 400 hours by our budget chair, Councilor Sosa.

[4:48:55] So, no, that’s not what this is. So, the result of this by-law is her work, and I just want to thank her for that. Okay, I’m gonna do that for everybody in a minute. This is not a by-law authorizing the budget. That’s not what this is. It’s just the confirming by-law. It catches all the procedural motions at the meeting. It’s not the time to speak about everything that happened at the meeting. It’s just, it’s a more procedural piece to make sure that we capture everything, and it’s all properly authorized from all the things that don’t have specific moved in second motions.

[4:49:30] So, no, I understand what you’re trying to do, very kind and nice, but that’s not the place to do that. So, second reading, okay, we’re opening, second reading for voting. Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 14 to one. Okay, third reading, moved or seconder? Moved by Councilor Palose, seconded by Councilor Hopkins. We’ll open third reading for voting.

[4:50:19] Opposed in the vote. Motion carries 12 to three. Okay, before I turn, and again, this is not the time to talk about what you think about the budget process, but at the end of meetings, sometimes we do take a moment to thank those of our colleagues and those of our staff who do a considerable amount of work on supporting us, making all the decisions we need to make. And I just want to take a moment to recognize all of the staff on the finance team, all of the people who support them, all of the boards and commissions who input into the public, all of the people who provided feedback, but also budget chair Palose for agreeing to be the budget chair, and then through a series of provincial legislative changes, having almost a completely different role than maybe was envisioned, but I do want to say on behalf of our colleagues, thanks to everybody who I mentioned, but also specifically thanks to you for sharing the process that we’ve gone through, for supporting colleagues in the work that they did for public participation meetings, and kind of keeping us together, and of course for keeping us and sharing those meetings with great efficiency, keeping us on track, keeping us focused, but allowing us to have the debates that we need to have.

[4:51:40] So, I just want to say on behalf of all of council, thank you so much for the work that you’ve done. You can speak if you’d like. Thank you ‘cause I’m not gonna call a point of privilege. So thank you for recognizing me without one. Ever so briefly, thank you to staff and their team and the public for writing in across all our boards directly to us and attending, and to colleagues realizing half of you. This is a first time multi-year budget for you, and for your trust in me for doing London’s first ever strong mayor’s multi-year budget, and recognizing it’s only the second one done in the province, but the biggest.

[4:52:15] So thank you, and to the clerk’s support staff for leading us to this process as well. Okay, thank you very much. And with that, I need a motion to adjourn. Moved by Councillor Stevenson, seconded by Councillor McAllister. We’ll do that by hand, all those in favor? Motion carries. All right, we’re adjourned. Thank you.