August 14, 2024, at 1:00 PM

Original link

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

1.   Disclosures of Pecuniary Interest

That it BE NOTED that no pecuniary interests were disclosed.

2.   Consent

2.2   Single Source SS-2024-277 J Allyn Taylor Heating System

2024-08-14 Staff Report - J Allyn Taylor Heating System

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That, on the recommendation of the Deputy City Manager, Finance Supports, the following actions be taken with respect to the procurement of a replacement heating system for the J Allyn Taylor building (Single Source # SS-2024-277):

a)    in accordance with Sections 14.4(d) and 14.4(e) of the Procurement of Goods and Services Policy, the Civic Administration BE AUTHORIZED to engage CIMCO to design, supply and install a suitable heating system and related auxiliary equipment; 

b)    the financing for this project BE APPROVED as outlined in the Source of Financing report, as appended to the staff report dated August 14, 2024 as Appendix “A”; 

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

 

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

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

3.   Scheduled Items

None.

4.   Items for Direction

4.1   Property Tax Deferral Program - Councillor S. Trosow

2024-08-14 Submission - Property Tax Deferral Program-S. Trosow

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to report back to a future meeting of the Corporate Services Committee on the potential for, and considerations related to an updated Property Tax Deferral Program for low-income seniors and low-income persons with disabilities, including the following within the report:

a)    a review of provisions from the City of Ottawa’s Tax Deferral Program and other similar programs at other municipalities, including:

i)    initial and ongoing eligibility requirements;

ii)    repayment requirements; and

iii)   applicable interest rates and program rules; and

b)    an analysis of the financial implications of adopting a Property Tax Deferral Program for the City of London including deferred revenue and additional staffing costs;

it being noted that Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 2, 2024 from Councillor S. Trosow, and a communication dated August 8, 2024 from K. M. Pagniello, Executive Director and Lawyer and M. Laliberte, Staff Lawyer, Neighbourhood Legal Services with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

4.2   Tax-Levy Reduction - Councillors C. Rahman and J. Pribil

2024-08-14 Submission - Tax-Levy Reduction-C. Rahman-J. Pribil

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by S. Stevenson

That notwithstanding the Council approved Surplus/Deficit Policy, the following actions be taken:

a)    the Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to transfer $3,000,000 from the Community Investment Reserve Fund to the Operating Budget Contingency Reserve (OBCR) to support a $1,000,000 tax-levy reduction in each of the 2025, 2026, 2027 Annual Budget Updates; and

b)    the Mayor BE REQUESTED to include the $1,000,000 dollar annual decrease in his 2025, 2026 and 2027 Annual Budget Updates;

it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 2, 2024 from Councillors C. Rahman and J. Pribil and a communication dated August 12, 2024 from AM Valastro with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

5.   Deferred Matters/Additional Business

5.1   (ADDED) Request for Delegation Status - Request for Funding - Lyndee Hansen, Executive Director, Grand Theatre

2024-08-14 Submission - (5.1) Funding Request-Grand Theatre

Moved by Mayor J. Morgan

Seconded by P. Cuddy

That notwithstanding previous Council direction restricting the use of the Tourism Infrastructure Reserve Fund for investment in public owned facilities and resources, Civic Administration BE DIRECTED to allocate up to $400,000 from the Municipal Accommodation Tax fund to the Grand Theatre for the specific purpose of addressing an emergency retrofit of its heating and climate control system, it being noted that the Corporate Services Committee received a communication dated August 8, 2024 and heard a verbal presentation from L. Hansen, Executive Director, Grand Theatre with respect to this matter.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

ADDITIONAL VOTES:

Moved by C. Rahman

Seconded by Mayor J. Morgan

That the delegation request from L. Hansen BE APPROVED to be heard at this time.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

6.   Confidential (Enclosed for Members only.)

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.4 (ADDED) Labour Relations/Employee Negotiations / Litigation/Potential Litigation / Solicitor-Client Privileged Advice    

   

A matter pertaining to labour relations and employee negotiations, litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality, and advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose, concerning the Corporation’s associations and bargaining units.

Motion Passed (6 to 0)

The Corporate Services Committee convenes In Closed Session from 2:26 PM to 2:36 PM.

7.   Adjournment

Moved by P. Cuddy

Seconded by C. Rahman

That the meeting BE ADJOURNED.

Motion Passed

The meeting adjourned at 2:37 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 (1 hour, 42 minutes)

Okay, good afternoon everyone. Calling the 13th meeting of the Corporate Services Committee to order. Please check the city website for additional meeting detail information. Meetings can be viewed via live streaming on YouTube and the city website.

The city of London is situated on the traditional lands of the Anishinaabak, Haudenosaunee and Leno Wampuk, and the Adwondron. We honor and respect the history, languages and culture that diverse indigenous people call this territory home. The city of London is currently home to many First Nations, Métis and Inuit today. As representatives of the people of the city of London, we are grateful to have the opportunity to work and live in this territory.

The city of London is committed to making every effort to provide alternate formats and communication sports for meetings upon request. To make a request specific to this committee, please contact csc@london.ca or 519-661-2489, extension 2425. We are on to disclosures of procuring our interest. I’ll look to committee for any, not seeing any.

Okay, we’ll move into consent items. I have had a request to pull 2.2, so that will be moved to the bottom of items direction. So we do have 2.1, and I’ll look for committee members to put that on the floor. Okay, moved by Councillor Cuddy.

I’ll second. Okay, so we are on the city hall, front entrance, can fee repairs and remediation? Any comments or questions? Go ahead Councillor Steins.

Thank you, I did just have a couple of questions. One is around the timing, because the construction was expected to be done July 31st, and I just wondered if at what point we knew that it wasn’t gonna be done by that time, and if there was an opportunity for us to have seen this and approved it earlier, and also even though the amount is relatively small at 75,000, it is 150% over the 50,000 that the report says was allocated, and there is some concern amongst residences to how much the repairs in this building are gonna continually go over budget. So those are my two questions. Go ahead, staff.

Thank you, and through the chair, excuse me. We were aware that there were delays within the last two months, but we wanted to be fully aware of what the repairs that were required before we brought it forward. So to answer your first question, it’s been within the last two months. We were aware of that.

The second question with regards to the state of repairs in this building, I think it’s just generally the condition of a 53-year-old building and what you find when you go to do some repairs, it continues to sort of escalate, because when you’re doing the repair and you have the opportunity to make other repairs, it’s more cost effective and efficient to do it at that time. So that would be the reason why we chose to continue with the work. All up, Councillor? Yes, thank you.

Thank you for those answers. So just in terms of timing, again, was there an opportunity to have it done earlier had we been asked to do this earlier? Do you know what I mean? ‘Cause as we get into the end of November, there’s some issues around weather in terms of people having to go around the back.

So I just wondered, is it, were we on this timeline no matter when Council got this ask? And the other thing is, do we have, have we looked at the overall costs anticipated for the renovation for this building? Or is it reasonable to say that it’s going to be, say, 150% of what we’ve budgeted already? Like, I understand it’s almost an impossible question to answer.

But I just wondered at some point, are we going to be receiving a best case, worst case kind of range for the costs? Okay, to staff, but I will say, we are specifically speaking of the front entrance at this moment. Any sort of projections we are not gonna know as they’ve indicated, the age of the building when you do these things, they’re not gonna necessarily have those answers. So it’s a bit of a speculative answer, but I’ll allow staff to answer if they’d like to go ahead.

Thank you and through the chair. With regards to the timing of this, we had prepared the documentation to go to tender at the end of last year, at the end of 2023. But we delayed it to start in March of 2024 for the reason that we didn’t want to be getting into winter weather. So the start was intentionally delayed until springtime of this year.

We expected it would have been done at the end of July, and now we’re moving towards sort of the end of fall. So I think part of the reason besides the winter was to make sure that because there is a pedestrian detour, if you will, towards the back of the building, that is not very helpful in the winter either. So those were the two reasons that we chose to start later. Within this timeframe, I have identified though that some material supplies are on long lead times.

So we’ve accounted for that within our estimate now. And we expect that it will be done by the end of November. Okay, follow up, Councilor? Yeah, just to thank you.

We’re all really looking forward to that being reopened. So thanks for all the work there. Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Raman, next, go ahead.

Thank you and through you. Yeah, my thanks to staff for their work on securing the front entrance of the building. I’m just wondering at this point with what’s been found so far with relationship to the balcony, has there been any thought about a different design concept? Just with what is in the report about the findings on the balcony, the drainage issues, et cetera?

Has there been any thought about a redesign in terms of the concept of what that looks like, whether not to have the balcony or anything like that? Go ahead, staff. Thank you to the Chair. I’m sorry, I missed part of it, but I think you said was there consideration for a different design concept?

Yeah, I believe the Councilor is referring if we had considered a redesign in terms of the balcony and the issues we’ve discovered today. Thank you for the clarification. At this point, there was not, because it was a repair that we’re undertaking. I think any of those considerations would have to take into any of those decisions would have to take into consideration sort of the historic or civic kind of presence that this building has and the original design and that kind of thing.

So the short answer is no, during the repair, we did not consider redesigning the balcony. Thank you, follow up, Councilor? Thank you, just a comment. Yeah, so I agree with you, there’s a presence to it.

I just don’t know when the last time a mayor or who stood out on the balcony at City Hall to really honor that presence. So, and I do know it has leakage issues, it has structural issues and all those other things. And so from that perspective, I just wondered if there was any consideration for it. I wonder if it has historical significance at this point.

I’m not sure. So again, things to consider as we look at and doing some upgrades to this building. Okay, thank you for that. If staff want to respond, they can’t, I don’t know if a mayor, if you have any intention of ever going out and addressing the people from the balcony, I’ll leave that to you to respond if you want to.

I think Mayor Fontana tried to smoke out there once he got in trouble for it. The only time, so I have been on the balcony not recently, just to actually go out there, but it’s not actually used regularly. I’m unsure about the actual history of the balcony. I, so that would be something I’d have to look into.

The only thing that during my term that has been contemplated in previous years or future years is during Remembrance Day for the, when the parade does the march by, it was contemplated that, you know, we might have veterans or others on the balcony up there to view the parade by or the march by in some way. It’s never been something that has come to fruition. It’s been a discussion that the committee that organizes the Remembrance Day ceremonies is contemplated. I offered it as totally an option for them, but they’ve not taken it, they’ve not taken that into something that they’ve actually done.

So I don’t know the historical significance. I can say I’ve been at there once or twice, but that’s the only thing I’m aware of where it might be used in an official purpose by an entity and that would be for Remembrance Day in some way. Okay, thank you for that. It has been moved and seconded, so unless there’s any further comments, we can open the vote on that.

Councilor Van Meerbergen, closing the vote. Motion carries, six to zero. We do not have any scheduled items. We are on to items for direction, 4.1.

This is the property tax deferral program. This is Councilor Trozzo had put forward. So looking for someone to move the motion, okay. Go ahead, Mayor Morgan and seconded by Councilor ramen.

So we can now open that for debate. Unless anyone has any objections, I don’t mind allowing the Councilor to speak to it first. Is that okay? All right, go ahead, Councilor Trozzo.

Thank you very much. I’m not a member of this committee, but I wanted to come to address this. Thank you very much for making the motion and seconding it and giving me the chance to speak. We heard very loud and clear from this particular group during the budget process that they would like us to move forward with some type of update to the by-law, which is authorized by the Municipal Act.

A couple of points that I want to clear up ‘cause certain questions keep coming up. Number one, this is not a forgiveness of taxes, nor is it a deferral of all of the taxes. It is simply a temporary deferral of a portion of the taxes. That portion of the taxes being to be determined by our formula, but it’s based on the increase.

And the taxes. Second question, why is this necessary? We already have a by-law. The current by-law, which has not been amended since 2007, is triggered by an increase in assessment.

And that is no longer a relevant consideration, especially given the state of assessments. I won’t comment on that today. But the issue is not the assessments. The issue is the levy and the amount of the levy.

Number three, why don’t we extend this to other worthwhile groups? The answer to that is section 319 is very, very specific in terms of limiting this to seniors and persons with disabilities. Having said that, the section 319 gives the city very, very broad latitude in terms of determining the qualifications under those two sections. But we can’t open up another section.

And finally, the question is, how do we make sure that people who are living in huge multi-million dollar mansions are not taking advantage of this? The answer to that is you include a cap to what the assessed valuation of the property might be as Ottawa has done. Having reviewed the bylaw in Ottawa and the very, very helpful materials that they have put on their website, I think that a lot of the work might have been done in terms of some of these questions. What’s the percentage that we’re gonna charge for interest?

What are the initial eligibility requirements? How do you stay in good standing in the program? Things like that. I think that the specific question that I really wanna get more information about from staff and I know others have asked about this is, what is this due to our cash flow situation and might this create a problem for cash flow?

And other than saying, we don’t really know how many people are gonna take this up. I’m not sure how we respond to that. So with that, I’m just going to urge everybody to support this. We’re not enacting anything now.

We’re just asking for a report back from staff. And I think I’ll be looking forward to seeing that report back. And thank you very much. Okay, thank you, Councillor, for those remarks.

I don’t know if staff wanted to respond first. I do have the mayor next. You’re okay? Yeah, I figure so.

Just wanted to give you the opportunity. Go ahead, Mayor. So I’ll be brief. So I’m happy to move this on behalf of the Councillor and I appreciate the engagements that we were able to have on it.

I know that this is something that has come up from time to time over the years about the importance of having a program, but the fact that ours is not widely known or used, nor has it been updated in some period of time on the types of things that the Councillor mentioned, the interest rates, some of the parameters around it. Even the base here and the calculation on the cap of the property values, given the way property values have changed, are all things that we can consider in an update to the program. But part B is the very responsible piece of this motion to say, we can look at all those things. We can see what Ottawa has done.

We can modernize the program. But we have to ensure that we understand the financial implications of the adjustments to the deferral program to ensure that we don’t create any sort of other challenges for us. As you know, each and every year, we authorize the treasurer to borrow. I think sometimes it’s up to $100 million to deal with cash flow challenges for the way the property taxes come in.

We’re able to navigate that because of the robust reserve funds that we have. We basically sell finance, any gaps in cash flow. So we certainly don’t want to make any changes to the way that we’ve been able to operate in the past, because that’s been very advantageous for taxpayers for us to avoid short-term, potentially costly borrowing to maintain municipal operations because of the way that taxes come in. So this seems like a program that can benefit low-income seniors.

It’s something that is only on the increases to taxes and only deferred to the point at which the trigger points are meant to remove the program. Ottawa’s got some good trigger points that I think make a lot of sense. I think ours is a functional policy, but just not widely used. So an update to this is responsible and the analysis, the financial analysis, I think piece is good and I’m not sure this is gonna take a tremendous amount of staff time because, again, as the council mentioned, there are other municipalities who have modernized their bylaws recently and we can pull on the good work that they’ve done and make some updates here and all this will come back before council or final decision before we make any changes to the program.

Okay, thank you for those comments, Mayor. I do have Councillor Stevenson next. Go ahead. - Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to my colleague for bringing this forward. It is something that we hear a lot about and I’m really looking forward to seeing what we can do to support those that are struggling with some of these large increases. So thank you for the efforts there. I’m happy to support it.

My question was, in a best-case scenario, would this possibly be available for next year or is this something that we’re not likely to see until 2026? Okay, go ahead, staff, when this could be ready. Through the chair to committee, based on our analysis, what are other municipalities doing such as the City of Ottawa, we recognize that when they brought forward their program in 2007, they did acknowledge cash flow considerations along with staffing resources to be brought forward as part of their budget. So depending on our analysis and what not only Ottawa has done, but some of the other municipalities with the Ontario have done, we would have to look at that to make an informed decision.

I do recognize that when Ottawa brought forward their program, they provided a retroactivity back for that given year. So while we anticipate responding back to council in early first quarter of 2025 on this program, based on what we see Ottawa do, there’s nothing that prohibits impact in the 2025 budget. So we’ll keep that in mind when we move forward. Thank you.

Okay, follow up, council. No, just thank you very much, that’s very helpful. Okay, I have councilor Roman, next, go ahead. Thank you and through you.

I just wanted to clarify that part A, where it talks about the tax deferral program and other similar programs would catch programs that also deal with tax reductions that may be not deferral. So for instance, Burlington’s program, which is a rebate based program, would that be something we would look at as well? Go ahead, staff. Through the chair to the committee, our predominant focus would be the city of Ottawa, based on the context of the deferrals for seniors with low income, as well as low income members who have disabilities.

But as we do our analysis across a lot of communities, if there’s anything that comes up before us, as part of the analysis, we will certainly bring that forward as part of that report back to committee and council to have them understand what is within our municipal environment here in Ontario. Okay, follow up, councilor. Thank you. So I guess I’m looking for direction then to whether or not we’d need to expand by amending this to include programs that involve low income property tax reductions in general.

Burlington’s program is a rebate based program where they give about $500 and something dollars to eligible low income seniors or persons with disabilities that meet their set qualifications. So similar to the idea of the rebate, but it’s, I guess, a different approach. I’m just wondering, I personally would like to know whether or not there’s any merit to their approach and where we potentially see possibilities between the different types of programs. So I’m not sure if that’s something that I would need to amend or if that’s something that we could include in the consideration.

Okay, so to staff, can we broaden the programs we’re looking at or are we sticking purely with this? Go ahead. Through the chair to committee based on the question put forward by the councilor, my read of the request put forward was an A, review of provisions from the city of Ottawa’s tax deferral program and other similar programs at other municipalities including. So in my opinion, that encompasses what the councilor from Ward 7 is looking at.

Thanks. Okay, so you’re okay with that councilor? I’m looking to any other committee members who haven’t spoken. If not, I can go to visiting councilors.

Okay, I’m not seeing any. Go ahead, Deputy Mayor Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I will say thank you to councilor Trussow for bringing this forward. And also thank you for amending slightly what the original motion was. I had a couple of concerns with the original, but I’m very happy with what you’ve got here today. So, and I know I met with some advocates for this during the budget session as well.

I have a file on my desk. I’m now gonna put a sticky note on it that says Councilor Trussow is working on it. And leave it with you to work with staff on this. I will say though that for me, when this comes back because we’re looking at the financial implications as well, that’s an important part of this, what we do moving forward will matter in terms of the financial applications, but I think changing the trigger and I will, as the same as Councilor Trussow, I will not comment on the assessment mess at the provincial level right now, but I think changing the trigger to look at the low income eligibility thresholds and the interest rates and the percentage of increase, there’s some other ways to do this program where I will share very bluntly, I have zero interest in moving into a subsidy credit program where we’re handing out rebates.

I think if you are a property owner, we can defer some property taxes, a portion of them for a period of time because the equity is sunk into the home and eventually at some point the home changes hands and the property taxes are paid out. That is not what happens with programs like we see in Burlington and I’m not interested in asking Londoners to subsidize other Londoners, property tax bills, who maybe do need to think about whether they need to downsize or look at other options. So that’s sort of where my head is on this. Happy to look at the program we have, I think the city of Ottawa actually has a fairly good template for us to work from, but I’m much less interested in trying to expand it and look at other programs and credits.

I’m glad that this is focused on the seniors and I’m not gonna repeat everything, Councilor Truss, I’ve said about the requirements that limit it to that, but I’m glad it does limit it to that because ultimately at the end of the day we need to collect taxes from the properties to deliver the services that people in the city need and that has to be our primary consideration is delivering services, deferring for a period of time. There’s ways that we can make some of that work for those who are truly trying to just age in place, but we do have empty nesters who are living in for five bedroom homes in some neighborhoods in the city and quite honestly I don’t think that that’s where the subsidy needs, I think it needs to be on those who wanna age in place who don’t have other options and who are on fixed incomes. So I just wanna say thank you to Councilor Truss for the work on this, I’ll be supporting this at Council. Okay, thank you for those comments.

I’m gonna take this opportunity just to speak from the chair. I also want to thank Councilor Truss for bringing us forward just on an antidote with a resident I had who looked at this program and I wanna thank Mr. Murray for passing it along to me. I would say one of the things I would also like to see come back with this is whatever we do end up adopting if we could update in terms of posting this online, having a very user friendly way of accessing this information.

I know it hasn’t been updated since 2007, but this is a program I think a lot of Londoners are unaware of and I do think that if we adopted any sort of program this is something we really need to consider is how the public can access it and have it easily understandable, especially when we’re looking at a program for seniors with persons with disabilities, I think we need to have a very user friendly website that they can access quite easily for this program. So I’ll leave it there. Again, thank you to the Councilor for bringing it forward. Looking for any other comments.

Okay, we’re not seeing any. Open the vote on this. Opposed in the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, we are on to 4.2.

This is the tax levy reduction. This is Councilor Raman and Councilor Pripple. I’m looking for a mover and a seconder for this. Okay, moved by Councilor Raman.

Councilor Stevenson seconds. Okay, we will open this for discussion. Go to Councilor Raman for opening remarks. Thank you.

And I’ll keep my remarks brief. As I expect, we’ll have some discussion about this and want to save that for rebuttal. But what’s in front of you today, we wanted to provide an action around transferring some money from the Community Investment Reserve Fund, which is sitting roughly around 7 million right now with 3 million of that being moved to the operating budget contingency reserve to support a 1 million tax levy reduction in each of 2025, 26, 27. And then subsequently request the mayor consider this in the annual budget updates as a mechanism to set aside some dollars for some tax levy decrease.

It’s something we’re obviously discussing. Thank you to the mayor for, you know, his work on putting together the strategic opportunities working group. And I missed something in that name, I always get it wrong. But I do think that this is top of mind for Londoners right now.

We’re, I know it was Council looking for opportunities. We wouldn’t be bringing this forward if this wasn’t something where we’ve been seeing surpluses and where this reserve fund is being replenished annually. It’s a reserve fund that’s again sitting at a level that is high and it’s still leaving the reserve fund in my opinion in a healthy state. So I do think that this is an opportunity for some decrease and I understand there may be concerns around 20, 28 and any budget pressures that puts on our next multi-year budget.

However, I do think with what we see with the service review process, what we’ve seen in the last two multi-year budgets is that there are savings that are found. And so I personally have no concerns that this will create any unintended consequences for the next multi-year budget. Okay, thank you, Councillor and you used about two minutes, but I’m sure if you want an extension, we’ll entertain that. Before we go on to other Councillors, I do just want to give staff the opportunity in terms of just explaining as the Councillor said, so the budget impacts as it goes down the road, if you just explain how that would impact the future years.

Sure, thank you and through the chair. So what this would essentially do is represent a reduction of approximately 0.1% for 2025 and effectively shift that out to 20, 28. So we would see a corresponding pressure of approximately 0.1% out for 20, 28. In general terms, I think our recommendation is typically not to use one-time dollars to fund ongoing costs.

That’s a key financial principle that’s in our strategic financial framework. In the past, when we’ve used one-time dollars to smooth out property tax pressures, we’ve generally tried to stop that or remove that by the last year of the multi-year budget. So we’re not creating that pressure for the first year of the next multi-year budget. I recognize that this is a relatively small amount, $1 million per year.

So the future pressure may be manageable from that perspective. I would just caution against making the use of one-time dollars for ongoing costs a common practice. Eventually those one-time dollars do run out and it becomes a budget pressure at that point. So I think if Committee and Council wishes to support this, I think it’s just important to do so knowing that it’s not a sustainable reduction or a sustainable approach long-term and that there is a future impact even if relatively small down the line.

Okay, and thank you for those comments. Yeah, I think good agreement. It’s the exception to a sound financial role. You don’t necessarily want to set a precedent with that, but I will look to my colleagues for further comments.

Councilor Cuddy and any other Committee members who want to speak? Okay, Councilor Stevenson, go ahead, Councilor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair and through you. And I’ll direct my comments to Mr.

Murray. And Mr. Murray, I noticed you used the word sustainability twice, which to me would reflect that it’s really important that we have to know that this isn’t a long-term thing that we can do over and over again. But the question I have for you is one that I think I ask you regularly, maybe because it’s such a small amount, it won’t affect it.

Does this affect our Moody’s rating? I’m not sure. Thank you. Go ahead, Steph.

Thank you through the chair. So I don’t think the amount being the amount it is is really at all material to Moody’s. I think the bigger consideration is the signaling perhaps that it might send in terms of us complying with our core financial principles and policies. So again, it’s not a hugely significant amount in the grand scheme of things, but we don’t want to make a habit of not complying with our key financial principles, I would say.

Thank you. Any follow up, Councillor Cuddy. Thank you, Chair and thank you, Mr. Murray.

And I’m not sure if I’ll support this at Council. I’ll probably support it today to go through, but I just, I’m not sure. I just, I have some concerns that we’re just adding on and we run the risk of our credit rating and that worries me and I know it worries you. That’s probably one of your biggest concerns.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councillor Cuddy. Councillor Stevens, and next, go ahead. Thank you.

I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this. I do think it is a small amount, but it does send a signal to residents that we have a commitment around recognizing that the tax rate is too high for a lot of people. And I just to think that we aren’t confident that we can find a million dollars a year to keep this going as long as our tax rates are high like this. I don’t have any concern around that.

So I will be supporting this here and likely at Council as well. And hopefully there’ll be a lot more that we can do to significantly reduce this tax rate increase for 2025 and beyond. I think it’s an obligation on us to do that as a Council. So looking forward to lots of other ideas like this.

Thank you, Councillor. Any other committee members want to speak? Mayor, go ahead. Yes, so I’m gonna support this committee today.

And I appreciate the Councillor’s recognition that this is a short-term temporary measure to provide some tax relief, that we will have an obligation to find a way to fill that hole, no matter how big it is. Last year, so first off, this is a way that we can take some pressure off the budget, but just to remind ourselves that the budget is one component of the way that people pay property taxes. There’s also the tax ratios and the education taxes that get put into that. So for example, this year, Londoners paid 7.66% more in property taxes once you factor in every piece beyond the budget process that gets factored into the actual rate they pay when you open up the brochure and the tax brochure and they see what it is.

Now, we know that that varies across properties because the impact system is very broken and does not distribute property taxes in a very equitable way. So I think taking pressure off the first step in the process, which is the budget process is a good thing for Council to be thinking about. In fact, it’s what I think about each and every day. And as I work towards the tabling of the next budget, it is not just a million dollars that will be included in this, but I’m looking to reduce the property tax rate and table a budget for Council that brings it down much more than that.

And so Council will have to look forward to seeing that and I’ll be looking for through SWORG and others as many ideas as possible to try to bring that down. But it is my strong intent to bring in a table budget that is much less than what we are anticipating. As we have done in previous multi-year budgets, we set a framework through the multi-year budget to establish the quarter that we’re operating in the financial plan. As we move through each and every one of those years and we continue with the good work of service review and I’ve spent a lot of time with our staff on the service review program, we will find ways on the municipal government side to bring that down each and every year.

And so you can expect to see it being brought down through those processes as well as some other options that I’ll bring before Council at the appropriate time, which are still being worked through. There’s also important engagements with our boards and commissions on the proposals that they will make to try to have cost controls. And I think the work of SWORG in supporting and as we can see in supporting, providing training to outside boards and commissions will see dividends in the long run so they can take advantage of the same service review programs that we’ve done. But to the Councillors who brought this forward, I appreciate the desire and I appreciate the recognition that this can send a signal in the right direction, that this is the type of thing that Council’s looking at.

But I also appreciate what Mr. Murray said to say, although it’s not a large amount, we wanna make sure that we encourage this to be sustainable over time and over the success of multi-year budget cycles or the success of annual updates that we have, that we should find a permanent way to fund this over time and not just make it a temporary thing. So that’ll be our obligation and not something we have to do this year but in the future. But I look forward to continuing to hear ideas from Councillors, whether it be through the committee or through the working group as we move towards tabling the budget.

And then of course after the budget’s tabled, it’s Council’s budget to amend and I’m sure Council’s will come with lots of ideas on the adjustments that we can make when we get to that point. But again, I’ll support this today and I’ll support it at Council. And this will be one step in us bringing down that rate just a little bit, but there’ll be much more when the budget’s tabled. Okay, thank you for those comments, Mayor.

I do have Deputy Mayor Lewis, but before I get to him on any other committee members, okay, I am gonna just make a comment then for the chair. I looked at this one and I was kind of on the fence, but I do think I’m gonna support it, but I, as Councillor Cudi indicated and as staff indicated, I’m cautious that I don’t want this to become the norm. I think depleting our reserves is not something we necessarily want to set a precedent with, but to all the points that have already been made in terms of we are looking for those opportunities to reduce even if it is just a million dollars is still small, but it’s large for some, but every opportunity we can find. So I think with this, I will support it, but this isn’t something I want to get into a habit of where every year we look to deplete our reserves ‘cause I think that could put us into a dangerous financial position.

So I will cautiously support it. I appreciate the Councillors bringing it forward because I know we, you know, this is top of mind for a lot of matters, we are trying to reduce that tax burden. So with that, I will pass it over to the Deputy Mayor for his comments, go ahead. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. And through you, I know that I have been one of the loudest and strongest voices for not using one-time funds for ongoing tax reductions. However, this is an exception for me and I will be supporting it because first of all, I think it’s properly structured in terms of this is not compounding a whole year after year after year, we’re creating a backfill of 0.1 that in 2027’s budget cycle, we will have to look to fill. But what that actually does is give runway for more of our internal service reviews to fine savings.

It allows for the service reviews that the Mayor has actually proposed through Swarg. And I assure you, I keep trying to get him to change the name to Borg because budget opportunities review group would be easier to remember and pronounce, but I can’t seem to convince him that resistance is futile. So that said, I’m gonna call him a terrible pud. Since I can’t get him to do that, he did propose through Swarg that service reviews be extended to our boards and commissions.

It gives an opportunity for those to happen as well. So as Councillor Ramen said, I think when we get to the next budget cycle, the next multi-year budget cycle, we will have actually identified more than a million dollars in savings and we won’t actually have this whole to backfill. I think what it also, for me, the reason this can be an exception to the rule is that this is not a reserve fund that has built up over, you know, annualized contributions through our budget. This is actually a reserve fund that got a massive top up from a surplus.

And by using it to ease the tax burden just a little bit, it also gives us the runway before the next multi-year budget and through our annual budget updates to also look at right sizing our budgets, both internally and at boards, agencies and commissions. Because while I recognize that a portion and a healthy portion of this surplus was the result of increased revenue from our investments because of interest rates being so high, there is a component of right sizing of our different departmental budgets that needs to occur as well. And I’m not picking on any one department or agency, but we regularly receive reports that say this can be accomplished within existing budgets on a number of items that people want to bring forward. And that to me says, maybe we have some budgets that are a little oversized and if we just bring them down a little bit, we will bring down the surplus, but that also means we will bring down the tax pressure.

So I think what this does is provide us some reasonable runway to take a dive into a number of opportunities to find permanent savings and provide the tax relief now. So I will say to both Councilor Raman and Councilor Pribwell, thank you for bringing this forward. This is one that is an exception to my rule and I’ll be supporting this one at Council. Okay, thank you for those comments.

Any other visiting members or committee members who want to speak? Okay, go ahead Councilor Pribwell. Thank you, I’m going to be brief. Thank you very much for the support for Councilors and the mayor.

I do think that as I’ll try not to repeat what was already said, but I do think this is the right step. Maybe I’m showing our residents that we are serious and we are looking at these initiatives that will decrease the pressures of property tax. It is a tax relief for the residents. And I do believe that we do need to look at similar options in terms of our annual budget, 1.3 billion, the $1 million honestly to be honest with you.

I don’t have even though I do value the ratings tremendously. 1 million in 1.3 billion is not a concern for me whatsoever. And I do believe that this is going to be appreciated and let’s build on this and let’s make sure we deliver. This is the start.

And again, if we look at the history, economic cycles, they do repeat and there are certain different decades of economic pressures. And I believe in three years will be in different situations as well. I don’t believe, and again, don’t hold me to this, but I don’t believe the interest rates will be there and the affordability and housing beyond the right track. What we are doing on the city council here.

And I believe that will be in a different situation. And I believe that in three years, this will not be a concern. And again, even if the things wouldn’t happen, what I just said, 1 million in 1.3 billion dollars, I really don’t see an issue. Bottom line, thank you for your support.

And thank you for your support at the council in a couple of weeks. Thank you. Okay, thank you for those comments. Anyone else wanna speak?

Not seeing any or online, we’ll open this for voting. All those in the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, so we are actually back to the item that got moved from the consent agenda, which is 2.2, this is the single source for the Jay Allen Taylor heating system. So I will look for someone to move and second that.

Okay, Councillor Cudi, Councillor Ramen, thank you. So that is now open, questions or comments. Go ahead, Councillor Stephen. Thank you, I did have a couple of questions on this one.

We had heard there was gonna be this change to the heating back in the spring. And I just wondered, so on page nine, it says that the city of London entered the most recent service contract in 1992. So I just wondered how long that contract was and have we been on annual contracts for a little bit? And then also wondering about the overall picture of the concern of this change and the impact that it’s gonna have on other properties.

It talks about a medium pressure steam supply line that services other buildings that’s not impacted at this time. But is that coming and what about the other buildings that are impacted right now? Are we gonna be seeing more of this or is this the only one? Okay, just to have go ahead.

Thank you through the chair. So my understanding would be that 1992 was when the current iteration of London district energy was created. The corporate history has changed names a number of different times, so it would be my understanding in the 1992 was when London district energy was created. We have had annual or sometimes longer-term renewals but the rates are always set annually with London district energy, now known as N-Wave.

I think that was 2019, that change took place. The other properties that are on the medium pressure line do include a number of city buildings that were outlined. I don’t know at this point and I can’t comment on what the plans are. We’ve certainly asked our friends at N-Wave what their intention are and we’ve been told that they’re assessing their entire system.

And that’s the extent of the information that’s been provided at this time. Follow up, Councilor? Yes, thank you. Just trying to understand this because there is an entire section that is impacted on this timeline of ending May 2025.

This is my understanding. So we’ve got this one, we’ve got another one coming at this committee. So when you said the rates were set annually, how long was the last contract? Like was this a huge shock or was this something that we knew might possibly be coming but not when?

Is there just a bit of backstory to how we’re in this situation? Go ahead, Steph. Thank you through the chair. The rates and the contract relates exclusively to the supply of the product.

And so that was not the point at which any of those kind of negotiations took place. We were approached by the vice president of operational services and the local general manager to inform us of this in May of this year. So that was the first that we were aware of it. Follow up, Councilor?

Yes, thank you. So there was no commitment on their part to continue for any length of time or maybe there was a one year notice requirement. I’m just wondering like, was there any point where they had a commitment to us to provide that heat service? To staff, have you have anything further to comment?

I don’t know if you have anything further you want to add but go ahead. Thank you through the chair. The way the contract is written, it talks about the equipment and the supply. I don’t think when those agreements were contemplated or were prepared to anyone contemplated that there wouldn’t be a supply of steam, right?

We change out the equipment when it reaches end of life but it did not contemplate that the supply of the service would not be there. Follow up, Councilor? Thank you. Yeah, just like I said, just looking to understand.

So even when we just did our master asset planning, has been a discussion at all in terms of the heating and the potential that this was gonna, ‘cause I just imagine this is going to be an issue, not just for this building that’s coming ‘cause we have another one today. So just like I said, just wondering, is this just one of those things that just happens and it’s a big surprise and we just get to deal with it and then is there gonna be a report coming to sort of explain the sort of best case, worst case scenario around what our obligations are as a municipality for this? Go ahead, Staff, have you have any further comments? If I could through you.

I think Ms. Stewart has been clear that the message we received from Enwave was in May of this year, but prior to that, we assumed that the heat would continue to be there for the building that we are speaking about today. We are aware of other privately owned buildings that are impacted by this and we expect that those landlords or owners are taking actions to ensure that they have heat within their own buildings. I appreciate another has come forward to us today and Council can decide, Committee can decide whether they want to proceed with supporting that organization.

But in our discussions, we haven’t had discussions with others because we are obviously seized with the responsibility of looking after our own building at this point in time and finding a source of heating for it. We were not given pre-knowledge of this. We obviously got pretty much a years notice that we needed to take an action and that the heat would not be there with the low steam at that point in time. Okay, and thank you for those answers.

But I think to the Councilor’s point, were there any other buildings that this could potentially impact? I think it was part of that question as well. Through you, not city owned buildings. Any further questions, Councilor?

Go ahead. Thank you, on another note for that. It talks about wanting to do a single source contract, no time for procurement, but it is a large contract amount. And this supplier was able to give the quotes for the different options.

Is there, I know on the boards and commissions, we get three quotes. Is there, are we looking at getting other quotes or anything just to ensure that we’re getting the best price on these? Staff wanna speak to our procurement process or that, go ahead. Through the Chair, thank you for the question.

We worked with the current HVAC service provider we have to begin to do the preliminary investigation. Simcoe is one of the largest, what is the largest refrigeration company in North America and a fairly substantial player in other sectors of heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration. And they can provide a turnkey solution from designing the system to actually building it or procuring the components, installing and commissioning and making sure that it fits with the existing equipment and replacing what we need and the building automation system. The reason that we wanted to do that with Simcoe is that’s one source of accountability all the way from, like I said, the design right through to it operating.

A retrofit of a building of this age is not an easy undertaking. And so we wanted the expertise of a reputable firm that is responsible from start to finish. If we were to go to a procurement, it would add time to the process, probably substantial time, because first we’d have to procure a mechanical engineer to design a system. And then we’d have to have contractors responsible for installing it to bid on that.

And that splits the responsibility as well. So it was for risk mitigation to have one accountability point. It was for schedule mitigation to have a shortened procurement, if you will. And just we felt that the level of expertise and technical knowledge that Simcoe provides, we were comfortable with.

All right, Councillor. Yes, and thank you. Maybe just so I understand this whole procurement process better, is there something between doing an RFP and doing a sole source without checking for any other quotes? Like, is that just another option?

To just see are there any other firms that could also provide the same service? Or do we know that there’s no one else out there that can provide the same solution? Go ahead, Steph. Through the charity committee, based on the circumstances of this one situation and the city’s experience working with Simcoe, the best route for it at this time was to look through the single source approach, bringing it forward to committee for their review and to ask questions has been put forward.

But as we’ve heard due to the experience that we’ve had working with the provider, along with the time to turn around a solution to get the necessary heating in place for our colleagues, this was the best approach forward, which would allow us to implement and execute what is required in the timeframe provided. Any further questions, Councillor, go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Not to belabor this, just trying to understand, is there something between doing the whole RFP procurement and a sole source without getting other quotes?

Go ahead, Steph. Through the charity committee, one of the big considerations would be the timing. To run an RFP, we were probably looking at a six-month process, which would eat into the time that we have right now to get a full product installed by the May deadline that was outlined before. And as expressed, there are opportunities to ensure that there’s some compatibility with some of the existing equipment that we have within our facility, a complement.

And that was outlined as part of the 14-4E, where the required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular supplier, having special knowledge, skills, and expertise. And my understanding is that Simcoe has experience working with the city and its facilities equipment and what we’ve utilized in our other facilities across the organization. Hello, Councillor. I’ll leave it at that.

Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Any other questions or comments on this item? Committee members first, seeing any?

Councillor Ramen, do you want to speak? Okay, go ahead, Councillor Ramen, and then Councillor Pribble, if no other committee members want to speak. Go ahead. - Thank you.

So I appreciate the report. I appreciate the recommendation that’s included to go with the hybrid system. Just one quick question about whether there was any opportunity for anything like green municipal funds or anything like that to pick an option that was fully, or I should say with lower carbon footprint even further, or if we didn’t have the time to look into those options based on the timing. Go ahead, staff.

Yes, thank you through the chair. Timing is of ultimate consideration here in terms of we need to have heating in that building within a year of the notification that we had. I did review FCM, a retrofit of an existing building that doesn’t achieve pretty significant savings would probably not qualify either, but I don’t want to prejudge, but really the reason was not having the time to apply and wait for approval. Okay, thank you, staff.

Time crime seems to be the order of the day, but go ahead if you have further comments. Thank you. I appreciate that answer, and I appreciate how flexible everybody’s been with this news from Enwave and making those adjustments as needed, thanks. Okay, go ahead and Mayor Morgan.

Councillor Pribble’s still on the list, but go ahead. Sure, I’ll be brief and then Councillor Pribble can go. So I appreciate the questions. I’m not surprised that colleagues had a number of questions related around this.

First off, with staff, I support what they brought forward, and I know that you’re following our procurement process with both achieving the operational goals of the municipality as well as mitigating any sort of risks through the procurement process of other vendors coming forward, so I appreciate everything you’ve done there. I will say there’s a piece of this that is in the back of my mind with district energy corporations. They’re great, right up until something like this happens. This is essentially the equivalent of a utility ceasing to supply a needed service, right?

It can’t possibly be anticipated, and when it happens, it’s very hard to react. There are other utilities, like say, London Hydro, that are highly regulated, and things like this are not necessarily possible under the regulatory regime that exists within the province, but the same regulatory regime doesn’t exist for these types of district energy corporations and one of the things that is my intention to follow up with, both through other mayors, as well as through engagements with the Minister of Energy and the Ministry of Energy, is if this is a possibility, and we know that there are these systems in existence, is there a stronger regulatory environment that needs to be considered within the province of Ontario to protect both municipalities and private entities against significant changes in what is a needed utility service that is dependent upon for the operation of buildings? And so, separate from this, I think there’s a larger conversation to have at the provincial level with respect to the regulatory regime around these sorts of bodies, because the number of options and recourses that we have in this case are very limited, simply because this is not as highly regulated industry as, say, natural gas or electric hydro is within the province of Ontario. So, another consideration for us in our advocacy to engage, using this as an example with our provincial counterparts to see what they might need to do to protect these sorts of situations that are happening in the future, especially given that we still have buildings dependent upon steam energy, which seem stable for now, but knowing that this is a possibility, I think it’s incumbent on us to plan for the future and engage with provincial partners on how to mitigate the impacts of this, should something similar occur here, or in other cities across the province.

Thank you for those comments, Mayor. Looking for any other committee members. Seeing none, go ahead, Councillor Peruzza. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you. Excuse me. Unfortunately, I’m very familiar with this case and all I want to say is that I can confirm whatever staff said in terms of the process and the end wave. I can confirm that everything they said, I 100% agree with what Mayor just finished saying, 100% agree with him and I’m so happy to hear the steps that he’s going to be exploring with the other mayors, all completely make sense.

The thing is looking to the future, though, that this organization, they are decommissioning the low pressure steam line, but they still have the high one. And my question is, I do believe that both us as the private organizations, how to protect ourselves in terms so it doesn’t happen, that there are certain investments made now by either us or the current businesses under the high steam, and then similar thing, we could go in one, two, three, four years. And I think actually there is a very similar situation that we are going to be hearing later on, but I don’t know if the staff has any answer to it, but I wouldn’t want us as city or business owners invest now into improving their system under the high pressure steam, and then in one, two, three years, we could be in the same situation with high one. So I don’t know if there’s any comment or if anyone would like to comment, or if there is no answer now, I really would like us if we can look into it as mayor said and see what can be done so we protect ourselves in the future.

Pay to staff, if you want to crystal ball that, I know you don’t know what the future holds, but if you have any comments, go ahead. Thank you through the chair. Absolutely, the crystal ball is in the shop, so I can’t really anticipate what is going to come, but this has certainly been an eye-opening experience. And as we consider facilities like City Hall and future redevelopment, I think then looking at independent energy systems probably comes to the higher to the top of the list in terms of designing for that.

I think the other buildings that are potentially impacted, that are city owned, unfortunately they’re not in close proximity, they’re within the same zone, but they’re not in like with on the same property, which might lend itself to our own operated district energy type system. So I think we need to look at each individual property and consider the risk and constraints on each of those sites and the opportunities that are there, but at this point we haven’t started that work at all, but certainly it is something we will need to do. Follow up, Councilor? I’m glad to hear that and I, that we are going to research or look up to these risks, because again, if you are making some investments, we should look at potentially that it might not be forever.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilor. And I’m sure if you want to take up some energy advocacy, there’s an opportunity there, so go right ahead. Looking for anyone else to speak on this item?

Okay, seeing none, we’ll open this for voting. Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, we are now on two deferred matters, additional business, this is item 5.1, which is the request for delegation status. Lindy Hanson, the executive director of the Grand Theater.

So if you’d like to come up to the mic, I do have to open this for voting. So can I get a motion for the delegation? Okay, Councilor Raman, Mayor Morgan. Okay, we’ll open that for voting one moment.

Closing the vote, motion carries, six to zero. Okay, let’s come up to the mic. You have five minutes for your delegation, so go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you to the chair and to the committee for granting us this delegation status to speak with you today about our requesting to help us with the funding for the cost of replacing our steam service with a new boiler. This is going to sound a little repetitive, but slightly different to what we’ve just been speaking about. A bit of background on our situation. In September, 2023, we were notified that by N-Wave that the lines that provide steam to our building had been inspected and were deemed unsafe.

So they were not going to be able to turn on the lines that provide steam to our building for the upcoming winter. N-Wave worked with us to provide an emergency temporary solution at no cost to the grant for that heating season. And throughout the season, we were led to believe that the line would either be repaired or another option would be provided to us. In April of 2024, we were notified that N-Wave was abandoning the steam line on Richmond entirely and that they were no longer going to cover the cost for the temporary solution that had been in place for the grant.

One month later, N-Wave announced to a number of organizations and properties that they were terminating the steam service effective May 31st, 2025. Well, I understand that most of the affected properties and organizations will continue to have steam over the course of the year where you have to work on finding a very fast solution. We have no working system at the moment. As an organization, the grant does very careful and effective planning for capital replacements.

We fund raise over seasons. We work and create our capital replacement fund to ensure that we have the money in place when we need it, whether it’s a new roof, a new sound system, or new seats. We ensure that capital items are replaced when they need to be and have fund raise and saved money to make those purchases possible. In this moment, the grant theater has been forced without notice to design, cost, procure, install, and most importantly, finance a replacement system.

Much like the city, we are working under tight timelines, so we have only gone out and got two quotes. They are both for gas boilers. One is for 800,000 and one is for 1.1 million. We’ve been told that the $800,000 option will take about 14 weeks to install as there is infrastructure that will need to be put into the building in order to accommodate the new system.

That will mean even if we say yes to a new boiler today, that we will have to continue to use the temporary system into the heating season, which will add additional operating costs to the grant as a part of our season. Industry-wide, as many of you know, theater has had a challenging time coming back from the pandemic and the grant has not been immune to those losses. That said, we are really happy to report that we are rebuilding our audiences, that our subscriptions are up 40% from last year and we have already met our budget for subscriptions on this current season and that our high school project that is in rehearsals right now is at 50% sold. Taking on an $800,000 debt in this point of our rebuilding would be crippling.

The grant has 162 performances scheduled this season in an estimated 85,000 patrons coming to see our productions this year. We are a tourism destination and a cornerstone of this community. We have great buzz around our productions this season and around our new leadership team. The grand star is on the rise, but we need to be careful with our resources and ensure a balanced budget this year so we can ensure our success into the future.

As they say in Game of Thrones, winter is coming. So we need to settle on a solution very quickly and to get a system up and working and to have proper heating for all our productions. To that end, we are asking the city to help us through this extraordinary situation by providing one time funding of $500,000 towards the cost of this boiler. The grant will take on financing and or fundraising the rest of the money needed for purchase and installation of the new boiler and to continue using the temporary system in the interim while that is put in place.

While I understand there may be concerns that there are other organizations that are in similar situations, we are not-for-profit charitable organization and we are also in the unique situation that we do not currently have a working system whereas others have a year to make this step. Thank you again for providing a delegation and I look forward to taking any questions you may have and thank you for your consideration. Okay, thank you, Ms. Hanson for that.

So I do believe the mayor has a motion he would like to put forward. Councilor Cuddy had indicated that he will second it. I will have the mayor read it out. We are going to put it off as well so people can see it, but I’ll let the mayor read it out.

Sure, I’m happy to read it out. Then I’m happy to provide rationale whenever you’d like, Chair. So the motion is that notwithstanding the previous council direction, restricting the use of the tourism infrastructure reserve fund for investment in public owned facilities and resources civic administration be directed to allocate up to $400,000 from the municipal accommodation tax fund to the grand theater for the specific purpose of addressing the emergency retrofit of its heating and climate control system. It being noted that the corporate services committee received a communication date at August 8th, 2024 from the executive director of the grand.

I assume there’s a probably in it being noted about the delegation receiving that allegation as well. So I’m happy to put that forward. And Councilor Cuddy’s willing to second, I’m happy to provide rationale when you’d like me to, Chair. Okay, thank you for that.

It is loaded. We’ll also add in the note in terms of the delegation. I do know Deputy Mayor has a bit of a time crunch. So notwithstanding going to our committee members, if he does want to speak first, and then I’ll let you do your rationale, but just so he can get going.

Go ahead, Deputy Mayor. Thank you. And sorry, Mayor Morgan for stealing your rationale time. But I do have a constituent meeting with the building division folks waiting for me.

I thought we’d be to this item sooner, but I am here as a member of the Tourism London Board in terms of the value. And by the way, I absolutely appreciate a good game of Thrones reference, just as much as a good Star Trek reference. So, but I will say that this is a unique situation. And I think that this is absolutely an appropriate source of funding that the mayor is proposing.

And absolutely from a tourism perspective, a key investment for the city to be making. From the tourism London perspective, the Grand Theatre represents a real cornerstone in the foundation of the tourism success in our city. The Grand helps put heads in beds and actually generates municipal accommodation tax for us because they bring people to our city to see the productions that they put on. So in a very roundabout long-term view way, I see this is actually a loan to the Grand because the people that they’re going to bring to our city are going to pay that hotel tax in the future and start to replenish that fund that we are drawing from.

So although we don’t own the building, the Grand owns their building, this is in a very unique way, a bit of an extension of a municipal asset in terms of what it does for our tourism sector and the economic impact that that brings. I know there’s lots of folks on Twitter and even on Twitter last week about Mr. Schwarzenegger being here for the film London production that was attracted here. But the Grand is the cornerstone that builds and has allowed things like the film office and the music city and those other things that we’re doing to really take root and flourish.

It’s been here a lot longer than any of us alive in this room have ever been and I think this is a wise investment to be making. I don’t say that lightly because I don’t like to see one off asks coming on a regular basis, but this is a very unique situation. And the source of funding is very appropriate. This is why we collect the municipal accommodation tax to reinvest in our tourism sector.

We did have to put in some restrictions around its use to limit it to municipal facilities, but I think not withstanding that this is appropriate. And I know that often we would have a communication from a board or commission where there’s something key. I will share that we have a process at tourism London where any sort of formal communication would have to come through after approval from the board. Obviously, we only found out about this a couple days ago.

It’s August, people are away. Even our general manager, Ms. Finn, is away. So that’s why today I’m offering, ‘cause I have engaged with tourism London.

I’ve spoken to our staff there. They concur that this is actually a wise use of the MAT. The tourism London side of the MAT is for events and programming, not for capital. The city portion is for capital, so this makes sense to me.

And finally, I just wanna also say, and I know he’s not with us, or I don’t think he’s with us online right now, but Councilor Ferra has, as the board council are also engaged with myself on this as well as the mayor. And so I wanna thank him for the work that he’s put into this too. We’ve been trying to find a way forward on this for the last 72 hours or so. And I think that this is the appropriate path forward.

Finally, to the grand theater, folks, thank you for coming to us and asking for a portion of what you need, but being willing to take on the financing and fundraising challenges of the rest of it. It shows that you are willing to put your own skin in the game too, and that you’re willing to work to balance out what you’re asking from the municipality. I wish we saw more of that from other organizations, frankly. And I really, really appreciate the year willing to roll up your sleeves and do the work needed to do the other portion of the fundraising to replace this heating system.

So look forward to seeing you later this season when shows are in production. I always enjoy attending, and I hope colleagues will support this both at committee and later at council. So thank you, Mr. Chair, for giving me the opportunity to speak first.

Now I’m gonna go try and help get a rental unit situation resolved, and I look forward to the discussion. I’ll review it later on the YouTube video to see how other folks feel. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak first. Okay, thank you, Deputy Mayor.

I am gonna go to the mayor now for your opening remarks. So go ahead. Yes, and I have an eight year old waiting in my office who’s playing video games on my computer, so IT is probably going nuts right now and what’s happening there. But I wanna provide some just some opening comments on this motion, so I appreciate what the Deputy Mayor said, and both he and I engage with Councilor Ferra.

But I’ve also spoken to Mr. Koulas in the audience today and the board about the situation there, as well as our friends from tourism about the importance of this asset. And the reason why I see this is fairly unique is we’re talking about an asset that the municipal government has invested in already as a key strategic asset within the city from both an arts and culture perspective, as well as from a tourism perspective. We have been engaged in putting municipal dollars as a component of contributions for the improvements to their building.

And so we’ve already made an investment in this asset. The work that they’re doing right now is exceptionally strategic. And you can see from the stats that were shared by the executive director that it’s working. Their strategy is working.

And I wanna tell you, part of their strategy is a in partnership with tourism London is an aggressive tourism-based strategy to attract and recruit people from outside of the city to come here for enjoyment of the grand, to drive hotel stays. Yes, learners will get to enjoy this. Yes, there are many subscriptions within the city. Yes, we want people from London to go and enjoy the grand.

But there is a purposeful and strategic approach that the grand has taken on the tourism perspective, which I appreciate. And we are starting to see as very successful in the city with tourism economic impact now passing a billion dollars for the first time ever. So this is an appropriate source. Now, the amount, I know 500,000 was suggested in my engagements with the board and the board chair.

We felt, and I felt it was appropriate for the municipal contribution to behalf of the $800,000 boiler. And so I proposed a motion for up to $400,000. I know they’ll take all that they can get. In my engagements with them, this is an acceptable amount for them.

And I think represents what the deputy mayor said, and that is a support from the municipal government but also an obligation on the entity in the organization to also put their fundraising efforts and their capital plan behind this. Even if it was unforeseen, we can eliminate the amount of debt they might have to take on or the amount of donation dollars that they have to direct towards something, which is not easy to raise funds for. So that’s why you see my motion for $400,000. And also, I would not be in a position to support this if we didn’t have a tourism angle on this in the way that we do, because it gives us a proper source of financing.

Municipal tax dollars cannot be chasing these sorts of challenges in our city for many organizations or corporations, but where there is a specific investment in angle on it, like there is here from the tourism perspective and where we actually have the ability through the municipal accommodation tax and the reserve fund associated with tourism infrastructure. I think we have the combination of a very specific need in an asset we can support that has a tourism angle that actually has a proper source of financing that we can utilize for this particular level of support. And I want to also provide my thanks to the grant for asking for not the whole amount. I think it would have been very easy to say, let’s just throw this on the municipal government and see if they can help us.

But that’s not what they did. They were responsible. They went out and looked at the situation. They thought about what they can do.

They engaged thoughtfully with myself and others and came forward in a way through the discussion that I think is a responsible amount of money for the municipality to invest in partnership with the grant who will look to raise the rest. And I also want to wish the grant every success in the upcoming season. I know my daughter and I are going to buy the kids’ seasons pass for the high school students and be it as many of the shows as possible. And I think you’ve got an exciting upcoming season and the numbers you’re starting to drive with the performances you’re doing, the number of sales that you’re making, like it really seems like an exciting year for the grant.

And this is the last thing, the last thing that you would have had to think about on the verge of such a great recovery coming out of the pandemic. And so I think our assistance at this time will hopefully allow the catalysts that you’ve created to proceed and outperform all of our expectations in what you’ll be able to achieve this year and in subsequent years. So I hope colleagues will support this amount. I can answer whatever questions you might have of me, but I know the grant is here also to answer some questions as well.

So thank you, Chair, for letting me provide those comments. Okay, thank you, Mayor. Looking to committee members for any comments? Go ahead, Councillor Cudy.

Thank you, thank you, Chair, and through you. First of all, I’d like to thank the Mayor for asking me to second this motion. I’d also like to thank Mr. Carlos for contacting us and also Ms.

Hanson for your remarks. And, you know, the grant theater is not an organization, Chair, that comes with a hat in hand on a regular basis. This is highly irregular and for that reason. And I would say, Chair, that this is one of the greatest corporate citizens we have in this city.

You know, I was a board member in the early 1990s for seven years. Actually, the mayor, I believe, was in high school when I was on the board. And that was supposed to be funny. But anyways, it was kind of funny.

And back then, in the ’90s, we were just coming out of a bankruptcy situation, as Mr. Carlos might remember. And we never came to the city looking for a bailout. We did it ourselves.

And that’s the way that the grant theater continues to work, and I’m grateful, very grateful. I know this council is grateful for the work that the board does and the executive team does. I wholeheartedly support this, and that’s why I’m seconding it. I also appreciate the fact that the grant theater came, as the mayor pointed out, for only a portion of this.

And that’s the way they work. They’re not looking for a bailout. They’re just looking for help. So I’m very grateful for the grant theater, and I support this, and I’ll support it, Council.

Thank you. Okay, thank you, Councilor Cuddy, for the history lesson, appreciate it. Not sure the mayor does, but I enjoyed it. Thank you.

I’ll link with any other committee members. Not seeing any, I’ll just make a comment before I get to the visiting Councillors. I’m supportive of this. I appreciate the comments that have been said.

The grant is one of the gems we have in our arts and culture. You don’t come to us very often to ask for money. We’ve seen an 11% boost in tourism. I think the grant will play an integral part in terms of driving that forward even further.

I look forward to seeing upcoming season and happy to support this. So I’ll go to visiting Councillors. Believe it was Councillor Per beble, and then Councillor Trozzo. So go ahead, Councillor Per beble.

Thank you. Excuse me. When comes to Council, I have a 100% support. And this grant here is a tremendous asset to our city.

And I’m not going to repeat what was said. I would agree with everything that was said. All I’m going to add is I would like to greatly thanks to the local hotel industry and Ontario Restaurant Hotel Motor Association who are actually charging and collecting the stocks for us. And thanks to that, we are able to do things like this, which are greatly valuable to our city.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Go ahead, Councillor Trozzo. Thank you.

Through the chair, I’m in agreement with everything that’s been said about the value of the entity. I spoke to that during the budget. I feel the same way. I also think that this is a very appropriate use of this fund, and I’m glad to see that it’s there.

My question is, I really appreciate the fact that you, like others, did not ask for the entire amount that you need, but you made a pledge to undertake to try to raise the money on your own. If that’s not successful, and you find that you’re short, you asked for 500,000, and I’m assuming that you just did not throw that money out there as a number out of the hat, but that you came up with the 500 based on what you thought you reasonably could raise. And I’m just hoping that maybe given the fact that there’s an appreciation among everybody that spoke, that you are going to, in good faith, undertake to raise all the money. I’m just wondering why we can’t just leave this at the request and, say, up to 500 if you need it, or maybe have some type of provision, where if you fall short and are coming up against a deadline, we won’t have to have this come back to us as an urgent matter.

Could I just— if I could ask the delegate, how does the difference of $100,000 play out? OK, looking to our delegation, if you want to speak to the amount of questions, go ahead. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

We are told $800,000 to make this happen with a lower bid. We’re not sure. It could be $900,000. I mean, we’re still in the early stages, so it could be a million.

So we thought 500,000 was still half of the problem. And then we thought from there, we’re pretty confident we can fundraise for the rest. We are happy with the proposal by the mayor. And thank you very much for the added potential funds.

But we’re going to raise the rest. We’re going to pull it off. The reason for the five is we don’t know if it’s eight. We don’t know if it’s nine.

We don’t know if it’s a million. We really don’t know right now. I know that’s how she watched the answer, but we really don’t. We just got into this weeks ago.

It’s a very reasonable answer. Your crystal bowl is out for service, too. So anyway, I’m happy with this. I did feel like I wanted to ask that.

And I hope you’re successful in your fundraising. Thank you, Councillor, for those comments, looking for anyone else. They want to speak to this? Not seeing anyone open if we’re voting.

Sorry, I missed you on camera there. Go ahead, Councillor Van Mirberg. Thank you, chair. I’m happy to support this.

It’s a very well-rounded, balanced approach to a situation that the Grand Theatre really had no part in. It’s really through no fault or any type of non-planning on their part. And I think that the ask is very reasonable for what is and has historically been a very well-run organization. It’s the very foundation of what drives tourism in London.

It’s certainly one of the key pillars. So again, I have no problem supporting this. It’s coming from the right source of funding. So as far as I’m concerned, this is win-win and happy to vote for it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor, for that. Not seeing any hands go up. We’ll open this for voting.

Go ahead. Councillor Van Mirberg and closing the vote. Motion carries, 60-0. Okay, that concludes our public agenda items.

We will now move into confidential session. Can I get a motion to go into confidential? Okay, Councillor, open that for voting. Closing the vote.

Motion carries, 60-0. Recording stopped. Okay, welcome back. We were back in public session.

I’ll look to Vice Chair Cutty to report out from closed session, go ahead. Thank you, Chair, and through you. Committee went into closed session from 225 to 235 PM. Progress was made on matters discussed in confidence.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. We are on our final item. That is adjournment, motion to adjourn.

Councillor Cutty, Councillor ramen. All those in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you everyone.